quote:"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --Stephen F. Roberts
I like the quote, although I don't remotely think it's going to change anyone's mind here. The "devil's advocate" in me sees at least one possible response to it. That is the idea that many people don't so much reject other gods as they reject other people's understanding of God. But even that response seems to me to be more of a semantic quibble than a pertinent point.
The salient message in the quote, and what I like about it, comes as a response to theists wondering how it is that anyone could be atheist when evidence of God is all around. To that line of thinking, I think the quote is a rather good rebuttal.
posted
Thanks! Now I have one more piece of ammunition against the very vocal preachers who sometimes come to my school and yell at poor girls on their way to class that they should "get back to the kitchen."
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why there can't be multiple gods. Of course, they all couldn't be omnipotent and what not, just possessing large egos and the tendency to exaggerate about their abilities.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, honestly, I'm hoping more to spark a thoughtful discussion than to provide "ammunition". The quote appeals less to me as a "gotcha" quote than it does as a legitimate philosophical point. I'm hoping this discussion can center around that. If it gets snarky (and I'm not saying Juxtapose was) I'll delete the thread or ask PJ to lock it.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what he means by "dismiss." Do I deny the existence of entities that other people call "gods"? Not really. My beliefs allow for the existence of such entities.
If he means why don't I believe in those other gods (not their mere existence, but in them as worthy of worship/reverence/whatever), then the obvious answer is "when you understand why I believe in God as I do, then you will understand why I dismiss all the other possible gods."
So we're no closer to any mutual understanding whatsoever.
posted
It is a valid philosophical point; I think it's a very concise and insightful expression of atheism as I see it. If it appeals to me as ammunition against certain types, well, I consider them deserving of both gotcha quotes and snarkiness. I wouldn't try to use it as such against people I actually respect.
quote:That is the idea that many people don't so much reject other gods as they reject other people's understanding of God. But even that response seems to me to be more of a semantic quibble than a pertinent point.
I have to disagree with you here though. Even from an atheistic standpoint, I can understand others' need for "God," and that this need transcends culture or locale. One of the marks of a dignified believer - or non-believer for that matter - will be the recognition that their are multiple avenues to the same end. Live and let live, so to speak.
That said, I think most theists will discard certain religions (and I'm using a broad sense of the term here) out of hand. Most people wouldn't, for example, consider the Greek pantheon for worship. Maybe their stated reasons for not worshiping Zeus, if forced to state them, would be different from mine for not worshipping Yahweh, but I think this quote still applies in that the logic and thought processes used to arrive at the decision would flow along similar veins.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I think I understand what you are saying in the first two paragraphs, but the problem with being no closer to a mutual understanding, I think, is in taking the quote as an attempt to convince you that your belief is wrong.
Now, some people might try to use the quote as such, but that's not at all why I like it. I like it not as an attack on someone else's belief, but as a defense of a lack of theistic belief.
In other words, I think I do understand why you believe in God and why you dismiss all other gods. Is it possible that through examining those things yourself, you might understand why I don't?
EDIT: I'm not saying you don't understand. I'm asking philosophically, not trying to imply or accuse anything about the degree to which your opinions are considered ones. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The quote shows a profound misunderstanding. God is not the same sort of thing as gods. Gods are finite, imperfect, can't be a primary cause to anything, can't be a basis for value, and (to get particular) aren't associated with remarkable events happening in Roman-occupied Judaea.
Atman, which is sometimes called God, is another different sort of thing.
A common problem in rhetoric: ambiguous words. It's like someone adopting the label of "socialist" because he likes to socialize.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think I understand what you are saying in the first two paragraphs, but the problem with being no closer to a mutual understanding, I think, is in taking the quote as an attempt to convince you that your belief is wrong.
I didn't mean it that way: if I thought it were an attempt to prove my belief wrong I'd probably dismiss it out of hand.
Where I think we're no closer to mutual understanding is that the reason I reject those other "gods" is because of my belief in my God. Not because I find something unsuitable per se (that is, outside the context of my beliefs in my God) about those "gods" or something unbelievable about the concept of gods in general.
quote:In other words, I think I do understand why you believe in God and why you dismiss all other gods. Is it possible that through examining those things yourself, you might understand why I don't?
In other words, I do understand why I dismiss all those other gods, and those reasons have almost nothing to do with an evaluation of their "likelihood." I know for a fact that the reason I dismiss all but one is not the same reason the atheist dismisses all.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The quote shows a profound misunderstanding. God is not the same sort of thing as gods. Gods are finite, imperfect, can't be a primary cause to anything, can't be a basis for value, and (to get particular) aren't associated with remarkable events happening in Roman-occupied Judaea.
