First-Post Introduction via Rudeness Rant - an OCD Odyssey

[Danny Boy]

Puttering around the other day, I came across the Atheism vs.
Christianity group. It was so refreshing to read words such as "lively
and heated debates occur under our Open Free Speech Policy... Thick
skins are required," and headlines such as, "Why it is not ad hominem
to accuse someone of being too stupid to use the term 'ad hominem'
correctly." Moderation by moderators on other forums who don't
understand the concept of moderation can be frustrating, to say the
least.

Mostly, however, I've been impressed by the commitment of the
architects of this group to the prospect of public forum DEBATE---that
beautiful boon of the ancient Greek and Roman grandfathers of modern
democracy, not to mention THEIR ancients, in places as far removed in
space and time as the murky mists of primordial humanity which gave
rise to the Mohenjo-daren and Harappan jewels of the ancient Indus. So
important to the health of a democracy is healthy public forum debate,
and a dying art to be sure. These days, exchanges between believers
and nonbelievers so quickly degenerate, usually at the hands of the
former, into rallies cried and battle lines drawn, rather than any
humble desire to achieve a meeting of the minds---to communicate, to
commune. (And really, is there any more point to this than ad
infinitum back-and-forths of "Tastes great!" and "Less filling!"?)
Just once, before Danny Boy dies, he'd like to see a triple rainbow, a
double bifid four-leafed clover, and a single believer who shows the
integrity to concede a point s/he's failed to empirically and
logically support.


Specifically, I especially enjoyed the comments under the "Rudeness"
subheading of the "Argumentation and Debate" article at
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/web/argumentation-and-debate?hl=en
: "There is...an argument to be made that one can catch more bees with
honey than with vinegar. There's also an argument to be made that some
people really do need the shock value for the message to register." As
the cop-out wolf-cry of "Rudeness!" in lieu of actual answers to
refutations of arguments is a pet peeve of mine, I thought I'd
introduce myself by way of an unstructured, stream-of-consciousness
editorial rant against such contrived casualty in the face of cutting
criticism. Don't get me wrong: I recognize the importance of
structured debate but, try as I might, I can't dream up the counter
arguments on my own that those of irrational ilk continually invent. I
find the counterpoint they may offer in response to such an
unstructured stream to be useful in helping me determine good starting
points for overlaying some structure on further, more formal
exposition of the subject---ultimately strengthening the rational
arguments for the case against Christianity, while the pious pundits'
political pidgin of buzz, spin, and rhetoric just gets more convoluted
and less relevant. I believe in the one-two punch; I believe in a
little fire to fly in the faces of the dogmatically desensitized. It
wouldn't be my first choice in a perfect world, but...well, you know
the rest.

Welcome to the OCD-induced shit storm that is my perpetual internal
mental dialogue, for which I've yet to find an off switch. Please help
me structure it by attempting to refute it, Mr. Christofferson---if
you can. In all seriousness, thanks.


[Christian Christophilus Christofferson asks, "Why do so many atheists
feel the need to be so rude?"]

Well, Mr. Christofferson, "rude" is purely subjective and thus in the
eye of the beholder. Many atheists feel that whatever snark they
inject into their arguments (not snark INSTEAD OF argumentation, but
IN ADDITION to it) is nothing more than a reflection of righteous
indignation regarding the public sociopolitical action you and yours
take in democratic societies (in which every public voice matters to
every person) based upon nothing but empirically baseless religious
belief. There's a lot of indoctrination in Christian practice, so you
may or may not even be aware that you're calling out as rudeness that
which is offered in response to the generally like behavior of you and
yours. Many of us feel it is important to hold up a mirror in front of
you as we establish our rational argumentation---to include, not an
eye for an eye, snark for snark, insult for insult, or sarcasm for
sarcasm, but THE TOKEN OF snark for snark, THE TOKENS OF insult and
sarcasm for insult and sarcasm: reflection for projection. It
explicitly calls out and helps to combat the false portrayal of
Christians in the West as perpetually persecuted victims rather than,
often enough, victimIZERS who historically give at least as good as
they ever get.

