Bill's question:
"If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?"
This exchange is especially illustrative of how Bill Morgan operates. We started with a message posted by Liber8r about church-state separation, to which Bill posted yet another non sequitur, "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" OK, by a stretch of the imagination, we might be able to say that his question dealt with including religious instruction in public schools, but the question is too vague to determine that with any degree of certainty. In a way, this could have been one of the rare instances that Bill's response had anything at all to do with the preceding message.
Please note that even though I wrote a very thoughtful answer to his question, Bill plays a game of pretending that I had not answered the question. He repeatedly restates the same question and ignores my statements that I had already answered his question and that he needs to tell me why he believes that I had not, which he has never ever done any time that he has played this game. Finally, my temper flared and he tries to shut down all communication with a lame excuse that I told him just would not fly. That was the last message I ever received from Bill. After this, he never responded again to any message from me and, about a month later, he cancelled his email account and has not notified us of a new one since (as of the original writing of this page in 2000).
In the following text, I am "DWise1" and Bill Morgan is "BillyJack6." Liber8r was a third-party witness to our correspondence. I cannot vouch for the links and email addresses that Liber8r posted.
########################################### Subj: The Founding Fathers: Separation of Church and State Date: 98-07-07 17:47:06 EDT From: liber8r@mcs.net (-- The Liber8r --) To: zyckjr@omni.cc.purdue.edu (John Zyck), Lazarus@slip.net (Steven Worthem), maweber1@juno.com (Mike Weber), GLWenslow@aol.com (Georgia Wenslow (Karadimos)), naperbob49@aol.com (Bob Walters), NoraRizo@aol.com (Nora R), charmainer@hotmail.com (Charmaine R), smurphy16@yahoo.com (Sarah Murphy), billyjack6@aol.com (Bill Morgan), DRAKE5000@aol.com (Carlos Montemayor), ymmendez00@yahoo.com (Yvette Mendez), rush@eibnet.com (Rush Limbaugh), FMIMETALS@aol.com (Jeff K), dawnonly@juno.com (Dawn Dornan), DEFRN@aol.com (Chris Donley), DWise1@aol.com I found this on the Internet. Let's keep organized religion separate from government as our Founding Fathers intended it. --------------- "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." --John Adams "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."--Benjamin Franklin "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"--John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."--Thomas Jefferson "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between church and State."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT. "The Complete Jefferson" by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519 "History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt in 1813 "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution."--Thomas Jefferson, 1776 "And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."--James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822 "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."--Thomas Jefferson "It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will best be guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others."--James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty", edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN pp 237-238 "The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE."--James Madison "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."--Thomas Paine "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, not by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church."--Thomas Paine "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."--Thomas Paine "The adulterous connection between church and state."--Thomas Paine, from _The_Age_of_Reason_ "Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law."--Thomas Paine "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"--George Washington and John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 ------------- The Liber8r The Liber8r can be reached by e-mail, and web site respectively: liber8r@mcs.net http://www.mcs.net/~liber8r/ -------------------- ########################################### Subj: Re: Memorial and Remonstrance Date: 98-07-12 17:20:10 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him? ########################################### Subj: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-07-22 00:07:16 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1, liber8r@mcs.com Sorry about the delay. I've been extremely busy. ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: Memorial and Remonstrance Date: 98-07-12 17:20:10 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him? ### END ### Before I answer, I wish to ask that you state your point. From your question, you seem to be implying that kids are not being so taught, when the opposite is the case. You also seem to be implying that somebody is somehow preventing the religious instruction of children, which is, again, contrary to fact. If you have something to say, then please say it. If you have a claim to make, then please make it (and be willing to support it). If you have a proposal to make, then make it (and be ready to discuss the goals and consequences of that proposal). If you have a case to make, then please make it. If you have no case, then please say so and put an end to your charade. Over the years, I have seen and heard many creationists bewail that nobody will let them present their case. Well, for over a year, we have been asking you to please present your case, but you have steadfastly refused to do so. Please stop being so evasive and start being more forthright. Now as to your question: >If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?