Quote:
You said it yourself, it's all about impressions. I'll be courteous enough to put it this way, then: I'm getting the impression that you, Steve, are telling me that I shouldn't be bashing Druid over semantics because I disagree with him. If this isn't it, then I wish you would clarify further what you're saying.


There were some glaring *typos* in my response to you, along an obvious overuse of the word "now", but outside of that fact, I feel I explained myself fairly well.

"Bashing." The word is itself "over used" and quite often out of context. Just because a person is criticized, does not mean he/she is being "bashed." I may be mistaken, but originally, I think the term "bashing" was born from the actions of hateful bigots who took it upon themselves
to physically beat others mercilessly, usually minorities, in an twisted illusion of power. As time goes on, the term is used more and more, for less and less. Truth is though, the term is in fact used, regardless. However, if it is not applied to actual hate-mongerism, I tend see it as overkill.

Were you "bashing?" No. I don't think so. Were you being "unfair?" In my opinion, yes. That in itself, does not make you a "basher."

Druid and I, are both out of our element here. We are in the midst of people, who want a forum to speak out for certain beliefs and to criticize other beliefs. Because Druid and I, often support contradicting viewpoints that are not popular here; him...his, and mine...mine. In doing so, we will draw the ire, if not the fire from certain participants who visit this board. I understand that, and I believe Druid does too.

Problems occur though, at least in my mind, when I see something said that I feel is unjust, or extremely unfair. Just like you or any other person who is vocally opinionated, I will speak out and try to expose the *wrong.*

Quote:
Because what I did, and what I must repeat I thought I did quite explicitly, again and again, was to come down on the specific style of argumentation built around making claims that the author knows to be false, in order to enhance their own argument. I pointed out that I do in fact believe that which he stated had been shown in studies to be true.


If you believe what he said is true, then in can't be false, at least in your mind. Can it? Your (and other's) argument that Druid in effect, was somehow misleading the board, or at least trying to do so, is nonsense, as i said before. His statement was never shown to be false, and in actuality...he is correct. The simple fact is, he never pointed to "specific studies"...but every historical study ever done, in general. For as a rule, when we read history...there is always a religious tie, somewhere, within a civilization. That's about all I have to say about it.

Caelia, the reason I responded to you was, that you put the most effort out...in your response to me. I am sure, we will meet again, on another subject, sooner or later.

You do a great job in explaining yourself, by the way.

Steve

Note for Druid:
I'll answer your post later today...Druid, at least i'll try to. Off to work it is...for now.:beach2