In Western society, we're all indoctrinated -- by archaic secular
societal mores originally informed by Christian ideals, born in eras
when Christianity wielded far more sociopolitical power than today --
to believe that anytime anyone says anything at all negative about
Christianity or the public sociopolitical actions of Christians, that
s/he is categorically engaging in religious persecution. As such, many
important points go unmade and many voices fall silent in the public
forum out of fear of being labeled a "religious persecutor." ("I am
treated as evil by those who feel persecuted because they are not
allowed to force me to believe as they do." --author unknown) In
truth, however, the word "persecution" in Western society is grossly
abused by believers in order to help them slip into the high-ground
role of the blameless victim, for empiricism is not their friend and
they must clutch at something.

The only societally germane definition of persecution in societies
that enjoy freedom of personal conscience in matters of spirituality
is the act of literally preventing others from practicing their
religion in the privacy of their own lives, which is actually very
rarely the case when, "Persecutory wolf!" is cried in our society. The
moment that religious practice strays into the public arena, where it
directly affects believers and nonbelievers alike, every single person
who is affected by such religious practice has every ethical right and
moral impetus to speak to the subject of that public religious
practice, for good or ill. Doing so does not even remotely qualify as
religious persecution in any societally meaningful way.

A lot of your confusion, Mr. Christofferson, comes from your
insistence upon viewing Christianity as a purely religious
institution. If this is true, then these curiously engaged
nonbelievers are going out of their way to come into your private
religious practice and find fault with it, which would seem petty and
uncalled for indeed. In truth, however, Christianity insists upon
acting not only as a private religious institution but as a public
sociopolitical institution as well, taking public action that directly
affects believers and nonbelievers alike. Thus, the moment it does so,
it opens ITSELF up for democratic criticism by any and all who are
affected by such public action. You yourselves have invited this
criticism, Mr. Christofferson. The call is for all in the public forum
to recognize the distinction between (1) Christianity, the private
religious institution that directly affects none but believers, and
(2) Christianity, the institution that insists upon taking public
sociopolitical action that directly affects believers and nonbelievers
alike. Many atheists simply don't care to speak to the former, but as
they are affected by the latter, they can and should speak up.

Complaining about the subjective concept of rudeness, often enough
associated by religionists with a weaker form of persecution, is a cop-
out. It places far too much emphasis upon Emily Post FORM rather than
the meat of the CONTENT, and serves more often than not to merely
detract and obfuscate. Premised Fact: Humans have an emotional sphere
which colors all aspects of human perception, right down to the
neurophysiological level. Premised Fact: All experience by individuals
regarding issues of human existence begins with, and is therefore
predicated upon, human perception including its attendant emotional
dimension. Inescapable Logical Extension: The exposition of the
emotional state of the speaker is integral to achieving a robustly
communicative meeting of minds in the public forum about issues of
human existence which affect us all. It is simply a logical fallacy
that the stylistic form and sidedish accoutrement of an argument
somehow bears on the validity of the argument's meat-and-'taters
content.

True, the approach of departing from generally accepted cultural mores
regarding politeness and decorum is often abused, in order to provide
an embered bait-and-switch substitute for the otherwise absent fire of
rational argumentation and empiricism, and thus is often a sign of a
weakness, or complete absence, of rational argumentation; however, it
does not logically follow from this alone that such a departure from
the proverbial dictates of Emily Post CATEGORICALLY has no place in
oration and debate among those who sometimes prefer to use both reason
AND rancor, logos AND pathos. Again, we are just as much emotional
beings as analytically thinking beings. Categorically suppressing the
human emotional sphere with respect to debating issues of human
existence must obviously be counterproductive at best, as it strips
the debate about issues of human existence of a significant component
of what it means to exist as a human. (While it is certainly true that
whether the proportional validity of certain emotional states in
response to the actions of others can be called into question, if
accompanied by evidentiary support, it would seem that the CATEGORICAL
denial of honest exposition of those emotions in public forum debate
as ever being appropriate has no grounding whatsoever.)

