Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Apologies for multiple postings

Expand Messages
  • Mark and Bev Tindall
    Apologies for my unintentional multiple postings a few minutes ago. Something went wrong with the sending of the email which was only supposed to be once. The
    Message 1 of 1 , May 3, 2003
      Apologies for my unintentional multiple postings a few minutes ago. Something went wrong with the sending of the email which was only supposed to be once.

      The post I was trying to send has the total number of posts for eduard and I over the last week and is shown below. (... namely 94 posts for eduard and 81 posts for me ...but I'm sending too much ... ?!?)



      Susan wrote:

      > I don't reprimand publicly ...

      You are wrong! On the contrary you posted ....

      > *********************************
      > > "All right, children. Let's drop the religious discussion or take it
      > to
      > > one of the millions of chat channels echos, or groups that allows
      > such
      > > discussions," Susan said, dragging the discussion back to
      > > existentialism.

      [I consider this statement by you to be demeaning, condescending, tackless,uninformed, incorrect and impolite.]



      > > Wow! David - let's watch the language please...
      >As a child once said, "Why?". It's one time, and it's >realistic.


      BOTH of these, your posts, are TO THE LIST and not individually off list. Who is telling lies?

      Eduard has had no such reprimand on the list. Why? I call it hypocrisy!

      I ask again: What is being done about eduard's one liners that
      eduard admits is condescending and which appears to be the opposite of what you have stated?

      This requires an answer since the other reprimands above were on the list!

      > Your choice of words and tone is disturbing.

      Your choice of words alluding to me as a child and your complete misunderstanding of CHRISTIAN EXISTENTIALISM is extremely insulting and disturbing . According to you Kierkegaard would not be acceptable on this list because he talked about God ... though Kierkegaard is the FATHER OF EXISTENTIALISM!!!! Paul Tillich would likewise be unacceptable as he also spoke of God as a Christian Existentialist.

      This goes against what is written in the FAQ and I quote:


      1.1 Purpose
      This mailing list is a community interested in
      existentialism and phenomenology. Yes, ... Kierkegaard [ A Christian!] but also many others: ...


      3.1 Official List Pages
      The Existential Primer currently features
      profiles on the following writers/philosophers:
      ... Dostoevsky [A Christian!] .... Kierkegaard ...


      Your position is absurd, irrational and illogical and only shows your personal bias rather than any true understanding of CHRISTIAN EXISTENTIALISM. For that reason my post NEEDS to be in the open with the whole list. Don't hide your anti Christian Existentialist bias from the group!

      > I think you need a cat.

      I think you need better understanding of CHRISTIAN EXISTENTIALISM!

      > I don't think erratic and arbitrary are accurate
      > terms.

      I think they are totally apt ...especially in the context of your complete misunderstanding CHRISTIAN EXISTENTIALISM.

      > I do however, consider most in-depth discussions of > religion and God to be off topic.

      You are misunderstanding Christian Existentialism ... and that is part of the problem. I speak as an Educator and Philosopher and CHRISTIAN EXISTENTIALIST. It is my professional opinion. I refer you Chris' post:


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Exist List Moderator
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 3:21 AM
      Subject: [existlist] Faith and Existentialism


      If existentialism, at its core, is about self-definition during life
      through choices, then it is impossible for that self-definition to
      exist apart from an individual's beliefs / faith.

      At some point we choose to believe or not believe in the religion of
      our parents and the dominant faith of our culture. That is a choice,
      and therefore an "existential moment" of self. ...

      The existential "angst" comes only if one truly chooses a faith, as
      opposed to taking the path of least resistance and accepting a faith
      without truly challenging it first.

      The convert to a faith is admired because he or she truly made a "leap of faith" in the conversion. ...

      If I choose faith actively, then that is an existential moment. ...

      Christian Existentialism would suggest you cannot and should not coerce others into the faith since it must be chosen freely. ....

      All too often society in the 19th and 20th centuries used "science" to
      justify the mistreatment of minorities, which "faith" help correct via
      abolishment of slavery and the civil rights movements in the Western
      nations. ...


      I gather, from Chris's statement above that Christian Existentialism is acceptable as Existentialism and not regarded as merely 'religion' (like the religion of brushing my teeth). What is your view?

      This requires an answer!!!!!!!!!!!!

      > what you do in your spare time is up to you as
      > long as you don't violate anyone else's enjoyment of > this group.

      Ditto! ... including my right as a CHRISTIAN EXISTENTIALIST to talk about the FULL scope of Christian Existentialism on an Existentialist list. Faulty inductionist science has more freedom on this list that a true form of Existentialism - namely Christian Existentialism!

      > I would appreciate it if you can moderate your
      > posts to be more communicative and more
      > instructional for everyone in the group, formally
      > educated or not.

      I would appreciate it if you can moderate your uninformed posts to be more accepting of ALL Existentialist forms, including Christian Existentialism.

      > you posted 33 messages between 3:44 and 6:38 (my
      > time, not yours). That might be bit excessive for
      > such a small group.

      How many did I send during the whole day / week? How many did Eduard post? Count 'em! I give you the data ...............


      Eduard - 21 posts
      Mark - 16 posts (not including this one)


      Eduard - 16 posts
      Mark - 17 posts


      Eduard- 15
      Mark - 10


      Eduard - 7 posts
      Mark - 1 post


      Eduard - 11 posts
      Mark - 10 posts

      28 /4/03

      Eduard - 12 posts
      Mark - 16 posts


      Eduard - 12 posts
      Mark - 11 posts

      TOTAL FOR THE WEEK 27/4/03 - 3/5/03

      Eduard - 94
      Mark - 81

      ...and there is no bias! Pigs might fly!

      I sent my posts off in a batch instead of sitting at the computer all day! Some were complaints to you on which you have still not acted! This again shows your bias and arbitrary decisions which need to be clarified.

      > I'll have to have Christopher come up with a
      > reasonable limit so as not to be overwhelming.

      Your overt misunderstanding and bias against Christian Existentialism is dreadful! Again, I suggest you read posts in context rather than jumping to false conclusions and uninformed biased actions.

      Your avoidance is not an answer to any of my questions.

      Reply to the list. I have nothing to hide.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.