At 05:38 PM 6/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 01:40 PM 6/13/97 -0500, john queen wrote:
>> forum
>>---This method of reply is most inconsiderate. What is the main point
>>besides seeing how many times you can find a flaw in someones writing. You
>>must realize that most people dont have the time or patience to filter
>>through such nonsense. Respond with a MAIN point. This a concept that is
>>taught from 5th grade on up through college. Do you think people wont to
>>sort through this stuff?
>> Were not here to see how many sub-comments we can make. Think about what
>>you want to say, narrow it down, then type a reply. If others cant tell
>>what you are reffering to, then it's probably not worth saying. I dont
>>claim to be a good writer in the least... but lets take peoples comments
>>more serious.
>
>Since you don't put at the top of your post who it is to, it took me a while
>to figure out that you were talking to me. I would appreciate it if you
>would place the name of the individual you are speaking to at the top.
>
>I was responding to what I viewed as his main point, That the press for
>Baumgardner is evidence of the worth of his ideas. Dario wrote:
>
>>Read it all ye old earthers/universers and Noah flood doubters. This
>>brother gets national exposure and has the academia credentials (EE from
>>Princeton and PhD in Geophisics from UCLA). To top it off he works at Los
>>Alamos Nat'l Lab of the US Dept. of Energy. So he can't be label an
>>ignorant, unlearned and unskilled Christian as some here in this forum seem
>>to think of us who literally believe The Bible and see the world in black
>>and white.
>
>Now, if John's ideas are worth considering, then an examination of the facts
>John has advanced to support his view is open to challenge. At least that
>is the way it works with science. Since when is it rude to point out that a
>theory that is being offered is full of scientific holes? I pointed the man
>to scientific literature which he can go examine for himself. He can then
>challenge me back if he wants.
>
>You accuse me of not taking him seriously, this is ridiculous. The fact
>that I took the time this morning before work to look up references to
>counter what he was saying is ipso facto evidence that I felt his reply was
>worthy of a reply. I think it was my content which you found objectionable.
>
>glenn
>
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
>
>