--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:
>
> Daniel, if there is 'an obsession here' is your obsession
> against 'the fundamentalism'. This kind of obsessions is
> a more 'dangerous fundamentalism' than that ones that you
> acussed here.
So an obsession (really only a reasonable concern)
with threats to our freedom posed by fundamentalism
is itself a form of fundamentalism worse than the
fundamentalism itself, eh? Your logic leaves a lot
to be desired, Marius, or are you just practicing
your Newspeak?
An "obsession" with the truth is hardly anything to
criticize, although I'm sure we all know why _you_
would sympathize with an ethocentrist revisionist.
Whose pseudoscience are you really trying to make
room for here, Marius? Kelkar's, or your own?
> I prefer the persons that have a strong faith
And I prefer persons who have none. Faith is the
ability to believe something true when there is no
evidence to support it, or even when all evidence
is against it. Why would anybody choose to be in
the grip of such a mental disease?
At the very least, faith has no place in science,
and this list has limited itself to scientific
linguistics. At least that's the pretense made on
the homepage.
> (even their faiths could lead something to wrong conclusions
> at least every one here knows Mr. Kelkar's position)
Yes, we know that he's biased, as we know too of
yourself.
> than the persons that try in any occassion to destroy the
> faiths of the others...
You're way off topic with all this, so even if you
feel so strongly that you must proselytize for yours
and Kelkar's religions, or merely wish to demand the
right to practice your faiths on this list in the
form of non-scientific linguistics, then at least
please take it to cybalist_admin.
David