I'm not sure the misunderstanding is on the part of the quote. One man's "gods" are often other men's "God". In other words, what you relegate to "gods" might very well be another believer's "infinite, perfect, primary cause, giver of morality, and associated with remarkable events."
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're taking too literal a meaning of the term "gods," Will. This quote isn't stipulating the existence, or even belief in the existence of multiple gods. It's using the term to diffrentiate between the different God(s) that people worship. I don't think most Muslims would say Allah is the same god as the one Christians call God, and vica verca. And that's not even getting into, say, Hinduism.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know for a fact that the reason I dismiss all but one is not the same reason the atheist dismisses all.
Out of curiosity, why do you think an atheist dismisses all?
Out of tangential curiousity, does this reasoning apply to agnostics too, or just atheists? (I ask because my own definition of which I am depends greatly on very specific definitions of "God").
Also, if you aren't uncomfortable posting it, I'm very interested in more details on this:
quote:Do I deny the existence of entities that other people call "gods"? Not really. My beliefs allow for the existence of such entities.
If you don't want to post it here, you could email me.
quote:Where I think we're no closer to mutual understanding is that the reason I reject those other "gods" is because of my belief in my God. Not because I find something unsuitable per se (that is, outside the context of my beliefs in my God) about those "gods" or something unbelievable about the concept of gods in general.
This just begs the question, then, of why you believe in the God that you do, and not others. Logically, I'm lead to believe that at some point, you examined multiple faiths, though probably not all at once, and determined that the religion you follow (Catholicism?) most aptly embodies the beliefs you have.
I'll hold out assuming that until you respond though.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think most Muslims would say Allah is the same god as the one Christians call God, and vica verca.
Actually, "allah" is just Arabic for "god." Muslims worship Yahweh.
This also seems to be a semantic quibble. One can argue that God simply is and Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship the same God, just differently. However, one could equally argue that although they may give their Gods the same name, and believe many of the same things about him, the differences in what they believe about him essentially describe different beings with different natures, only one of which (or none) might be correct. In very simplistic terms, if I believe in Yahweh, but believe He is the creator of the turtle upon which the Earth rests, my Yahweh is a different being from the Yahweh Christians worship.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:One can argue that God simply is and Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship the same God, just differently
I suppose it's also possible that each of these religions worship a different facet of the same God, an idea which I imagine is kind of like the triune God that many Christians worship today. (another semantic quibble)
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Out of curiosity, why do you think an atheist dismisses all?
I don't know - hence my statement about lack of mutual understanding.
But I do know that they don't dismiss all for the same reasons I dismiss the others. The reason I dismiss those is because I don't dismiss God. And that doesn't seem as if it could be a possible reason for an atheist to dismiss the others.
quote:Out of tangential curiousity, does this reasoning apply to agnostics too, or just ateists? (I ask because my own definition of which I am depends greatly on very specific definitions of "God").
I think it actually depends on what one means by "dismiss." Is it true to say an agnostic has dismissed all gods? I can see reasons for answering both yes and no, and it's not a philosophical distinction I have a huge stake in.
I'm not trying to say that all atheists have the same reason for dismissing all. I'm simply saying that, by definition, they don't have the same reasons I do.
quote:
quote:Do I deny the existence of entities that other people call "gods"? Not really. My beliefs allow for the existence of such entities.
If you don't want to post it here, you could email me.
I'll go into it briefly, but both Tolkien and Lewis speculate on it better than I.
I believe God is absolutely unique - the definition Dana gave in another thread is a short definition I wholly agree with. All other entities were created by God. In this sense, I agree with Will B's distinction, and it's why I've worded my replies as I have (e.g., "entities that other people call 'gods').
Some of those entities are of a different kind than us. And some of them could be the beings others called "gods."
I'm not venturing any opinion about whether it's the case for any specific instance, but I have no problem believing that some supernatural entity made itself known to humans in some way and became know as "Zeus" or "Odin."
quote:This just begs the question, then, of why you believe in the God that you do, and not others.
It's not really begging the question, because that's not the question implied by the quote at the beginning of the thread. I admit, I haven't (and likely won't be able to) explained why I believe in God as I do. But each instance of dismissal of another candidate was based on that belief.
quote:Logically, I'm lead to believe that at some point, you examined multiple faiths, though probably not all at once, and determined that the religion you follow (Catholicism?) most aptly embodies the beliefs you have.
