Re: [tied] Digest Number 2804

Here, since you don't seem to know where it's located, is
the address to cybalist_admin:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist_admin/

If you really want an answer (I hope you know what you're
asking for!) Then post your comments there.

David


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> --- 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...
>