"Br. Alexis Bugnolo" wrote:
> Dear Mr. St. Lawrence,
> You attempt to characterize my perfecly appropriate remark is unfounded.
> If you think the statement false; then bring forth evidence to support it.
another fallacy. Something isn't true because it is not proven untrue.
You refer to the 1. atheists who 2. wind up back in the Church and 3. talk about
their family life with 4. priests who then 5. happen to remember them in
particular and then 6. pass this generalization (without complete data or
methodological explantion) to you. From this data, oddly selected and poorly
handled and then weirdly homogenized, I am supposed to believe that you have an
Why should I take this seriously?
And how is any of this medieval?
> This is supposed to be a scholarly discussion. That evidence for a remark
> is clinical is not disqualifiable. Ask any medical researcher.
is that apostrophe or anastrophe? I can never remember. Anyway, it still isn't
an argument. I have alread addressed the substane of this, what there is, above.
> Nor are
> psychological remarks; since humans are motivated by their experiences;
> then and now. And the context of my remark was about pastoral approaches to
> atheism, so don't pretend it was something else, and so fault me for it.
I have discussed what you have put on my screen. It is you who have assigned
subtexts to everyone who disagrees with you.
> The brass tacks of it is, that you just don't like like the statement.
case in point. You can't make your argument, so you pretend to be able to read my
mind. The statement is (once again) 1. unsupported and 2. off topic.
> let's recognize that there are just as wildly different senses of etiquette
> as there are ideological viewpoints and approaches on the list.
I did, do, and respect them. I have asked that you do the same and you have
played the victim. Yet again I wish you would take your own advice.
> But don't expect me to conform my correspondence to sentiment or etiquette
> that has no basis in reason, let alone which is based on ideological
> positions which I do not hold.
demonstrate that this is the basis of these rules. You have not even demonstrated
that you know what they are.
> You may not believe there is something that
> is Truth, o.k. but don't demand that I conform myself to your sensibilities
> thus derived. A little professionalism please.
when you demonstrate professionalism, you and I will no longer have a problem.
Your inability to recognize the bounds of this list's topics, make an argument,
your penchant for logical fallacies, and your constant recourse to personal
remarks and insinuations makes me wonder how I can consider you a professional at
all. Again, I have discussed your bizarre posts in detail. I have not pretended
to know what you think.
> How can anyone of us learn anything about the Medieval period is there is
> such a hrumpha over beliefs which are certainly part and parcel of the period.
another victim fantasy. I have not and will not object to such a discussion.
Would you care to have one?
> As for being medieval; perhaps some of the list members think it is
> impossible to have or hold a medieval ideal. They're entitled to have and
> form an opinion. But I am not required to conduct myself according to their
> opinion. I think you can, even in the present, hold and live by a medieval
> ideal. Simply because I hold the philosophical position, like St. Thomas,
> or Scotus, that ideas transcend time and participate in eternity.
I reprint this for the benefit of anyone who did not read it the first time. I
will only say that I think it's a remarkable statement.
> If you find that offensive, I suggest you stop studing Medieval Religion
> and move on to a period where you can find ideas that are more in
> conformity with your sensiblities.
you are not the study of medieval religion. I study medieval religion in its
medieval context and do not invent ways of privileging my opinion of it here in
the present, as you have done above and on other occasions.
> I for one do not cease to be amazed how many members of this list, even
> members of respectible faculties, can have such a gregarious distain for
> views that characterized the period and for ideals which certainly where
> held by some in the period.
refer to some and see how much I don't show a "gregarious distain" [sic] for them.
> It is not I who am not being objective and impartial.
I'll leave that to the judgement of third parties.
> So let's leave it be; if you don't like my posts, read others. And if you
> want the last word, please write me directly and I'll let you have it. That
> will at least spare the listmembers.
sparing the listmembers is something I've been asking you to do from the