From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Thu Oct 30 2003 - 18:45:31 EST
Burgy wrote:
> How do you refer to a person's position which is clearly nonsense without
> using the word "nonsense?"
>
It really depends on what they are doing.
If they are using the public forum to sell snake oil or advocate some
self interest policy in relation to their nonsense, it's right that
the public should be informed. By becoming public, they are also
becoming a public nuisance. Reading a crystal ball in ones own
privacy or with others who insist on believing such things is really
not our business. It is the public forum where it becomes an issue.
There is something admirable about not stooping to the same level
however, I know only too well that it's hard to leave that last
judgment to God's hands. Maybe you could have used "roster
of academics who advocate dubious notions". That puts more
emphasis on the idea and the person's active participation in
promoting such hooey, instead of singling out the person as a
whole. Shame does has the sense like dunce, it colors the whole
person universally rather than focusing on the single offending
part. I'm sure as Christians in most other areas of their lives, they
are model citizens.
by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 30 2003 - 18:48:53 EST