auxsvr@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday 17 of April 2014 14:23:07 you wrote:

...

The project *ignores* stuff in a sig. It is not part of the content of the discussion.

---- How is it not part of the discussion if it appears in the messages exchanged during the discussion? The way the signature is generated is irrelevant.

It was META information...a side-quip, not meant to be part of the discussion anymore than the headers of this email.

...

To get worked up about, it is illogical, a sign of insecurity, and perhaps even illness, so if the foo fits, wear it -- i.e. the more you complain about it, the more you assert to everyone that it applied to you.

That's rich, someone claiming I'm sick because I'm Christian and now you claiming that complaining about this makes me sick, too! Let me guess, you're an atheist and me being a Christian makes me sick by definition, right?

----- Actually atheists have *faith* that there is nothing, so their position is equally logical as that of the believer. I would more likely, by nature, tend toward agnosticism, but by my enchantment with nature, likely a pagan or eclectic witch -- who believes the way to spiritual enlightenment is within you and all around you. That you need to seek others for enlightenment is an assertion that creation (or a "creator" if you personify it) created you imperfectly and incomplete. That some believe there is 1 true way and that they can assert and profess it to others is minimally, annoying, but historically, a step on the road toward violence and destruction.

But how could this be so, knowing by science that there is nothing that connects faith with illness?

To the contrary, there is considerable evidence that connects faith, e.g. beliefs, with wellness, well-being, and illness. That this cannot be, consistently, proven via the scientific method is a result of inability to duplicate circumstances. In some respects belief in the scientific method is a form of insanity, as, at it's core, it requires that you perform tests holding all other conditions equal or the same. The conditions are ***never*** the same. Believing that you can really do something the exactly same way twice is widely held "belief" -- so much so that quote the quote: "Doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results is a form of insanity," is often misattibuted to various great thinkers (though earliest forms were seen in a 12-step, belief(faith) in higher-power(god) self-help group (N.A.).

...

So if you don't like it, best to ignore it -- unless you are board and want to create a side discussion like this.

Do you like being slandered? Were you bored when you replied to the previous message?

You were not slandered. A group that you belonged to was described in amusing terms by someone who themselves could be equally described such. That you took a generic statement an applied it to yourself was your choice to make it personal -- believing, as you assert to us, that it was a personal affront -- that it really did apply to you. That's why it is "rich" as you put it. By raising your hand (even though in complaint), you are drawing everyone's attention to your behavior and the statement and connecting them. Are all Christians so dense as to claim such statements apply and were meant against them individually (don't answer that, I _know_ it is not the case)? I.e. that's the type of rhetorical question that can go through any reader's head, seeing your response. Was I bored when I replied? To some extent. I'm taking a break from doing anything useful. Do you think Jesus would have objected so vociferously to a side comment? You are putting yourself in the same group as the HTML and doubled-reply haters!... *plegh* ;-) (that's a bit tongue in cheek in case it wasn't obvious). Sister in faith... (one of them, I'm sure), Linda -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org