I have examined multiple faiths, but not in the manner suggested. I was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant and raised in a religious family. I have never not considered myself a fully believing Catholic. However, I have at times investigated other faiths and specifically rejected them.
It is this point that I have considered to be the point of "dismissal" implied in the original quotation.
BTW, I certainly haven't "dismissed" all other potential gods, because I haven't considered them all. But I might be treating "dismiss" in a more positivist sense than others.
To give a legal analogy, I have a prima facie case for Catholicism, specific to me, and every other candidate has the burden of production and persuasion to overcome that case. Those that have produced have not persuaded. These I consider myself to have dismissed. The others I haven't dismissed, because I haven't had to.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think most Muslims would say Allah is the same god as the one Christians call God, and vica verca.
Actually, "allah" is just Arabic for "god." Muslims worship Yahweh.
That is very true, but the key (and obvious) difference among Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is Jesus. If you think of God in terms of the Trinity, then no, Muslims and Christians so not worship the same God. As far as I know, Muslims do not acknowledge the Holy Spirit (and the obviously don't regard Jesus as God also).
Posts: 162 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my eyes, these are the two most important facts about God:
1) God is perfect. He is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omniawesome. He is so far beyond our comprehension and our finite minds that it is impossible for us to make sense of what He does.
2) We are wrong... about something. We're human, so we will definitely be wrong about something. The question we all need to ask ourselves is this: do I believe what I believe about God because it makes the most sense to me, or do I believe what I believe about God because there is something to back it up, whether it makes sense or not?
Posts: 162 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:One can argue that God simply is and Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship the same God, just differently. However, one could equally argue that although they may give their Gods the same name, and believe many of the same things about him, the differences in what they believe about him essentially describe different beings with different natures, only one of which (or none) might be correct.
I don't find the differences substantive enough to grant the second argument equal weight. As Vid notes, the key difference is in the arrival, number, and nature of prophets; I see the differences as being in a large part doctrinal. What I'm getting at is that from the perspective of an outsider examining the three major monotheistic religions, they are equivalent in that key way -- monotheism* -- that starkly differentiates them from the rest of the world's major religions. I studied all three at approximately the same time (though with an emphasis on Christianity) for that reason.
This isn't really related to the point Juxtapose was originally trying to make, and I apologize for the tangent.
*Specifically the worship of Yahweh, of course, who they all basically agree did certain things in a certain part of the world up to a certain point in time beyond which they differ.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not really begging the question, because that's not the question implied by the quote at the beginning of the thread. I admit, I haven't (and likely won't be able to) explained why I believe in God as I do. But each instance of dismissal of another candidate was based on that belief.
I disagree. In my mind, the quesiton of what you believe is wholly inseperable from the question of what you don't believe. Especially, in this case, since you've acknowledged that what you don't believe hinges upon what you do.
I think this is why we're having a hard time with this issue. Not being able to explain why you believe or disbelieve something is a kind of anathema to atheists.
quote:I have examined multiple faiths, but not in the manner suggested. I was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant and raised in a religious family. I have never not considered myself a fully believing Catholic. However, I have at times investigated other faiths and specifically rejected them.
This is where I'm starting to see a weakness in Karl's quote. When it comes to atheism, "why" is very central. Often in dealing with religion, the answer you have to be satisfied with is "because it is so, and has always been so."
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my mind, the quesiton of what you believe is wholly inseperable from the question of what you don't believe. Especially, in this case, since you've acknowledged that what you don't believe hinges upon what you do.
Weel, yeah, that's kind of my point, isn't it? That understanding why I dismiss the others doesn't help understand why an atheist dismisses all. The suggestion that I have a separate reason distinct from my belief in God for dismissing the others is why I find the original quotation lacking as a means of reaching mutual understanding.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: if I believe in Yahweh, but believe He is the creator of the turtle upon which the Earth rests, my Yahweh is a different being from the Yahweh Christians worship.
No he isn't. God is the same. It's our beliefs about him that differ. But statistically some people's beliefs would be closer to reality than others'.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: if I believe in Yahweh, but believe He is the creator of the turtle upon which the Earth rests, my Yahweh is a different being from the Yahweh Christians worship.
No he isn't. God is the same. It's our beliefs about him that differ. But statistically some people's beliefs would be closer to reality than others'.
