From: "Jennifer"
Subject: Re: Atheism
I truly feel sorry for you because it is obvious that you are full of anger and malice toward anyone who would challenge you.
Continuing with Jennifer's response to my email, how does she deal with my insistence that I have no reason to take seriously the "critiques" of someone who misrepresents even the simplest things that I write? She attacks me as being angry because she challenged me.
A person can't challenge me by misrepresenting what I write, though. That's called a "straw man" and is a logical fallacy (one of several that Jennifer commits over the course of several emails). Moreover, it isn't "anger" or "malice" to keep pointing out her errors. On the contrary, I am very much amused by the fact that she keeps trying to ignore the manner in which she misrepresented me.
Funny, I thought you would recognize your own references, I didn't realize you needed directions to your own thoughts
There are around 20,000 pages on the site. I add several hundred new pages every month. If someone has a comment about something in particular, they have to be specific. I'm not going to hunt down vague comments that might have been written 7 years ago simply because someone is too lazy to document their complaints.
I would also like to point out that I have enjoyed your sarcasm which is evident in every response.
Yes, well, I can indeed be sarcastic at times. Why should someone who misrepresents me (and continually ignores it when I point this out) expect anything else? I can only take seriously a person who acts seriously, but a person who is serious about what they are doing would take the time to carefully read what they want to critique. Moreover, if shown that they have misrepresented something, a serious person would hasten to make a correction. None of this describes Jennifer -- nor does it describe most of the far-right Christians who write to complain.
I honestly thought that as a mature adult you would refrain from the crass, rude, name-calling and degrading responses you have resorted to.
Whereas misrepresenting someone is just the model of maturity, right? Jennifer thinks it's rude and degrading when I question her teaching or thinking skills based upon her failure to read what she tries to criticize, but for some reason it's OK for her to question my experience or research when I point out that her errors leave no reason to take her comments seriously. This is a pretty consistent pattern I see from people like Jennifer: it's OK for them to launch into biased and ignorant attacks, but as soon as you insist that they fix their errors they whine and complain about how you are treating them fairly or civilly.
I now know that you were a waste of time. I should have simply known from the start that you are just an ignorant liberal.
Ah, a political smear as well. Good for Jennifer, standing up for mature standards like that. At least we can see now that her pretense to being fair and objective in how she treats those with whom she disagrees was just a sham.
By the way, it is a waste of time to critique someone when you can't manage to read their writings closely enough -- but that goes for anyone at all, not just me.
"too lazy to document your complaints." (Excuse me. From now on I'll know that liberals shoot out so much junk that they can't keep it all straight.)
Another political smear! Again, way to go for that maturity!
When Jennifer demonstrates the ability to write the equivalent of a 300 page book every month, she can come back and show me that she can remember the details and location of something she typed several years earlier. At that point I'll be happy to acknowledge her conservative superiority over me. Until then, though, I have some thoughts about what she could do with her smug arrogance.
Apparently I'll need a prayer chain for you. You are really a sad person.
When she organizes her prayer chain, I wonder if she will be honest enough to include where I explain how she misrepresented me? I doubt it. She couldn't have accidentally missed all the times I pointed out her errors -- she had to deliberately and consciously skip over those passages from my emails. That points to either dishonesty or, at the very least, an inability to accept responsibility for personal mistakes. In either case such a person isn't likely to let others see where they might have made an error.
Sigh... dealing with people like this is very draining. It makes my head hurt, too. The very thought that someone like this actually teaches high school (perhaps even public school!) makes me shudder. I don't think that her students can possibly trust any analysis she offers of anything she presents in class -- even assuming that she has closely read the material she is teaching might be a bit of a stretch. She claims to teach social studies, but I can't imagine how she discusses the political and social development of liberty in America when for her "freedom" seems to simply be a willingness to submit to state or religious authorities.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
No comments:
Post a Comment