Honestly, where are you bleeding, Mr. Christofferson, from the
piercing needles of impassioned words? Nowhere? Then get over it. The
pettiness would seem to be yours, not of those whose passionate words
comprise a departure from stiff decorum and PC nicety. There is a
distinction between rudeness for its own sake and righteous
indignation.


[Christian Christophilus Christofferson asks, "Well, if you're not
using rudeness for its own sake, then why precisely are you using
it?"]

Well, Christian -- may I call you Christian, Mr. Christofferson? --
there is much scientific literature on the subject of the psychology
and sociology of believers. Many nonbelievers' personal experience
with believers mirrors the conclusions of a large swath of this
scientific literature---that believers seem to erect and maintain a
psychological wall of self-delusion around themselves, that they
selectively ignore all evidence which casts in doubt what they've
prejudicially decided to believe and only pay attention to evidence
which supports, or seems to support, or can be obfuscatively twisted
around to ostensibly support what they've already decided to believe.
(Proverbially, these zealot minds will ne'er be swayed by reason,
proof, or logic laid, to leave behind delusions dear, for truth, which
they so dearly fear.) However, logic and reason are a double-edged
sword, which many believers seem more than willing to live by when it
suits them, but rarely die by. How does one pierce another's wall of
self-delusion from the outside, when that wall of self-delusion is
being continually fortified by the brick-layers of blind faith from
within?---give the brick-layers pause; elicit a negative emotional
response that gives your opponent a taste, just a taste, of the honest
emotions s/he has elicited in you. Not an eye for an eye, but a line
of emotional communication predicated upon mutual empathy. Sometimes,
smug, sarcastic, and snarky are the only things that will overcome
this otherwise impenetrable wall of self-delusion, so that the light
of reason has a path inside. Smug, sarcastic, and snarky don't fly on
their own, but not unlike Red Bull, they give logic wings, especially
among the masses who treat the tool of logic like a fair-weather
friend, thrice denied when the heat is on.

I have seen the predications of precariously piled platitudes fall
like houses of cards in many erstwhile religionists who, newly freed,
declare their long-suffering frustration at knowing, just KNOWING,
they were right but never being able to refute the barbs of plainly
observable reality and their anger at those who dared chide them for
their blind allegiance to men who claim to speak for gods, at the last
praising that fire that had been lit under their asses by those who
couldn't give a rat's ass about decorum---not at my meager hands, mind
you, but I have seen it many times. So yes, I am a believer in the one-
two punch, a believer in a little fire to fly in the faces of the
dogmatically desensitized, a bellicose balm for a blissful blindness.
I am a believer in debate with an open free speech policy that values
content over mere form, and tersely bids, "Get over it," to glass-
jawed prima donnas who have enjoyed the French tickler end of a double
standard for far, far too long.


"Fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact,
every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God;
because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason
than that of blindfolded fear." --U.S. President Thomas Jefferson in a
private letter to his nephew, Peter Carr

[Trance Gemini]

Welcome to AvC Danny Boy.

Loved the rant and the Jefferson quote.

Look forward to your participation!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
"Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as everything else." --Dev

[TLC]

Hi Danny Boy,

Welcome. With an entrance like that you put to shame all those who
join with a My name is....

> subheading of the "Argumentation and Debate" article athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/web/argumentat...

> as ever being appropriate has no ...
>
> read more »

[Dead Kennedy]

On 11 June, 08:23, Danny Boy <danny.bo...@verizon.net> wrote:

> subheading of the "Argumentation and Debate" article athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/web/argumentat...

> as ever being appropriate has no ...
>
> read more »

who let the spam through?

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Dead Kennedy <dead.k...@live.co.uk> wrote:

<snipped>

 

who let the spam through?

I did. Why do you consider it spam?

[Jelrak TB]

Welcome, Danny...

Your first post provides an explanation for your frustrations (which
then manifest themselves as rudeness inserted into a debate)...but
does your method win arguments? It would seem more apt to polarize
opponents, forcing them further into their corners, and charge a
debate with emotion. So if your purpose in a debate is to have
everyone share your negative emotions then fine, but do not then ask
why no one will reply civilly to you later (or take your nuggets of
wisdom seriously). If your point is to prove and convince, cold logic
and reason are much better tools IMO...

