Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 18, 1999 at 16:29:36 {KEdmzBXaT6hxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: *************AP and AF posted by Gedanken on November 18, 1999 at 14:42:16:
Gedanken
I read your entire post. I think the following comment of yours represents the nut that must be cracked between us:
You may not say you demand it but you act as if you do because nothing will convince you or Greg of certain things.
Convince me of what, that the Society has manifested some dishonesty? My belief is that the Society has manifested some dishonesty. The question is whether you or I can convince others of that conviction. My point is that for various reasons I cannot so convince everyone because people will take different views based upon their own weighing of evidence and perspective. While I will certainly act upon my own beliefs should I ignore and ridicule others for their beliefs? Should I ruin my health straining that they see it may way? Just how far would you have me go? Giving accurate information to people is enough. Let them decide what they want to do with it, that is their prerogative and we should respect that.
My initial comments on this thread only expressed that I did not consider so far that AF had demonstrated his claim as he made it. I see no need in restating the reasons. Go back and read them if you are that interested.
If you do not think those comments above address the point of your long post then kindly point out what you think I should have also commented on. I think that above gets to the center of your remarks.
Whatever your motivations are, when you defend the Society then that is what you are doing; defending it, whether justly or unjustly.
Do you consider countering incorrect claims about the Society a defense of the Society or a defense of what is true?
Friend