--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson"
<liberty@...> wrote:
> 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?
David, how easy you have arrived to accuse me of "pseudo-science" or
of "ethocentrist revisionist"?
Could I ask you at least, based on what facts? Or usually you don't
work with facts?
Please review all my postings on this forum and if at least for one
of them I didn't include some good arguments for all my assertions
please post it here.
Until then, I expect your apologies, David, especially when I din't
offended or qualified you in any way.
I'm also 'really scare' :), when I saw 'that you have detected so
easy' where the 'truth' is placed....when you arrived to wrote:
<<An "obsession" with the truth is hardly anything to
criticize>>
and also how easy you have arrived to condamn somebody here
with 'easy selected words' like : "ethocentrist revisionist"
and "pseudoscience" (By the way, from where you have selected these
terminology? You didn't work at Radio Moscow in the years '60
or '80, isn't it?
So your reaction is really 'the fundamentalism' that I have talked
about here: as being more dangerous than any other.
> > I prefer the persons that have a strong faith
>
> And I prefer persons who have none.
I'm really perplex ... to arrive to read words like that ones above.
Anyway, good luck, with your preferences...
> Faith is the
> ability to believe something true when there is no
> evidence to support it
David, this is a very poor materialist definition of what 'the
faith' is. Was better for you not to try any definition. :)
I thinks that you need to buy and to read some books on this subject
before to try to make such kind of definition on a public forum:
books like Biblia, Coran, on Hinduism, on Greeks&Romans Religion and
why not the religion of Indo-Europeans...All these could be a good
bibliography for you..
See also George Dumezil or Mircea Eliade for a good starting point
on this domain.
> At the very least, faith has no place in science,
Are you serious? You need to read first: at least Isaac Newton,
Leibniz or Einstein on this subject...
> Yes, we know that he's biased, as we know too of
> yourself.
'We know' ? So I. pl. usage here? And do you think that you have
used it correctly ?
Now I'm very serious, David:
I will not allow you to assert, regarding my person, whatever passed
on your 'no faith' head. So please stop now to offense me or any
other person on this forum. I didn't offense you in any way.
Marius
P.S. : I also ask the moderators of this forum to note some
offenses arriving in the last posting from persons like: Daniel,
David etc...