Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: about origins... Message-ID: <5410@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 10:52:45 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5410 Posted: Fri Jun 7 10:52:45 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Jun-85 05:34:33 EDT References: <246@ihdev.UUCP>, <480@ihuxo.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 57 > ron vaughn's advice to both groups: >> >> i'm kind of ashamed of both sides of the house. you creationist are NOT >> going to convince a bunch of technical, educated people (most netters are) of >> your beliefs.... Do you mean 'most netters who aren't creationists'? If there are some creationists who are technical and educated, then why can't technical and educated people be convinced? >> the rest of your are lightweight >> flamers -- picking on creationist is too easy. most of you who argue with >> creationist are here just for the sport of it, but your fishing for 3 pound >> bass with a 20 pound line. christians love to be martyrs, and you guys >> are here to pound nails in their little individual crosses. sucker. And what would you call a creationist who ignores evolutionary teaching? I'd guess being ignorant depends on which side you're on. Am I right? >> this group accomplishes the same thing as net.abortion: nothing. >> everyone talks/yells, nobody listens. everyone is set in their ideas, and >> everyone is trying to change the next guys ideas. do you people realize >> this and just keep on fighting?? >And you know what ? It's refreshing to see that somebody got it all >figured out about this group. I agree with him 150%, and I am also >curious how many others out there think the same way. Send me an "I >agree" or "I disagree" answer and let's find out how many of you believe >that the discussion in this group is bordering boredom and the >absurd. By the way, I quoted only one small part of the article, >but you may want to read the whole thing, it's worth it. >Dan F. Iuster It's amazing how people know these things. Those who say that the discussion in a newsgroup accomplishes nothing and that nobody is listening ought to speak only for themselves. Of course they may be proving themselves wrong when they do: "What was it again that you weren't listening to?" :-). Why do you use your impressions of the ones who are talking to judge if anyone is listening or whether the discussion is having any effect? If the group does nothing for you, speak for yourself: unsubscribe. Do you want a company of people to agree with you so you feel better? What's the point in polling a newsgroup to ask whether the people reading that news group think it's a waste of time? Do you feel put out that some people think it's worth their time when you don't? Anyone who's reading it must have *some* reason for doing so. If they have your opinion of the merits of the discussion and haven't unsubscribed, then they have a problem. I guess ignoring controversy is one way of handling it. Let each one be the judge of whether or not it is the best for them. In all fairness, I think the self-appointed judges of the worthiness of certain newsgroups should post a list of the newsgroups they read here so we have a chance to pass judgment on whether or not they are wasting their time. Any net.tv.soaps readers out there? :-) -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd