Kirt:
>Interesting interpretation. I think, though, you may have it backwards.
>Perhaps if I was outraged/fed-up/"gotten to" that would mean there is
>more to it than meets the eye. Boredom might be boredom, not necessarily
>insult and disrespect.

I make a distinction between being bored and expressing it. If I am bored
with something, I have a natural tendency to want to ignore it, whereas if
I proclaim my boredom, I am sending a different message.

>Are we talking about the same issue? Who's beating their opponents into
>submission? I'm playing cards in the other room and sent a telegram
>praising Ward's efforts. ;) And be clear: I am not trying to change
>anyone--I am defining myself.

Ok, but even a detached and causally delivered telegram can have an
intimidating effect. That was my whole (but poorly expressed) point.

>I'm surprised at how emotionally-laden the word "boredom" is to you. I am
>also bored by gems (a subject I know little about) and fusion jazz (a
>subject I know much about).

You are making my point again. I think I would feel quite rejected if you
compared me to fusion jazz or a gem.  I find it a lot more painful if
somebody is bored with me than if they blow up in my face. The latter I can
respond to - the former is like being invisible, insignificant, ignored.

>Boredom may be a lack of passion not evidence of a closed mind.

That is true. But they do often go together.

> But mostly, again, I have no opponent--no creationist
>opponent, not gemology(?) opponent, no Kenny G opponent. I don't want a
>hypothetical creationist, gem-studded, fusion sax player to change
>according to my beliefs at all.

Well, what do you expect when you have bored them away. ;-)

>As I mentioned a couple times, I was referring to how the debate is played
>out in letters to the editor columns--and other reading I have done on the
>subject--not simply this list.

My misunderstanding. I did not take you writing to the editor literally.

>You know, Peter, if it is not an issue inspiring boredom for you, great,
but that >doesn't necessarily mean that I am somehow deficient because the
issue is more tired, >old, and worn out for me.

Of course not.

>If you are worried that someone will be afraid to post a creationist
>rebuttal to Ward's post(s) because I am bored by the issue in general,
>perhaps it would help if I assured you that I mostly likely wouldn't even
>respond

Unfortunately, it does not look like it is going to make a difference. It
seems the creationists on the list wish to remain a silent majority. :-(

>(unless it was NFL who I might be "inspired" by ;)).

For sure they have inspired you to some of your most creative writing.

>Well, I don't think Ward is _too_ passionate, but he does play a very
>useful role, as you say. You'll be frustrated, though, if you expect me to
>to be a teacher to everyone on every subject. I am a learner first and
>foremost ;)

I have no such expectations.  We are close to a hundred subscribers yet
only few are posting these days, and I am just trying to make sure that
everybody realizes that the list a safe place for everybody to post no
matter what their view.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]