Again, a semantic quibble. If I believe in a God who created a world on the back of a turtle swimming endlessly through space, does such a God exist outside of my mind? Is the God you believe in the same one that created the turtle-based cosmos? You seem to be saying "yes, he's the same one, only he didn't do that." I'm saying, "If he didn't do that, then he isn't the God I believe in." Two different views of the same phenomenon, I guess. My view is the one, (of course) with which I approach the concept of "Gods" in the quote in the first post.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, OK, here's what's been bugging me about your explanation then. It sounds to me like you're saying that you've rejected certain other religions because of your belief in your God. What's bothersome about that is how tautological that sounds. It sounds like you've said, "that can't be my God because it's not my God." This is why it's important that you understand why you believe what you do. Or why we need to, for the purposes of this argument. Because right now, to my ears, it sounds like you don't really understand why you dismissed those other religions.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is why it's important that you understand why you believe what you do. Or why we need to, for the purposes of this argument. Because right now, to my ears, it sounds like you don't really understand why you dismissed those other religions.
And I do understand why I believe what I do. This argument is not about why I believe what I do. It's about why I don't believe in the other things called gods. And I don't think there's meaning in examing why I don't believe in something else. The meaning is derived from why I believe in what I do. Therefore, the quotation - and a discussion of the quotation - provides nothing useful in terms of mutual understanding.
If there's a tautology here, it's in the quotation that started the thread.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That understanding why I dismiss the others doesn't help understand why an atheist dismisses all. The suggestion that I have a separate reason distinct from my belief in God for dismissing the others is why I find the original quotation lacking as a means of reaching mutual understanding.
I can understand that. I'm not sure it invalidates the usefulness of the quote in most cases, though, but that's only because I think few Christians (and few Catholics) have as considered a belief in God as you do.
For what it's worth, I think I believe as I do for similar reasons that you believe as you do. I believe that I have specific and personal experience to disbelieve the God I was raised to believe in, and dismiss the rest because (so far) considered exploration of them, and the religions that promote them do not offer my any reason to change my disbelief. I find that similar to what I understood from:
quote:I have examined multiple faiths, but not in the manner suggested. I was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant and raised in a religious family. I have never not considered myself a fully believing Catholic. However, I have at times investigated other faiths and specifically rejected them.
Actually, this might be similar in the way that "dark" is similar to "light", but hey, building bridges is sometimes a tenuous thing. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
quote:And I don't think there's meaning in examing why I don't believe in something else.
In that case, yes. I'm forced to acknowledge that the quotating is useless to you. But only because you refuse to meet the quote on it's terms. Roberts is using an if-then statement. Since you fail to qualify the if, your refutation in no way impeaches the validity of his argument.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm basically substituting "if" for "when" in this case. It works out to the same thing.
Edit - to be perfectly clear
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
"If you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do understand why I dismiss all the other possible gods. So I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: For what it's worth, I think I believe as I do for similar reasons that you believe as you do. I believe that I have specific and personal experience to disbelieve the God I was raised to believe in, and dismiss the rest because (so far) considered exploration of them, and the religions that promote them do not offer my any reason to change my disbelief. I find that similar to what I understood from:
quote:I have examined multiple faiths, but not in the manner suggested. I was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant and raised in a religious family. I have never not considered myself a fully believing Catholic. However, I have at times investigated other faiths and specifically rejected them.
Actually, this might be similar in the way that "dark" is similar to "light", but hey, building bridges is sometimes a tenuous thing.
The "specific and personal experience" is why I don't think I can truly understand your reasons (edit: by understanding my reasons), and vice-versa. Maybe my problem with the quotation is that I'm attaching too much to the word "understanding." If what is meant is a "framework" of how the beliefs were arrived at, then it's probably accurate. But, to me, "understanding" why you believe as you do would require an understanding of those specific and personal experiences. Which I believe is a difficult task, and not one helped along by the type of analogizing suggested by the original quotation.
Edit: So yes, I can see the usefulness as a bridge-builder and understanding in the more limited sense.
posted
Your answers so far have been akin to answering the question, "why does it rain," by replying, "because water falls from the sky."
Replying to the question, "why do you disbelieve in any given god," by saying, "because I believe in my God," without any further qualification shows a similar level of understanding, in my opinion.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Replying to the question, "why do you disbelieve in any given god," by saying, "because I believe in my God," without any further qualification shows a similar level of understanding, in my opinion.
It's more like responding to the question "Why do you disbelieve that your car is blue?" with the answer "Because I believe that it is white."
If X and Y are mutually exclusive, and X is true, then no matter what Y is, I know it is false.
