RE: Seely's Views 2

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Sun Sep 05 2004 - 14:29:09 EDT

 Hi Wayne,

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of
> Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 9:38 AM

> Anyway, I don't think your example of Clinton works well. It
> was pretty easy to guess that Clinton was lying after a short
> while about his flings. Only someone who really didn't want
> to see that about him could deny it. On the other hand,
> with respect to statecraft, his fidelity was not all that
> different from rest of the clowns who make it to the oval
> office. I would probably believe him more than I would
> our current incumbent on statecraft matters although to
> what degree may be debatable.

It wasn't just his amorous excursions I am speaking of. The first time
I got mad at Clinton was when the issue of him dodging the draft came up
in 1992. He said that he didn't know precisely his draft status or the
rules and that therefore he didn't shave the rules to get out of
Vietnam. I will say right here and now, I did what I could to avoid
that war. It was a war that my second cousin, a Brigadier General said
we were screwing up so badly and doing everything to lose. I decided
that I didn't want to be in a meatgrinder. My cousin agreed. Now that
that is out, I want to note that Clinton lied about not knowing his
exact draft status. Absolutely everyone of us who went through that war
KNEW in INFINITE detail what our draft status was and what our options

If Clinton had simply come out and said, 'yeah, I did what I could to
avoid the draft' I don't think anyone would have blinked an eye. I
wouldn't have. The vast majority of people my age were doing what they
could to avoid the meat-grinder.

And the I didn't inhale routine made great comedy schtick but wasn't
very believable. I too in my youth 'didn't inhale' either! :-) :-) :-)

So, as I said, Clinton lied when the truth would have worked.

> It seems that we usually figure out (at least after a few bad
> experiences) that certain people are not very reliable, and
> we learn that we don't do business with them. So whereas
> your idea is interesting, It looks like you are ignoring
> that not just one, but multiple criteria are used to separate
> BS from truth.

But how do we do that with God? We find out that people like Clinton
are untrustworthy by noting inconsistencies and by checking up on what
they say. We can look for inconsistencies, but we can't talk to God's
friends in heaven to see if he is interested in telling us the truth.

> Moreover, if the SN is greater than 1, then there is at least
> _some_ signal getting through and with sufficient time and
> repeated delivery, a full message would eventually be received.

In seismic, this is true. But in religion, we have one shot--one
measurement. So one can't drop the noise via summation.
Received on Sun Sep 5 14:43:06 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 05 2004 - 14:43:07 EDT