Fred,
Please do not charge me with equivocation or double-talk. These things are not true, and I request that you take them back. I have always been honest and straightforward on this list.
If you don't like my church, that's another matter: you are free to regard my religious beliefs as "spurious -- but we're talking about science here, not my church.
Patiently,
Ed Poor
No, we are comparing and contrasting divine revelation with science and divine revelation comes out very poorly.
Fred
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:43:25 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor
Fred,
Please do not charge me with equivocation or double-talk. These things are not true, and I request that you take them back. I have always been honest and straightforward on this list.
If you don't like my church, that's another matter: you are free to regard my religious beliefs as "spurious -- but we're talking about science here, not my church.
Patiently,
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hmm, I saw no argument posted here between divine revelation and science. So far everyone but you has been talking about science. What is the name of the article in question? I'd like to look at it.
[[User:T-Money]]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@ctelco.net To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor
No, we are comparing and contrasting divine revelation with science and divine revelation comes out very poorly.
Fred