> subheading of the "Argumentation and Debate" article athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/web/argumentat...

> as ever being appropriate has no ...
>
> read more »

[Danny Boy]

Trance Gemini: "Welcome to AvC Danny Boy. Loved the rant and the

Jefferson quote. Look forward to your participation!"

Thanks very muchly.

[Danny Boy]

Trance Gemini: "Welcome to AvC Danny Boy. Loved the rant and the

Jefferson quote. Look forward to your participation!"

Thanks very muchly.

[Danny Boy]

TLC: "Hi Danny Boy, Welcome.  With an entrance like that you put to

shame all those who join with a My name is...."

LOL Thanks. ;-)

[Danny Boy]

TLC: "Hi Danny Boy, Welcome.  With an entrance like that you put to

shame all those who join with a My name is...."

LOL Thanks. ;-)

[Danny Boy]

Jelrak TB: "Welcome, Danny..."

Thanks much! ;-)
-

Jelrak TB: "Your first post provides an explanation for your

frustrations (which then manifest themselves as rudeness inserted into
a debate)..."

I'd have to disagree with that characterization, as the post does not
insert rudeness into a debate, but rather, as mentioned, "an
unstructured, stream-of-consciousness editorial rant," that form
having been chosen for the reasons I described immediately following
that declaration above.
-

Jelrak TB: "...but does your method win arguments?"

Editorial rant is not my method for rational argumentation---
introduction perhaps, but not argumentation. If, however, you're
referring to my defense of rational argumentations that include not
only logical discourse but snark, then yes: as mentioned in the final
paragraph, "I have seen the predications of precariously piled

platitudes fall like houses of cards in many erstwhile religionists

who, newly freed,...[praise] that fire that had been lit under their
asses by those who couldn't give a rat's ass about decorum." I have
witnessed the effectiveness of this approach of logical discourse +
honest emotional reflection, among those who later describe themselves
as having been engaged in self-delusion and having been deaf to
countless perfectly sound logical arguments. (For that matter, I've
witnessed the effectiveness of many other approaches as well.) I'm not
a big believer that there is one and only one proper way for all
people to debate in all contexts about all subjects in all cultures,
always, always, always; so I see no inconsistency here.

I'd call for a qualification of the concept of "winning arguments,"
however. The answer to your question depends on how you define the
winning of such arguments in this context. To speak of the concept of
winning a rational argument with a religionist is to presuppose that
the religionist is indeed fully stepping up to the plate of rational
debate in the first place, including showing the integrity to concede
points actually logically refuted. My experience is that this is
rarely the case. I also find it rare that the religionist debating
against a nonreligionist is actually ever convinced or persuaded,
regardless of how many bystanders proclaim that the nonreligionist has
"won the debate." My experience has been that those debating are
already fairly diametrically polarized; I'm far more concerned with
the effect upon those on the sidelines who may still be somewhat on
the fence. Proverbially "dittified":

So why play I in adverse air?
What else could such a climate bear---
When all societies find root,
In dualistic institute?

Might I have erred?---it may well be,
But that is not the point, you see:
When social matters polarize,
We all may gain, and all may rise.

When insipid faith deride,
'Tis in defense of rights denied.
In claiming that *I* persecute,
The sheep cry, "Wolf!" in false repute.

For ever they when foul is feigned,
Blind and deaf, by dogma chained,
Overlook *their* bigotry,
Convinced of their hegemony.

Throughout this score of centuries,
Their church our rights and freedoms seized.
Thus when objectively astute,
One finds 'tis *they* who persecute.

Most sit on fences 'tween world views,
The unknown feared and loath to choose;
Just *speaking* of that which divides,
Is of more consequence than sides.

Our ignorance can live quite long,
In silent shadows far prolonged,
Through generations of our young,
Whose new ideas remain unsung.

But with our prejudices fled,
Now dragged into the light instead,
Our ignorance can live no more,
Its fallacies brought to the fore.

And so I'll play my adverse part,
That I my manner may impart.
Though passionate and coarse I be,
'Tis rooted in sincerity.
-

Jelrak TB: "So if your purpose in a debate is to have everyone share
your negative emotions then fine..."

