Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2016 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On 2016-01-27 03:22, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
I feel really bad now, that you seem to be forced into defending

Don't worry too hard . . I don't need defending . .

And Virgil needing to defend himself doubtless with others
on all sides feeling more and more pushed into defending their views
or beliefs.

You continue to misunderstand (I am not surprised) . . I am NOT defending my "beliefs" I am saying clearly that a technical list is NOT a place for proselytising on superstitions or politics or anything else that does not have something to do with what the list if for.

A belief-system that defines all other's beliefs as being
"superstitions" sounds alarmingly intolerant to me.

Then you don't understand Science (why am I still not surprised?) - Science is based on creating hypotheses that are capable of being falsified - superstitions are beyond the purvue of Science. Things that are claimed but can't be proved false are superstitions - nothing to do with tolerance. However, it is true, I have no tolerance for people who claim they know the truth, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever and thousands of years of evidence to the contrary, and proselytise their nonsense on lists where this should not occur. AGAIN - it is unacceptable and offensive to rational people.

Anyone who thinks
that everyone who disagrees with their own belief is "clueless" seems
to me to be scarily arrogant, to me.

Don't put words into my mouth - I did not say that - I said you were clueless because of your statements - I stand by what I said and you have only added to this conviction since. See above re Science.

But that is just my own personal
belief and i'd probably defend individuals who felt the need to
postulate alternatives, in a discussion (but preferably not on this
mailing list because, as we all seem to agree, this is probably not
the place for it).

About time!  Why didn't you say that in the first place?

As someone, who i believe was amazing, once said "An eye for an eye
and the whole world goes blind".

Yeh, yeh, a nice homily but no replacement for intelligent thought and rational deliberation.


Regards from
Tom :)

On 26 January 2016 at 14:57, Philip Rhoades <> wrote:

On 2016-01-27 01:19, Virgil Arrington wrote:

Chill, Phil.

I can't believe the level of antagonism coming through your keyboard.
I'm "clueless" for not knowing Nasrin's gender? Harsh, man. While I
have many contacts with Muslims from around the world, I had never
heard the name Nasrin before and recalled nothing in her emails that
betrayed her gender.

If choosing to love people, regardless of my knowledge of their
gender, is an agenda, then I suppose I have an agenda. I'm genuinely
surprised that my decision to love a Muslim I've never met upsets you
so much that you feel it necessary to accuse me of having "low general
knowledge" and being "clueless." Where does such a miserable world
view come from?

Just observation - you believe in sky fairies and supporting others who are attacked for proselytising their sky fairies because an attack on one sky
fairy is an attack on all sky fairies . .

I won't use the LO list to advance my views of Christianity.

Good - and others should not use it to advance their superstitions either.

I use
other lists for that, where it is admittedly more appropriate. But, I
reserve the right to come to the defense of another who has been
unfairly attacked for what she happened to put in her signature line.
(I'll blindly accept your assertion that Nasrin is female.)  I felt
your attack unwarranted and unworthy of a gentlemen, regardless of
your religious views.

Well if you weren't clueless (which is not consistent with you believing in fairy stories) you would have realised by now that I don't have any and that
I don't approve of others proselytising on this list . .


Sorry, Tom, I had to respond to Phil, and I felt I had to do it on list.

I'll let it go, now.


On 01/25/2016 11:37 PM, Philip Rhoades wrote:


On 2016-01-26 07:24, Virgil Arrington wrote:

On 01/25/2016 01:40 PM, jomali wrote:

Please note that the original message by Nasrin was on a topic germane
this list. One member with an excessively tender sore spot objected to
something in Nasrin's signature that expressed his sincerely held
There was no intent on Nasrin's part to proselytize or to demean
faith, as Phil's diatribe does.

I tend to agree about signature lines. They can contain all kinds of
things having nothing to do with LO. Sometimes they're funny;

That would be fine . .

times they are informative about the writer. Phil's signature line
includes his address in Australia, which is informative, but has
nothing to do with LO. Nasrin's signature line includes a a few lines
about his Muslim faith,

Another person with low general knowledge . . again I am not surprised .

also informative but also having nothing to do
with LO.

I pretty much ignore signature lines, and I can't possibly imagine
being offended by one, regardless of what it might say.

a Christian who loves Muslims

And there we have it - another person who has an agenda - they can't
criticise someone else for proselytising their superstitious nonsense because they have their own superstitious nonsense . . a person who "loves" someone else but does not even know that the person they "love" is a "she"
and not a "he" . . clueless . .


Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra  NSW  2794

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra  NSW  2794

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.