On 6/19/05, James D. Forrester <james(a)jdforrester.org> wrote:
Just because
the side with the "Jesus wasn't God" POV prefer BCE/CE
doesn't make using BCE/CE an example of supporting a POV.
Please don't be
overly broad-brush. I am very much certainly in the former
group, and am equally certainly not in the latter. I severly doubt that I am
not alone in this, either.
I omitted the word '''some''' because the implication was being
made
that BCE/CE itself is POV, which is clearly untrue. The confusion that
it is clearly stems from the fact that many people with a particular
pov prefer one over the other... This certainly isn't the only
reason, as I previously mentioned, it is argued that BCE/CE isn't as
widely understood. But this is the reason that causes people to think
that the BCE/CE debate is one POV verses another POV.
Since I was specifically discussing the claim that arbcom was getting
involved with supporting one POV over another, my primary interest was
in demonstrating why BCE/CE isn't POV at all.
That is to say that arbcom may or may not be doing the right thing,
but they aren't affirming one POV over another... because if we were
to agree that one of the phrasings were non-neutral then it would be
the BC/AD nomenclature and we would have no choice but to adopt the
BCE/CE form. Since the original post was concerned about arbcom's
involvement in deciding NPOV, I think this point is quite important.
[Snip the rest of the argument based on this logical
fallacy]
I'm sorry, because I suspect I must be a little dense here... I just
can't follow how your (quite correct) criticism of my loosely worded
claim in any way invalidates the rest of my message, and I really do
wish you had replied point by point.