As originally stated, my purpose is to "[achieve] a robustly

communicative meeting of minds in the public forum about issues of

human existence which affect us all," which I maintain is enhanced by
"the exposition of the emotional state of the speaker," that emotional
state being part and parcel with what it means to exist as a human and
therefore germane to the question being considered. The emotionalism
is secondary to the logic, not substitutive.
-

Jelrak TB: "...but do not then ask why no one will reply civilly to

you later (or take your nuggets of wisdom seriously)."

Who said anything about me desiring civility in a reply? I'm not
concerned about the form of a reply, only the question of the validity
of its content.

As for those who will decide not to take my logical argumentation
seriously for no other reason than it is accompanied by an honest and
like reflection of the ramifications of religious fervor, I don't tend
to hang on the words of those who imagine that the truth or falsehood
of the content of a statement has anything whatsoever to do with the
form that statement takes or from whom that statement issues forth.
Should I? (Besides, the prospect that those who fall prey to this
logical fallacy might recuse themselves in disgust and spare me their
vapid inanity is a welcome one, as it allows me to focus on meaningful
debate with those of differing views who are actually interested in
debating content without the restrictions of maudlin manners.)

There are more than enough austere debates going on out there
involving ascetic debaters, and I think it's important that this
method of austerity be represented. I simply also believe it's
important that other methods be represented as well. With nearly seven
billion people on the planet, each highly individual and from highly
disparate cultures, I maintain that plurality, not purity, is the
order of the day.

Please don't assume I'm speaking of a categorical one-size-fits-all
method for debating with religionists. I have debated with
religionists whose words drip with charming Old World civility, and
have joyfully responded in kind. I only mean to defend the validity
and importance of being able to honestly reflect all demeanors,
regardless of the arbitrary standards of ill-considered Emily Post
ettiquette.
-

Jelrak TB: "If your point is to prove and convince, cold logic and

reason are much better tools IMO..."

Better than cold logic and reason + honest emotional reflection? I'm
not sure I agree that's true in a categorical sense, though I would
wholeheartedly agree that there are times when one may want to prune
down to bare bones for fear that, given particular circumstances,
anything extra might encloud rather than enhance.
-
-

I did try to be clear on all those points in the original post, but
thanks very much for the counterpoint, truly. ;-) I'll look back
through it and try to bolster it against the points of confusion you
brought up before I reuse the phraseology in future. Cheers. ;-)

[Danny Boy]

Apologies, by the way, for the fact that a couple of my responses have
been doubled. I'm not sure what happened. I simply hit Reply, typed
the reply, then hit Send for all three responses, yet the first two
doubled and the third did not. Odd. (Google can be cumbersome. LOL ;-)

[Trance Gemini]

No worries. 

GG is having a lot of issues these days and many posts are delayed because Google randomly puts things in it's Spam Filter and they have to put through by the Moderators. Some posts disappear completely. 

In addition to a host of other issues like random bannings. :-(.

Just go to the Mod Board if you run into any major issues or have any questions and Brock or I will help you out.

http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum?hl=en

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[TLC]

Danny,

Great poetry. Dud you write it?

[TLC]

Did you write it? It needs a name.

> > brought up before I reuse the phraseology in future. Cheers. ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Danny Boy]

Trance Gemini: "No worries. GG is having a lot of issues these days...

Just go to the Mod Board if you run into any major issues or have any
questions and Brock or I will help you out."

Cool, thanx muchly, Trance!

[Danny Boy]

TLC: "Great poetry. Did you write it? It needs a name."

Thanx. Yeah, my OCD often manifests in part, whether I like it or not,
as a constant internal cadence as I form ideas; so the verse comes
pretty naturally. How 'bout naming it "Ode to the Spirit of William
Lloyd Garrison"?

William Lloyd Garrison was the editor of an abolitionist newspaper
called the Liberator. He was often attacked for his (purposeful) lack
of using refined social etiquette, to which he wrote in response, "It
is pretended, that I am retarding the cause of emancipation by the
coarseness of my invective and the precipitancy of my measures. The
charge is not true...and posterity will bear testimony that I was
right." An ode from one member of his school of thought's posterity,
opining that he was indeed right, seems a nice gesture, I think.

