[Osx-nutters] The separation of church and state.

[Mark Smith]

I'll make a singular exception to address this drivel.

On 06.12.2007, at 10:43, Chris Gehlker wrote:

> On Dec 6, 2007, at 12:44 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
>> Actually, he named three and I dispute all of them on a particular
>> ground. Lewis began to discuss one important aspect. What constituted
>> agnosticism in the time of Leibnitz and Newton ? Its clear that it
>> would have been another major philosophical leap (and a socially
>> suicidal one) at that time to question the existence of god, or every
>> last component of the christian bible story. On the other hand, there
>> is, I am sure, a documentary record of Newton's struggles with the
>> tenets of the church and indeed the creation story. The point is that
>> as far as it occurred to them to go, they were indeed (to a degree)
>> doubters and that was my original point on the topic.
>
> What do you conceivably have to gain by  persistently miss-
> characterizing your former statements in this manner? They are open to
> inspection by any of us.

Why not just read it carefully and pay attention to the tenses. You  
will, if you are any good at interpretation find only the following  
phrases/sentences that could in any way, shape, or form be used in an  
attempt to justify your accusation.

1. "I dispute all of them on a particular ground"

Notes: 	(a) present tense
	(b) non-exclusive
	(c) no explicit association between each single individual and the  
ground for my dispute

Now go ahead and try your very best to find any inconsistency with  
that quote in any other post.

2. "there is, I am sure, a documentary record of Newton's struggles  
with the tenets of the church and indeed the creation story"

Notes: this is intrinsically robust. I might seem to be wrong on the  
basis of some other documentation (especially the kind of drivel you  
dug up), but it is in no manner inconsistent with anything else I have  
written. At the greatest stretch, you could argue that it was an  
expansion on, or a qualification of a previous point. Again, an  
absence of inconsistency is evident to all but the blind.

3. There is no point 3.

Note: Everything else in the above quoted segment (which was directed  
towards Dave by the way and has (inevitably) lost some context as a  
result of your snippage) relates to that which Lewis (correctly in my  
opinion) introduced into the discussion.

I could willingly accept an accusation of pedantry on this issue (even  
from you). I've openly admitted that it is highly (arguably  
excessively) specified and somewhat pointless, but an accusation of  
inconsistency coming from you of all people, is beyond the pale.

At this point, one should write something pithy like "fuck off"

Mark.