< But why place the condition of God's existence on your question? Are you saying that if God does not exist, then kids should NOT be taught about Her? I think that is too restrictive. Besides, wouldn't that also require you to have PROVEN God's existence before you could satisfy that condition to whether you would teach the kids about Her? There is also the question of what is to be meant by "be taught about Him." This can mean any of a number of things; eg: 1. To be taught about the mythology surrounding a god and about the traditions, rituals, dogma, organization, and history of the religion or religions associated with that god. 2. To be indoctrinated into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion. 3. To proselytize. Which meaning of "be taught about Him" do you intend? Or do you intend another meaning? We do know from experience that one of the principal purposes of creation science is to proselytize, so in the absence of any explanation from you (the usual state of affairs), we will have to assume that you are talking about proselytizing. The shifting of gender -- excuse me, Gender -- that I performed above points to another question, the little matter of which god. Whose god? Whose version of "God"? The Fundamentalist version? The Catholic version? The Mormon version? The Unitarian versions (ironically plural)? The Buddhist version? The Mandan version? Whose version? I know that you assume that it will be YOUR version of "God", but what if your child is going to be taught the Mormon, or the CATHOLIC! version of "God", then you may very well change your tune. Remember the bitter experience of the Catholics with the Protestant-run public school system in the 19th century. Or as Brother Orson expressed it (albeit in reference to prayer in the public schools) [quoted from memory]: "Of course, the Fundamentalists believe that it will be their religion that will be the one to be established. If they thought for one moment that the Catholic religion, or the MORMON religion was the one to be established, why, they'd be shoutin' FOR the First Amendment just as loud as they're shoutin' to have it torn apart." Elsewhere on the same subject of school prayer, Brother Orson said: "In the South, they'd all be saying Baptist prayers. And in Utah, they'd all be saying Mormon prayers. And in New York City, they'd spend all day praying to every god you'd ever heard of. AND EVERY PRAYER THEY SAY WOULD BE A BLASPHEMY! If you don't believe me, just read what happened to Aaron's two oldest sons." Even if you were to pick the Protestant version of "God", you would still have to decide among the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Anglican, Unitarian, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientist, Seventh Day Adventist, and several other versions of "God." Although some are very similar, they are still different versions. Most certainly, their versions' views concerning creation science are usually very different from your version's. I have often seen you condemn those other versions for not sharing your version's views on creationism and biblical literalism, so I can only assume that you would not want your children taught those versions either. At the same time, I would expect you to be able to see that most of the other parents do not want their children to be taught your version, either. So whose version of "God" are you talking about? There is also the question of "competent authority." This question goes beyond and ignores the question of an individual teacher's personal competence to teach a given subject; in considering this question, personal knowledge of subject matter and competence in teaching is assumed. Rather it addresses the question of who, as a group, would be authorized to perform the teaching. It also considers the allowable setting for the teaching; eg, public school classroom, church, the home. Hence, the question of "competent authority" considers where and by whom instruction should be conducted. Please note that the question of competent authority was central to James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance," to which you are responding (assuming that you are not just tossing out yet another non sequitur -- if I am mistaken in that assumption, then please let me know). Part of his conclusions is that the civil government is NOT a competent authority in matters of religion and faith and that the church is not a competent authority in matters of government. Another part of his conclusions is that history has shown us that the mixing of government and religion can only have evil and deliterious results, hence his advancement of a "Great Barrier" between government and religion, the original wall of separation between church and state, a few years before he drafted the Bill of Rights. Ever hear the term, "original intent"? Those questions must be considered in answering your question. Again, if you disagree in any way, then please explain how and why you disagree. Monosyllabic grunts and non sequiturs cannot be accepted because they cannot be understood. My answers to both of your questions, with amplifying explanations following, are: 1. "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" Yes in most cases and no in a few others. 2. "If God does not exist, should the kids still be taught about Him?" Yes in most cases and no in a few others. Now, what do I mean by "yes in most cases and no in a few others"? First of all, I am saying that the question of the existence of "God" has no bearing on the matter. There was an older participant on CompuServe's religion forum who had some really bizaare ideas, mainly focused around his belief in a form of word-magick (ie, that there is no such thing as objective reality, but rather that we create reality with our words). He had been a mathematician until he suffered a stroke. He claimed to have invented Gray code (which they may or may not still teach MEs and/or EEs -- at least they taught it to us technicians; Don Knuth's long-awaited fourth volume to The Art of Computer Programming is supposed to cover Gray code). To the question of obvious borrowings between the Code of Hammurabi and Mosaic Law, he claimed that Hammurabi's preceeding Moses by several centuries is proof that Hammurabi had copied it from Moses (seriously, he did make that claim). But he did make a couple interesting points. One was that it really does not matter whether the claims of Christianity are true, only that people believed them to be true and acted accordingly. European history and culture developed the way it did, NOT because Christianity was true (indeed, Bill "knows" that Catholicism is false), but because the people BELIEVED Christianity to be true. Even if Christianity were completely false, that would have made absolutely no difference to the effect it had on European history and culture. BTW, he was a Christian. He also pointed out what Genesis does say about the Creation, which most of us had not realized. Therefore, I ask you again: do you believe that the Bible tells you that God directly created all life on earth? You should not have any problem answering this simple question, since it should be an article of faith for you. Regarding the meaning of "taught about Him" as being taught about the mythology surrounding a god and about the traditions, rituals, dogma, organization, and history of the religion or religions associated with that god, then of course the kids should learn about the gods. Whether they actually existed or not, the gods have still been an important part of our culture and our history. Much of our literature and art cannot be understood without a grounding in mythology and in religious symbolism. Much of our history cannot be understood without an understanding of the cultures involved and religion is a major part of most of those cultures. And much of modern-day politics, especially Republican, cannot be understood without an understanding of the religious ideologies involved. Also, a number of those religious traditions are still practiced and taken seriously by their adherents, so knowledge and understanding of what others believe is important if we are to interact with others effectively. Remember, we have already tried ignorance, so we know that it does not work. The question of which version of "God" would be taught is largely moot here, since the approachs taken would usually perform a survey of a number of different versions. As to the matter of competent authority, this manner of being "taught about Him" should enjoy the broadest range. Comparative religions and the history of religions is an acceptable part of college and public school curricula, although some religious groups may object to the objective study of their own religion, especially if their teachings about their history or their delusions of uniqueness disagree with reality. Comparative religion can also be an acceptable part of a church's religious education program; the UUA's youth RE programs explicitly include a curriculum for learning about other religions and visiting other churches. Competent authority for teaching by this approach includes public school teachers, RE teachers, parents, and just about anybody who is personally competent to teach the subject matter. Instruction could be conducted almost anywhere. The only problems that could arise would be due to not teaching objectively or without respect for the beliefs of others. So to the question of: "Regardless of whether any of the gods exist, should the kids be taught by competent authority about them and about the religions associated with them?" I would answer "Yes." You already know my opinion regarding the meaning of "taught about Him" as being indoctrinated into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion. I am appalled at people who have grown up in a church and yet are ignorant about that religion. Kids should be taught this, but they should only be taught THEIR OWN VERSION of "God" and the competent authority to teach them this are their religious leaders and family, or those appointed to the task by their religious leaders and family. Competent authority does NOT include agents of the civil government -- eg, public school officials and teachers -- except as appointed individually by the appropriate religious authorities and only while acting outside their government capacity. I.e., a government official may conduct sectarian religious instruction as a private individual, but not as a government official. The appropriate place for this form of teaching is the home, the church, and other approved sites. The public schools are not an appropriate site during school and under the supervision of school officials or other government agents. Please note the approach officially taken by Boy Scouts of America, Inc. BSA is the competent authority for requiring "duty to God", but they are NOT competent authority for defining precisely what that duty is or entails for each and every individual member. Officially, they delegate full responsibility and authority for religious definitions and interpretation to the family and religious leaders of each individual member and they officially require that each individual member be judged by the standards of that member's own religious tradition. BSA officially recognizes that it is NOT the competent authority in religious matters. All the legal problems involving religion that BSA has been having this decade are directly caused by BSA trying to assume for itself the role of competent authority in religious matters, in direct violation of its own officially published rules and policies. Also please note that applying this meaning of "taught about Him" does not exclude those kids from the previous meaning. They are not mutually exclusive. Kids can learn both their own religion AND about the religions and beliefs of others. I personally believe that they SHOULD learn both. So to the question of: "Should kids be taught and indoctrinated by competent authority into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion, regardless of whether the god(s) of that religion exists?" I would answer "Yes." Finally, there's the matter of kids being "taught about Him" as part of a proselytizing effort to convert them to a different religion. That kind of teaching of children should ONLY be permissible if it is done with the explicit and expressed permission of the parents, which I do not believe would be a common occurance. The only competent authority for this kind of teaching of children are the parents and those appointed by the parents. Strangers off the streets, such as yourself, Bill, are NOT competent authorities. Public school activities run by school officials are NOT IN THE LEAST BIT the appropriate place for this kind of instruction. There is also the matter of peer proselytizing, which may seem innocent but which can turn out to be insidious. The government is not involved, you say, but rather it is a fellow student sharing his faith with his friends. Well, one of my previous bosses was born a fundamentalist, as was his son, Todd. When Todd would return from college on break, he would work with us. One day, he shared with me that he was lonely at school, so I mentioned to him that there are normally a lot of Christian student clubs and that he might find fellowship there. He said that he had already tried, but all that those clubs would do was to plot how to convert the rest of the student body, something that he found very distasteful. Checking around after that, I found that the practice was indeed widespread. Recruit fundamentalist students, train them in proselytizing techniques, and unleash them on an unsuspecting student body under the quest of self-initiated witnessing. Yeah, real innocent, that. Bill, we know that your primary interest in creation science is as a tool for proselytizing. We also know that your efforts include creation science presentations in high schools. Therefore, from the context of your efforts, I would read that the meaning of your question is that kids in the public schools should be taught creation science as a means of converting them to your religion. To that I cannot agree and must answer with an emphatic "no," especially since creation science consists almost entirely of false and misleading claims. So to the question of: "Should kids be proselytized to as part of a concerted effort to convert them to another religion?" I would answer "ONLY if it is done by their OWN parents or by those expressly appointed BY their OWN parents. NEVER without their parents' consent and NEVER under to auspices of the government (eg, through a public school)." As always, if you disagree with my answer or wish to criticize it, then please explain your disagreement and/or criticism intelligibly. As I have learned to expect, you will not do so. Though I hope to be surprised. A pessimist must be the happiest person alive. Most of the time he has the satisfaction of being right, and occasionally he is pleasantly surprised. ########################################### Subj: Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-07-22 10:05:38 EDT From: liber8r@mcs.net (-- The Liber8r --) To: DWise1@aol.com, BillyJack6@aol.com CC: liber8r@mcs.com File: ShouldKi.txt (24565 bytes) DL Time (14400 bps): < 1 minute Gentlemen: Interesting topic and a very in-depth response by Mr. Wise. Here's something for your entertainment. I hope that you see the connection. Also, note that my site has a new URL. It's at ---> http://www.liberator.net Yep, its own domain name! :) ---------- What Really Controls The Universe? by The Liber8r (Ordained Minister of the ULC) Answer: As written in The Book of Phluk, a chaotic horde of gremlins control The Universe. [DWise1: clipped, but available at liber8r's site] The Liber8r The Liber8r can be reached by e-mail, and web site respectively: liber8r@mcs.net http://www.liberator.net/ ---------- [DWISE1: clipped the repeating of my previous message] ########################################### Subj: Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-07-23 01:17:10 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 yes or no? BillyJack6 Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" ########################################### ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-07-23 01:17:10 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 yes or no? ### END ### To fill Liber8r in, I responded to this one on-line and forgot to CC: it. My response was to the effect that I had already answered that question, quite clearly and fully, I had thought. And if Bill believed that I had not answered that question, then he needed to explain why he believed that to be the case. I admit that I did a bit of shouting in my response, but you must realize that I have already asked for Bill to explain his reasoning in rejecting my answers in the past. Indeed, in my original response to his question, I had written: "Those questions must be considered in answering your question. Again, if you disagree in any way, then please explain how and why you disagree. Monosyllabic grunts and non sequiturs cannot be accepted because they cannot be understood." and "As always, if you disagree with my answer or wish to criticize it, then please explain your disagreement and/or criticism intelligibly. As I have learned to expect, you will not do so. Though I hope to be surprised." So what was Bill's response? This: ### BEGIN BILL'S RESPONSE ### Subj: Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-07-29 10:10:30 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1, liber8r@mcs.com ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-07-28 02:01:26 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 If God exists....should Kids be taught about God in school. Please answer yes or no. ### END ### ### END BILL'S RESPONSE ### You have already read my on-line response to this one. ########################################### Subj: Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-07-28 02:01:26 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 If God exists....should Kids be taught about God in school. Please answer yes or no. BillyJack6 Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" ########################################### Subj: Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-07-29 10:10:30 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1, liber8r@mcs.com ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-07-28 02:01:26 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 If God exists....should Kids be taught about God in school. Please answer yes or no. ### END ### I already told you that I did answer your f###ing question (replied on-line; forgot to CC it). Pardon the profanity, but my patience with your stupid games is wearing thin. Again, I must shout so that you can hear me: IF YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT I DID NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THEN *E*X*P*L*A*I*N* **I**N**T**E**L**L**I**G**I**B**L**Y** WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT AND WHAT YOUR OBJECTION TO MY ANSWER IS! EVERY SINGLE TIME that you have played your game of "you did not answer my question!" (eg, when I answered your question about the age of the earth, when I answered your question about CFCs in the stratosphere), I have made the same request and EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU HAVE REFUSED TO RESPOND. Therefore, you indicate that there really was nothing wrong with any of my answers, that I did indeed answer your questions, and that you are just playing games. Your move. ########################################### Subj: Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-08-07 22:42:48 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 In a message dated 98-07-29 10:10:30 EDT, you write: << If God exists....should Kids be taught about God in school. Please answer yes or no. ### END ### I already told you that I did answer your f###ing question (replied on-line; forgot to CC it). Pardon the profanity, but my patience with your stupid games is wearing thin. Again, I must shout so that you can hear me: IF YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT I DID NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THEN *E*X*P*L*A*I*N* **I**N**T**E**L**L**I**G**I**B**L**Y** WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT AND WHAT YOUR OBJECTION TO MY ANSWER IS! EVERY SINGLE TIME that you have played your game of "you did not answer my question!" (eg, when I answered your question about the age of the earth, when I answered your question about CFCs in the stratosphere), I have made the same request and EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU HAVE REFUSED TO RESPOND. Therefore, you indicate that there really was nothing wrong with any of my answers, that I did indeed answer your questions, and that you are just playing games. Your move. >> Sorry if I have frustrated you. I honestly get 50 emails a day, tutor math, teach Bible studies, and do many other things (golf leagues volleyball leagues etc) What I am saying is I may be too busy to give you the long answers you desire. Sorry. But I can't meet your needs. bILL ########################################### Subj: Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-08-11 22:50:01 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: liber8r@mcs.net, DWise1 ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-08-07 22:42:48 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 In a message dated 98-07-29 10:10:30 EDT, you write: << If God exists....should Kids be taught about God in school. Please answer yes or no. ### END ### I already told you that I did answer your f###ing question (replied on-line; forgot to CC it). Pardon the profanity, but my patience with your stupid games is wearing thin. Again, I must shout so that you can hear me: IF YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT I DID NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THEN *E*X*P*L*A*I*N* **I**N**T**E**L**L**I**G**I**B**L**Y** WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT AND WHAT YOUR OBJECTION TO MY ANSWER IS! EVERY SINGLE TIME that you have played your game of "you did not answer my question!" (eg, when I answered your question about the age of the earth, when I answered your question about CFCs in the stratosphere), I have made the same request and EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU HAVE REFUSED TO RESPOND. Therefore, you indicate that there really was nothing wrong with any of my answers, that I did indeed answer your questions, and that you are just playing games. Your move. >> Sorry if I have frustrated you. I honestly get 50 emails a day, tutor math, teach Bible studies, and do many other things (golf leagues volleyball leagues etc) What I am saying is I may be too busy to give you the long answers you desire. Sorry. But I can't meet your needs. bILL ### END ### >>But I can't meet your needs.<< But, Bill, you have it all turned around. It is that *I* cannot meet YOUR needs. Unless you work with me. My frustration is in your refusal to allow me to answer YOUR questions satisfactorily. YOU asked the question, "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" That expressed YOUR need for me to answer that question. I did just that, as Liber8r witnessed. YOUR response indicated that YOU believed that I had not answered YOUR question, even though both Liber8r and I believed that I had. So I informed you that I had already answered your question. Yet your response to that message again indicated that YOU believed that I had not answered YOUR question. Why you might believe that I had not answered your question, I have no idea. That is why I asked you to please explain INTELLIGIBLY. I asked you to explain, because your mere repeating of the same question over and over again did nothing to inform me of what your objections were. I said "intelligibly", because the vast majority of the few replies you do offer cannot be understood because they are extremely curt (which I have characterized as "grunts") and totally lacking context. Even you should be able to realize that a question which cannot be understood also cannot be answered. I shouted "INTELLIGIBLY" because you seen to be "hard of hearing," as evidence by your not "heard" that word the several times that I had said it before -- though you did manage to send a couple intelligible messages. If you were running a business, you would [hopefully] try to meet the needs of your customers. If you were to fill a customer's order and he complained that what you gave him was not what he had ordered, then you would want to find out what he did want. You would ask him. If all he did was to repeat the very same order that you had misunderstood the first time, then you would ask him to explain what it was that he wanted and why your previous filling of that very same order was unsatisfactory. If he refused to explain anything, yet still demand that you fill his order, then what can you do? The customer has to help you help him, or else nothing will get done. My previous experience with you caused me to expect you to reject my answer, so in my original answer to your question, I specifically said that if you were to object to my answer, to please explain what you objected to. I asked the same thing each time you repeated the question without any explanation or clarification. I did the same thing when I answered your questions about CFCs in the stratosphere, when I answered your question about mitosis and meiosis, and when I answered your question about the geological evidence for an ancient earth. And each and every time you objected to my answers, claiming that I had not answered the question, and each and every time you refused to explain your objections or your FALSE claims that I had not answered your question. As a result, we have learned not to take your objections seriously. How could we take them seriously, when all indications are that they are groundless and that you are just putting on an act. All we can assume is that you have a proselytizing script laid out in which I was supposed to respond in some stereotypical way so that you could then hit me with your carefully crafted punch line. You didn't expect to have to think about anything in the process. You were simply not prepared for answers of such high quality. Pearls have been cast before you and you do not know what to do. >>What I am saying is I may be too busy to give you the long answers you desire.<< I am not asking for "long answers". All I am asking for is INTELLIGIBLE answers. I apologize for assuming that you know enough English to understand what "intelligible" means and for assuming that you know what a dictionary is and how to use one to look up words that you do not understand. According to my Merriam-Webster dictionary that I keep in my office, "intelligible" means "capable of being understood or comprehended." If you have trouble understanding the words in that definition, please ask your wife to help you look them up; women's verbal skills do tend to be superior to men's. There is nothing in the definition of "intelligible" about it having to be "long". All that an intelligible answer should require is that it addresses the question and that it identifies its context. All that could be done in less space than you took in the message to which I am responding now. An intelligible answer should address the question. The question in question here is: "Why do you believe that I did not answer your question and what is your objection to my answer?" As with most of my questions, you have either completely failed to respond (most common -- you still need to substantiate your ludicrous "100%" claim), responded with a question of your own on an entirely different subject (and to which YOU DEMAND an answer and reject the answer I give you for mysterious reasons you refuse to divulge), responded with a non sequitur, or responded with unintelligible monosyllables which I have called "grunts". An intelligible answer should identify its context. A monosyllabic "yes" or "no" means absolutely nothing unless coupled with the question or statement that it is in response to. Likewise, "It's not!" is absolutely meaningless. The simplest and most time-effective method of providing context is to use the Clipboard to copy the text being responded to into the response. Since you appeared to not know this (1. you would not do it and 2. you expressed ignorance of it by saying that you would have to retype everything that I had typed), I repeatedly offered to help you learn what the Clipboard is and how to use it, to which, for whatever reason, you avoided any and all discussion, except to respond once with derision at my sincere offer to be of assistence. However, you have since demonstrated that you are familiar with using the Clipboard, so providing context should no longer be a problem for you. Has this clarified for you the matter of intelligible answers? >>I honestly get 50 emails a day, tutor math, teach Bible studies, and do many other things (golf leagues volleyball leagues etc)<< What, no mention whatsoever of 50 to 60-hour work-weeks, such as I'm pulling? You mean you don't have to work for a living? There you are rolling in all kinds of free time and yet you're complaining about having no time? You should go back to work for a while so you can see how easy you have it! Gee, Bill, if I can squeeze minutes out of my over-60-hour week to write thoughtful answers to your questions, why do you think that, with all that free time on your hands, you cannot write a short and intelligible explanation of why you claim that I had not answered your question? You would accomplish that task easily in all the time you spend bitching and moaning about how little time you have. >>I honestly get 50 emails a day, ... << You know, Bill, anywhere between one-third to one-half of those 50 emails a day are requests for you to answer their questions, for you to explain what your cryptic grunts meant, why you falsely claimed that they did not answer your question, why you falsely claimed to have answered all of their questions, why you keep suggesting something that they have already told you several times would be impossible to do, etc. You would have far fewer emails, of higher quality, if you were to just answer your emails honestly and INTELLIGIBLY and refrain from jerking everyone around. You would even start to enjoy doing email, rather than finding it an odious task, as you currently do. It's up to you to set the tone. >>bILL<< Gotta watch out for that "Caps Lock" key!A few jobs back, I had to talk computer-illiterate customers through DOS commands over the phone; eg, using EDLIN to edit batch files. Not only could I do it with my eyes closed (in order to visualize what was on their screen), but from the error messages I could usually tell what mistake they had made; eg: "Now type 'a:' and press <ENTER>." "It says, 'Bad command or file name.'" "Did you type 'a:'?" "Yes." "Does the colon have a tail on it?" "Yes." "That's a semi-colon. Use the shift key this time." Amazed them every time. But now with Windows, it's almost impossible to visualize what they're doing; there are too many important visual cues that are missed by the clueless mind (ie, by a novice who doesn't yet know what those cues mean, like the difference between a gray and a blue caption on a window). >> ... volleyball leagues ... << I forget where I heard this recently. On the subject of nudity in the movies, someone said that when most people see a naked body, they immediately think of sex. But when a nudist sees a naked body, he/she immediately thinks of ... volleyball! Share and enjoy! ########################################### No further response from Bill. Never any explanation why he falsely thought I had not answered his question. After this, he never responded again to any message and, about a month later, he cancelled his email account and did not publish a new one, at least not in his newsletter until a full year later. His message of 1998 August 07, 22:42:48 EDT, was the last message I received from Bill Morgan.
Two years later, we started another correspondence. Unfortunately, Bill seemed to still be up to his old tricks.
Over the next decade, we corresponded on-and-off, usually with him fleeing the correspondence. Each time, he has just gotten worse and worse.
Share and enjoy!
Return to Top of Page
Return to DWise1's "Bill Morgan's 'Unanswerable' Questions" Page
Return to DWise1's "Bill Morgan" Page
Return to DWise1's "Creation/Evolution" Page
First uploaded on 2000 July 02.
Updated on 2015 October 21.