Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re (part 1): Blast from the past
Message-ID: <701@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 17:52:15 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.701
Posted: Fri Feb  1 17:52:15 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Feb-85 04:48:59 EST
References: <418@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 75

The long article recently posted by Pesmard Flurrmn (formerly known
as Rich Rosen) to net.religion and net.religion.christian (418@pyuxd.UUCP)
has put me in a bit of a quandary.  Should I, I ask myself, take the
time to respond to what is admittedly old news?  Or is Pesmard going
to repost all of the responses generated from that old article?  (That
would make finally make the net self-sustaining, I suppose).

My first problem was deciding which newsgroup to put it in.  I'm sure
the readers of net.religion don't want to see it rehashed, and the
subgroup net.religion.christian is SUPPOSED to be a place where the
basic tenets of Christianity can be taken as given.  Obviously,
Pesmard has no intention of holding a discussion with that as a
constraint, so that net.religion.christian is inappropriate as well.
I therefore have decided to direct this response (actually, series
of repsonses; just as it was the first time I responded to this
article, it's too long to do all at once) to net.flame and net.flame
only (after which, I may decide to unsubscribe from net.flame).

> Quite recently, I found this article (perhaps in seminal form, it is
> so long ago I'm not sure) that was submitted by me in response to a followup
> article by Gary Samuelson.  I repost this again today for the following
> reasons:  1) To see how far we've actually come in debating all of this,
> 2) To examine what questions still remain unanswered or even unacknowledged.
> 3) To try to open newer paths that might get us out of a repetitive rut.
> Yes, it's nasty at times.  I've been known to be nasty.  But at times it's
> probably more straightforward, direct, and clean than recent work.  I
> enclose some comments regarding their applicability to more recent
> discussion.  It is long.  But I do hope it serves as a refresher as to
> where we've been, and maybe where we're going.

> 11/2/83:  (or maybe earlier, one can never tell with these archaeological
> --------         dating techniques :-)
> >I am going to try to answer (briefly, volumes have been written on them)
> >the questions posed by pyuxn!rlr.  (Such a name).
>                                                |
> This is the type of constructive criticism and intelligent discussion
> that one finds in letters from bunkerb!garys (alias Gary Samuelson).
> In previous discussions with him, he has complained about others' lack
> of these qualities.  My name is clearly contained in the header and
> footer to my articles.  If garys chooses to use impersonal login titles
> instead of "Christian" names, I will return the favor.

> [THIS IS THE "NASTY" PART, OR ONE OF THEM.  I'D VENTURE THAT BOTH SIDES
>  WERE SOMEWHAT ABRASIVE (AND IN SOME CASES CONTINUE TO BE SO).  PART OF
>  THIS, I PROPOSE, WAS (AND IS) CAUSED BY FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THAT WHICH
>  THE "OTHER SIDE" TAKES FOR GRANTED---MANY TIMES WE ASSUME THAT OTHERS MAKE
>  THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE DO.  I HAVE CONTENDED THAT RELIGIOUS
>  BELIEVERS DO MAKE THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS AS EVERYONE ELSE, PLUS SOME OTHERS.
>  I HAVE TRIED TO SHOW WHERE AND WHAT THESE ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS, AND WHY
>  THEY SEEM TO ME TO BE A SPECIAL CASE AMONG BELIEVERS WHEN RELIGION COMES
>  UP.  INTENSE DISCUSSION IN THE ABSENCE OF THE REALIZATION ABOUT THE
>  DIFFERENCES IN ASSUMPTIONS CAN BECOME CAUSTIC.]

It was a long time ago; but if I remember right, that was the first article
of yours I responded to (and this is the last), and it did not have your
real name, Pesmard Flurrmn, anywhere in the text.  (If it had had your
real name, I would have used it.) The three words indicated ("Such a
name") were an attempt on my part to indicate somewhat whimsically
that I would have preferred to use a more conventional appellation.  You
must bear in mind that the readnews software I had then was at least one
version ago, and did not automatically display real life names from the
header, even if there was one in the header.  Furthermore, I was new
enough at posting news that I didn't know how to find information which
readnews didn't automatically show me.  Finally, I also seem to remember
explaining the forgoing at the time, so I really have to wonder at your
motivation for bringing it up again.

Regarding assumptions:  First, you criticize the failure to take
into account the fact, which I have never disputed, that different
people have different assumptions.  In the very next sentence, you
state your explicit assumptions that everyone really does have the
same assumptions, except for "religionists," who have extras.  Why
is it so difficult to see that you make at least one assumption which
I do not?  (That assumption being that nothing exists other than the
material universe.)