Re: serious

From: wallyshoes <>
Date: Thu Jan 08 2004 - 21:47:53 EST

Phillip Jones wrote:

> Walt,
> You said:
> > Yes! I am hostile towards people who say I must be fearful of you (You
> > were not the one who said it.)
> Your hostility was unwarranted. My use of the word "fear" in my comment was
> made in a light-hearted context, and in no way indicated that you, Walt
> 'wallyshoes', ever needed to be in fear of Howard J. Van Till.

One of the problems with email is that "light-heartedness" is never evident
without the ;) or other indication. I am as guilty of that as the next person.

> Unsure as to
> why hostility is your default method for expressing opposition

It is not a general default position. I guess that I may tend to get hostile
when someone suggests that I have to fear somebody and I believe that he was
serious. An obvious character flaw. Goes back to a less than desirable
childhood ;)

> , especially
> on a theological list.

That's another problem that I have ====> "theology". I keep thinking of these
posts as Christianity and Science. Those I can master somewhat. Theology is way
over my head. (Ask George Murphy) ;)

Regrets on any misunderstandings.


Walt Hicks <>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
Received on Thu Jan 8 21:48:22 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 08 2004 - 21:48:23 EST