Re: virus: Re: META: topical rules

Eric Boyd (
Sun, 9 May 1999 15:22:09 -0400


From: Snow Leopard <> <<
Well, you know what? I have no intention of quitting this list. I'm in it for the long haul. You'll "enlighten" us over time, or we've "enlighten" you. I've been meaning to write on some of your topics as well- they're fairly fascinating, but because of everyone poking us with separate questions just because we stand up and say "We're different", I haven't been able to.

Excellent! What "topics" of ours interests you? Have you read the web pages for Virus?

As to being different, all of us are that. You're just holding idea's that we found (in our own searchs) to be untrue (and usually unuseful as well). So, as a demonstration of our benevolence, we're trying to enlighten you!

If you'd like to limit stuff, I think it should be fair. I'm sure you think it should be fair, too, just on a different definition. I'm willing to avoid saying some stuff, but whether or not I repeat Lord/liar/lunatic or the rest of it, just remember, I haven't actually goten one response with enough guts to give a fair answer.

"Fair"?. We're not limiting discussion to be fair in any sense of that word (indeed, I think that "fairness" per say is a foolish goal). We want to limit discussion in order to talk about things that matter -- things that might actually change somebodies opinions!

I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence. Do you mean that, in the past, you've posed those problems (lord/liar/luanatic, etc.) to atheists and gotten unsatisifactory responces? If so, you should go do some research on Infidels, or any other good non-theistic web-site. Most include brief sections countering the common Christian Apologetics.