Replies

p.s. (JWinNC: Post originally to beezdotcom. If you don't like my analogy in post #215 then use the hypothetical in this post)

No - and that didn't happen here. She is a CP advocate. She's probably also many other things which weren't mentioned, but which would not have drawn rebuke had Harvey mentioned them instead. It's only one "inconvenient truth" which angered some.

He was given the floor on the basis and premise that he would introduce a CP advocate about which there is no controversy or disagreement. If she had been suffering from some life shortening disease (CP is not?), and if it had been the Alabama legislature and if he had introduced her and then said "Oh, by the way, she's a lesbian with a partner and two children and how can you possibly think of depriving her survivors of their rights?" because he was against the Defense of Marriage legislation that was certain to be passed later in the day, well, that would have been wrong too. In that case it would have been all the leftists going "SWEET - they tried to stop him but he got it in" and some in FR would be condeming him. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored. All I'm saying that we must all follow the rules, especialy in something as important as a legislature, or the whole thing falls apart. And just because we feel that God's on our side and we're not getting what we want doesn't give us the right to do what Harvey did.

No - but even if I would, are you obligated to volunteer that information if I don't ask? (You haven't yet, by the way, and I _DID_ ask.)

You go first. Then, instead of responding to your arguments, I can take the easy way out and dismiss you out of hand for being a member of some "doctrinally incorrect" group that are not "real" Christians. Are sneaky tricks good doctrine in some denominations? Please let me know so I can avoid them just like you'd avoid me if I'm the "wrong kind". Maybe the solution to our troubles is to have all the Christians with law degrees pretend to renounce their faith and then join the ACLU and NARL. Once we have enough people in positions of power on the inside we can launch a coup from within and destroy the organization. Would that violate some tenet of Christianity? "I'm a mole for Jesus!" would make it all OK?

And you've got it backwards. Supposing, as engineers, we were discussing whether a bridge were properly designed and I supported my argument with "I'm a Christian in a state of grace and so my calculations are better than yours." I would have introduced my faith into a situation where it did not belong.

As an aside, I've had a sincere Christian engineer tell me that he prayed over his design and, on that basis, he was certain that it was right. I had to disabuse him of that notion. Faith will not keep a bridge from falling down. If there are no atheists in foxholes then there are not so many in engineering labs either because a whole lot of praying goes on but in the end, the bridge stands or falls.

Conspiracy, hijacking - nothing like peppering your argument with a little al Qaida language. Doesn't make it true, however. Harvey spoke at the time he was allowed to speak. That's hardly "hijacking".

The word "hijacking" was meant as a direct precursor to the common and universal "highjacking a thread" reference that followed.

Try hijacking a thread on FreeRepublic and see if it gets you anywhere with the other people on the thread.

Non sequitur.

Not at all. If people have congregated to discuss topic "A" you don't break in and insist they discuss what you want to discuss. You start a new thread. The difference is that with FR you are free to come and go as you please and many threads can happen simultaneously. In a legislature you can't go "start a new thread", they have rules of order, and Harvey couldn't handle that they didn't want to talk about what he wanted to talk about. So he lied to them, got the floor, and then talked about what he wanted to talk about. Frankly, the high merit of what he wanted to talk about is completely irrelevant to me because EVERYONE thinks what they want to talk about is in the same category.

"JWinNC: Post originally to beezdotcom. If you don't like my analogy in post #215 then use the hypothetical in this post."

What hypothetical? The "lesbian thing" in the first paragraph?

And I must note that this is inaccurate:

"He was given the floor on the basis and premise that he would introduce a CP advocate about which there is no controversy or disagreement."

This has alredy been coverd in our discussion. He used the time that was normal and expected to introduce visitors nad make announcements. He could have introduced you or I or anyone else at that time. He was NOT given the floor on the basis and premise you claim.