Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: In defense of Larry Bickford
Message-ID: <692@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 28-Apr-84 18:01:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.692
Posted: Sat Apr 28 18:01:37 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Apr-84 08:18:14 EDT
References: <104@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 20

David, while I admire your "defense" of Larry, I think you skirt the
real issues that rankle many people, Christian and otherwise, when they
read his postings.

It *is* important to realize that ad-hominem remarks don't add substantially
to one's argument.  But, it is also valid to point out the logical fallacies
and, um, shall we say, over-reactions, which characterize many of Larry's
responses to the "humanist manifesto."  Kenneth Almquist had a fairly
reasoned point-by-point response to Larry's tirade.

It is also important to realize that comments like Larry's are not at
all representative of a Christian response to humanism, or of much else.
At best they reflect Larry's opinions, which I read as a pretty inseparable
amalgam of fundamentalist Christianity, conservative politics, and a
"bunker mentality."   Naturally, this is not a put-down of any of these
three.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA