In article quSrc.3764$J02.2915@edtnps84, "la n."
wrote:

lysdexic wrote in message
...
"which means that you are best, a mediocre student. Otherwise
you would have mentioned the university and degrees you have."


Neither true.

"However, it is people like you who think that they are smarter
than god thus they should be a god."

Not logical.

Heh. Good one. BTW, lysdexic, we have to train you *not*
to top post ...

- nilita


I cherish the definition of a zealot as "one who would be happy to
explain, to an omniscient deity, what the deity's correct actions should
have been had the deity been in possession of all the facts."


"R. David Steele" /OMEGA wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 May 2004 14:30:55 -0700, "lysdexic"
wrote:

|Perhaps I have spent to much time learning math, science, history,
|and
|philosophy and not enough time in worship to be considered educated.

1) which means that you are best, a mediocre student. Otherwise
you would have mentioned the university and degrees you have.

2) no one is asking you to worship, only respect the wisdom.
Much of wisdom is not that different between the various
religions. Most wisdom does not change over time or culture.
However, it is people like you who think that they are smarter
than god thus they should be a god. In reality you do not have a
clue.

In time, nature will take care of you via death and the fact that
no one will remember you 10 years after your death. And this
little experiment that the left has been doing will be swept away
by nature and time. Wisdom prevails because only the wise
survive.

I do find it fascinating when people throw around terms such as "left"
and "right" as if the terms have rigorous definitions, as opposed to
some historical artifacts of seating customs in several Parliaments.
Take the "right", for example, and the "New Right" movements of the
sixties that brought Goldwater, and, in general, a Republican
resurgence. Having been a participant in some of the New Right politics
of the late sixties and early seventies, virtually anyone identified
with the movements would have been shocked to have simply been called a
"rightist".

At the very least, groups distinguished themselves as to government
power, the role of mandatory moral codes, the freedom of the
marketplace, and the role of the military. People would identify as
traditionalists, religous conservatives, libertarians of all flavors,
fusionists, and
people-that-desperately-were-trying-not-to-call-their-ideology-fascist.

Mr. Steele makes a generic reference to the "left", but why should the
"left" be more monolithic than the "right"? You can find self-identified
members of the left ranging from "ADA (Americans for Democratic Action)
mainstream" types, to assorted flavors of Marxist (Monolithic? Shall we
have Messrs. Trotsky, Stalin, Tito and Mao debate that?), political
correctness activists, etc.

Nihilists and anarchists can sort of drop into an extreme where left
meets right.

And yes, there is a meaningful concept of a pragmatic centrist.