It's not because of Y that I know that Y is false, but because I know that X and Y are mutually exclusive and that X is true.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your answers so far have been akin to answering the question, "why does it rain," by replying, "because water falls from the sky." Replying to the question, "why do you disbelieve in any given god," by saying, "because I believe in my God," without any further qualification shows a similar level of understanding, in my opinion.
Juxtapose, you assume I have answered or attempted to answer the question "why does it rain." I haven't, nor have I pretended to.
At most, I have said something akin to "it rains on earth because of the sun." Which is true, but does not fully explain why it rains.
To be specific, I mentioned that the answer to the question "why do you dismiss the other gods" depends on my beliefs in my God. I did not offer to fully explain why I believe in my God. The point is that atheists don't believe in my God. Therefore, their reasons for dismissing my God are entirely different than my reason for dismissing the others.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do my best to follow the Commandments. It never occurred to me that the commandment "I am the L'rd your G'd, and you shall have no other gods before me" (#1 on the Top Ten List) was a commandment to atheism. But when I think about the point that you make, Karl, it kind of makes sense that way.
posted
Dag and mph, I'm still not sure what you're saying makes sense to me, but I have to go get ready for class. I'll ponder over what you've said in the mean time though. Have a good one.
On a side note Dag, I wasn't trying to turn this into an argument where you'd have to defend your beliefs. I suspected there was something analogous that would be useful to what we're discussing, but I can understand you not wanting to go ito it.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much as I agree with the quote in the OP, I would like to note that there's only one athiest on these here boards, and it's me. The rest of you are mere athiers, or even athys.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If X and Y are mutually exclusive, and X is true, then no matter what Y is, I know it is false.
I did something vaguely similar: W, X, and Y are all dependent on A. In rejecting A, I implicitly reject W, X, and Y, as well as anything else that might be dependent on them. Later on, I came across Z. Z also depended on A, and I was therefore able to reject it regardless of how compelling it may have been in comparison to W, X, and Y.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I did something vaguely similar: W, X, and Y are all dependent on A. In rejecting A, I implicitly reject X, Y, and Z, as well as anything else that might be dependent on them. Later on, I came across Z. Z also depended on A, and I was therefore able to reject it regardless of how compelling it may have been in comparison to W, X, and Y.
This highlights the reason I find the quote uncompelling.
For example, there are materialist atheists - that is, people who first reject the concept of the supernatural and therefore reject the concept of a god. I'm under the impression that this was the most common pathway to atheism, but it's just an impression with no evidence either way.
Roberts's quotation suggests to me that he thinks the reason people "dismiss" the other gods is because they don't believe they exist.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, A was not the supernatural. I don't know what the most common pathway to atheism is, but for me it wasn't materialism. I didn't come to materialism until a bit later.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: For me, A was not the supernatural. I don't know what the most common pathway to atheism is, but for me it wasn't materialism. I didn't come to materialism until a bit later.
quote:I'm not sure the misunderstanding is on the part of the quote. One man's "gods" are often other men's "God". In other words, what you relegate to "gods" might very well be another believer's "infinite, perfect, primary cause, giver of morality, and associated with remarkable events."
No, that's not it.
I don't believe in the Wiccans' Goddess. She is still not gods. She is perfect, infinite, primary cause, and giver of morality. (If I misunderstood Wicca, well, I can say the same for Allah, or the Ngai, from the Kikuyu tribe of east Africa: existing or not, they're God, not gods.)
Zeus is different. He's far from perfect (just ask Io), finite, didn't always exist, and if he's the giver of morality we're in trouble.
I don't call the Olympus pantheon different from God because I disbelieve in them; I call them different because whether they exist or not, they are a clean different sort of thing, according to those who believed in them.
Lakota religion is called monotheistic, but it's sort of in-between. It has the Great Mystery, which is God; it also has Coyote, and White Buffalo Calf Woman, which are gods. The Lakota know the difference; so should we.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Dag and mph, I'm still not sure what you're saying makes sense to me, but I have to go get ready for class. I'll ponder over what you've said in the mean time though. Have a good one.
On a side note Dag, I wasn't trying to turn this into an argument where you'd have to defend your beliefs. I suspected there was something analogous that would be useful to what we're discussing, but I can understand you not wanting to go ito it.
I understand what they are saying, and I think they make a very valid point. It would be worth it to re-read what they've posted because they are not saying what you are paraphrasing them to have said. The difference, I think, is significant.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