In the inaugural editorial to the Liberator's first issue, dated
January 1, 1831, he wrote:

"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is
there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as
uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or
to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is
on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his
wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually
extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge
me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest
-- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a
single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough
to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the
resurrection of the dead."

His sentiment has always struck and inspired me. He recognized the
harm that blind adherence to prevailing social etiquette can do to the
cause of social betterment regarding contentious social issues, the
watering-down effect of politically correct etiquette and contrived
civility often inducing an "apathy of the people."

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Danny Boy <danny...@verizon.net> wrote:

TLC: "Great poetry. Did you write it? It needs a name."

Thanx. Yeah, my OCD often manifests in part, whether I like it or not,
as a constant internal cadence as I form ideas; so the verse comes
pretty naturally. How 'bout naming it "Ode to the Spirit of William
Lloyd Garrison"?

I can see that you're going to be making a terrific contribution here and I agree with TLC (on occasion that miracle occurs ;-) that the poem is great.

Well put and I agree completely.

While mindless trolling and abuse (E_Space) is wrong, serious criticism, even if put harshly contributes to debate.

And the theists on this site are not above being harsh at times as well in their critiques.

It's the content that matters.

[Danny Boy]

Trance Gemini: "I can see that you're going to be making a terrific

contribution here and I agree with TLC (on occasion that miracle
occurs ;-) that the poem is great."

<Danny blushes as a warm fuzzy spreads through his body, as he averts
his eyes and his toe digs into the sand in an "awe, shucks" tableau.>


Trance Gemini: "Well put and I agree completely. While mindless

trolling and abuse (E_Space) is wrong, serious criticism, even if put

harshly contributes to debate... It's the content that matters."

Hear, hear! To the content! <Danny's goblet klinks Trance's, and he
playfully swats her behind, as jocks do in the locker room. After a
tense moment, he remembered their relative lack of familiarity,
sheepishly apologized, and told her that, for what it's worth,
Dorothy's a friend of his. They laugh, and bottoms up go their
goblets.>

[JTB]

...and who could ask for more than that...? Charges withdrawn...
 

[Danny Boy]

JTB: "...and who could ask for more than that...? Charges
withdrawn..."

Blessings. Sorry it wasn't more clear. My head swims sometimes with
the OCD internal dialogue, so I know conciseness isn't my strong suit;
yet I'm always trying to find the balance between concise and staving
off misunderstanding from incompletely defined terms and concepts,
which I think is often what trips up meetings of minds. The
counterpoint really, really helps with that. Thanks again. ;-)

<Danny winces as he realizes this is the several'th time he's
mentioned his OCD in as many posts, wondering if his self-deprecating
psychological defense mechanism would seem too obvious. Crap. ;-) >

[Trance Gemini]

Haha! No worries Danny Boy, smacking behinds has become a genetic trait amongst the women in my family. It first appeared with me and then got passed down to my daughter. So, I'm not one to criticize ....

May I have permission to publish that lovely poem of yours on my New Atheism blog with credit provided to you under your alias of course?

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Danny Boy]

Trance Gemini: "May I have permission to publish that lovely poem of

yours on my New Atheism blog with credit provided to you under your
alias of course?"

Ooh, I'm honored. Thank you. Surely, you may. ;-)

[Trance Gemini]

Thank you muchly. It's done.

http://newatheism.blogspot.com/

[Dead Kennedy]

On 11 June, 16:28, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk>wrote:
> <snipped>
>
> > who let the spam through?
>
> I did. Why do you consider it spam?

and there was me thinking i wouldnt need the winky face.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 3:19 AM, Dead Kennedy <dead.k...@live.co.uk> wrote:

On 11 June, 16:28, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk>wrote:

> <snipped>
>
> > who let the spam through?
>
> I did. Why do you consider it spam?

and there was me thinking i wouldnt need the winky face.

Haha. Sorry. I'm a little slow sometimes ;-)

--