Re: As people become Christians:its rude

john queen (john.queen.ii@mail.utexas.edu)
Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:28:49 -0500

---Actually I was not speaking to you but was using this reply as an
example for everyone. I think alot of people in this forum are too caught
up into seeing how many sub-comments they can make to someones comments.
It's more appropriate to leave comments in context then refer to specific
instances if needed. I dont think anyone has enough time (or wants to
spend it if they did) to sort through dissected messages.
If you would notice that at the top of my previous message I wrote it to
the forum as a whole. It starts with "forum". I did get your main point
after wasting time sorting through a dissected message and trying to regain
context. Ive passed over many materialism posts because I simply dont have
the time to sort through this kind of nonsense (eventhough I am sure there
was some good things said in them).
john queen

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
>
>