--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should > probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint? More imporantly, why is it so radical to simply insist upon a basic level of *civility* from all List-Members. Sure, I have been known to engage what has previously been described here as "rough and tumble adult conversation", but when I apply "zingers" in my post, I at least accompany it with content. In my mind, the posting of mere insults, without any accompanying substantive content is inappropriate - and hence I am objecting to it. John D. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
