|
Post by rick on Jan 9, 2007 19:50:03 GMT -5
It wasn't political at all. Do you know what "political" means? It was a moral argument placed in my signature. All but the word C-U-N-T was allowed and I was told I could leave it there with that word removed. I chose to remove it and replace it with a more general quote regarding art. Politics had nothing to do with this. You can't know whether or not I have persuaded anyone. That's just your opinion based upon your own liberal worldview and your own personal reaction to what I argued. Other folks may agree with you but then again some other folks may agree with me. In fact some have stated that they agree with my position regarding the nature of VM. They just don't like my caustically satirical approach to the subject and are offended that anyone would use that word. Well they use that word over and over and over three times in February every year on the Valparaiso University Campus, sanctioned by the university administration. I don't hate Evangelists. In fact I really like most of my evangelical friends at a church here in Valpo where I used to attend. It's not the people, they are very nice folks. It's the leadership who I take issue with and the doctrine(or lack of). And if you are referring to my comments about Robertson and Roberts and you are lumping their brand of evangelism into all brands of evangelism, you don't have a clue of what you are talking about. There are many, many different flavors of evangelism and the flavor that both Roberts and Robertson represent are in the minority. Their brand of faith, in my opinion, tends to be, just a cousin or two away from being snake-handlers. Seriously, there are people who call themselves Christians who believe in handling snakes during worship.
|
|
|
Post by Valpower on Jan 10, 2007 0:51:03 GMT -5
It wasn't political at all. Do you know what "political" means? It was a moral argument placed in my signature. All but the word C-U-N-T was allowed and I was told I could leave it there with that word removed. I chose to remove it and replace it with a more general quote regarding art. Politics had nothing to do with this. You can't know whether or not I have persuaded anyone. That's just your opinion based upon your own liberal worldview and your own personal reaction to what I argued. Other folks may agree with you but then again some other folks may agree with me. In fact some have stated that they agree with my position regarding the nature of VM. They just don't like my caustically satirical approach to the subject and are offended that anyone would use that word. Well they use that word over and over and over three times in February every year on the Valparaiso University Campus, sanctioned by the university administration. I don't hate Evangelists. In fact I really like most of my evangelical friends at a church here in Valpo where I used to attend. It's not the people, they are very nice folks. It's the leadership who I take issue with and the doctrine(or lack of). And if you are referring to my comments about Robertson and Roberts and you are lumping their brand of evangelism into all brands of evangelism, you don't have a clue of what you are talking about. There are many, many different flavors of evangelism and the flavor that both Roberts and Robertson represent are in the minority. Their brand of faith, in my opinion, tends to be, just a cousin or two away from being snake-handlers. Seriously, there are people who call themselves Christians who believe in handling snakes during worship. You are correct, I was wrong on the use of "political", a word whose meaning I do indeed understand, but please feel free to comment on the pertinent idea that you were using the board to advance an agenda of no particular relevance to a sports forum--or NOT, as is often your inclination. (Keep on picking those nits, Rick.) There is no evidence of persuasion having been affected by you on this board; I've not read any messages indicating that others have joined your cause or come around to your way of thinking, so this is good enough for me to justify my conclusion. Agreement with you by others does not constitute effective persuasion on your part, as obviously they may have already held their opinions independent of yours. If you want to claim that you are persuasive, then the burden of proof is upon you, otherwise you are merely engaging in semantic quibbling. And Rick, you devoted entirely too much time denying hatred of evangelism. This was not a critical point, rather a rhetorical one I used to contrast your apparent obsession to be heard with the evangelical intention to influence. (If I'm wrong, please tell me how your efforts to influence are going.) Let me say in simple terms that all I care about, as one of the board administrators, is that you confine your non-sports opinions to the off-topic board.
|
|