Apology:

I was feeling annoyed to some extent that James had 
misrepresented my point in saying that I had perhaps 
misrepresented him.

I THOUGHT that what I had written was clear enough and 
unambiguous enough.

I now see that what I wrote was indeed able to be 
misunderstood and that it would be easy to jump to the 
"talking about God" conclusion.

In the exchange:

>> Ironically, the only LOGICAL thing to do is believe there
>> is a GOD (Otherwise it's all kind of pointless, you 
>> know?)

> At least you understand that point.
> Which is an excellent first step.
> Ma[n]y don't or can't understand that.

I, realizing that the G__ topic would cause unnecessaryu 
sparks, was intending instead to comment on

>  ... Otherwise it's all kind of pointless, you know? ...
    [if god or whatever doesn't exist].

Stuff in square brackets added.
I was attempting to comment on the realities of a "just 
happened" universe and that was what I meant that 
unmamed-and-much-beloved-list-owner would argue strenuously 
against.

I see now that I inadvertently (really!) lead the 
conversation the wrong way.

I even got a friendly comment offlist from someone who I 
confused by my lack of clarity - sorry!




              Russell

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist