Emails

If existence of a conscience is a hypothetical proof
of God, does that mean we can refute God by showing that
conscience is absence in at least one individual?If so ... what about sociopaths ?

On a more serious note, I'd don't know about America law, but under British law the copyright on a letter, or e-mail, is still owned by the sender and any reproduction is thus illegal.Not that anyone is likely to do anything about it, but I'd exercise caution if I were you, MessanjaH.

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

Truly this is a conundrum of Miss Manners proportions.

---

Not really.It has never been considered appropriate to post email received privately to a public discussion list without the express permission of the person who wrote the email in the first place.That's the entire point behind writing to a person off-list: You don't want your comments to be made public but you do wish to make a comment to the person. If you had meant for your words to be made public, you would have posted them in a public forum. Since you did not but rather sent them privately, your intent was that they were to remain private.As one netiquette source puts it, quoting from Virginia Shea: And, of course, there is RFC1855: That doesn't mean you have any sort of recourse should someone violate netiquette. As you say, you shouldn't be surprised if your private messages get out into the public world. It happens, there are jerks in the world, and we have to learn to live with it.That doesn't make it right, however, and many discussion groups have that as a rule which can get your posting privileges suspended.As far as Mr Jack's comment about copyright, that is a bit bizarre under US law.That is, the words are copyrighted by the author, but the physical item is property of the recipient. That is, if you were to write me a physical letter, you would own the copyright on the words you wrote, but I could physically show the letter to anybody I wanted.How this applies to email where there is no physical item, I'm not quite sure.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Well, yes. You can show anyone you like a book, but the copyright on the book is owned by the author, or publisher. Same with e-mail, and physical letters, you could show someone your copy, but you couldn't photocopy it, or copy the words somewhere else.With e-mail, legal precedent has it that sending someone else a copy, or posting the contents, or printing it out and giving it to other people is copyright violation.

"Especially the long one that strikes me as being deliberately nasty. "
--but with all the authors whit and charm!Cheers,
-Chris Grose

It might be academic by now, but the whole of the first post seems to be exactly the same as what's written here.In which case, I don't suppose privacy restrictions would apply.PE

I guess the guy copied and pasted that and mailed it to me. It's a legit email.------------------
-chris

I'm sorry you received it Messenjah. It is stupid and hateful.

I don't care too much, I'm just glad I havent met anyone like that in real life. lol

It seem messegjah, that some individuals are a lot more inclined to be nasty when they can hide. I certainly hope that neither of us meet one like that in real life who wants to be that ugly.

Although the truth may not be attractive, it is still the truth. Religion is just a means of control to make life look sweet and kind and precious and that people are special- the truth is, we're just animals trying to live out our lives on a planet in the middle of nowhere, and we don't need limitations like religion to keep our species from advancing as a society. Sure, the ideas religions propose really do LOOK attractive, but a delapidated department store can have a facade put up to make it look like new, and a child molester can wear a suit and tie, and say good morning to you, and look like a perfect guy. My point is that one should look for truth, not for a satisfying and simple way to explain things.One of my colleages wrote this:
I'm sorry to say this, but Christianity is flawed in all of its outlooks on creation and the world origins. Christianity relies upon the teachings of a book to figure out its opinions. In this, they already have preset opinions and modify the world perspective to work around this book. In science, we take raw observations and facts and formulate theories upon those observations. In this way science is superior to religion in that it takes the raw facts and doesn't factor in the inaccurate written prenotions such as the bible into its assimilation of knowledge. Many of you wonder about the perspective of evolutionists, well, look at ancient Greek polytheism- looks pretty silly, huh. Well, that's how we see religion as a whole, silly and childish. By the way, speaking of childish, that is the only reason religion is successful- because they start out at a young age, telling them stories and about magical things like miracles and angels. What kid isn't going to believe that? Then once they grow older, they retain those teachings (who's to tell them otherwise), and defend them with such blindness that they can't see their own ignorance. Their ignorance brings them so far as to try to get other people to recruit into their church. They send missionaries to Africa and feed them (don't have a problem with it), but not with a kind heart to feed these people, but with a kind heart that "god" will save them if the missionaries teach them to be "good christians." Many complain that science doesn't have its own organized institutions, but that is the reason why we don't have a massive unition of people because then we want everyone to think what we think- which isn't fair to others.

The problem is that I had complex way to explain things but that "simple" view of religion BY balanced evolutionary culture was to blame not nominal Chritianity for me being committed out of state. Nature is not some neat IVY LEAGUE handout. I simply walked across it just as the word finger is actually the word LINGER, longer.

So you just posted that as your own on origin of God thread? You repeat the same thing twice now, stop with the broken record. "Poor defenseless people..." I can write my own posts... Reply to me on origin thread because right now you are defenseless.[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 10-29-2003]

Do you actually know any Christians? You seem astoundingly ignorant of their nature and motivations.

Yes, i know many intelligent people and unintelligent people who are devout christians, and many of them are ignorant fools- calling all muslims "damn terrorists" and arguing in history class about events and dates, while refusing to use the common term CE (common era) in favor of AD in our history class (CE was the predetermined calendar terminology of our textbook) and arguing that it is more accurate. I'm not going to argue that CE is more accurate, but i didn't complain all these years in school when we used AD.