Index of lab report 12
Disclaimer
Social context of the exchange
Was it ratonal?
Did it get anywhere?
The usefulness of my visit
That understood, I shall proceed with the assignment to the best of my abilities.
The social context of the discussion was that of a class using PLATO files. These students probably didn't know each other, and at the end of the semester, probably didn't WANT to know each other (or at lest Amy).
I have found it extremely dificult, tedious, irritating, and boring to read PLATO files. The discussion is taken out of context, seems incomplete, is painfully lengthy, and is hard to follow, especially when new topics appear with no apparent relation to the topic of discussion. By that, I am referring to the injection of traffic psychology in the discussion of the theological matters.
You ask if we thought this exchange was rational, and did it get anywhere. In my personal-Diane-opinion, ANY discussion about religion, between people with conflicting religions, would be DOOMED to be an IRRATIONAL DEAD-END. Of the files I read (because reading through ALL of the files would be too time consuming) some students appear to have been insulting and intolerable to others points of view. My stand (which I usually don't state, because I don't like to discuss religion) is: BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT, BELIEVE IN YOURSELF, AND LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE ALONE.
This discussion didn't get anywhere because oftentimes religious people tend to be absolutist. Foe example: *THIS* is the correct teaching. C'est tout! Fini! That's all folks! There is no room for any other religions or discussion. This, I believe is a fallacy.
In conclusion, I did not feel that my visit to this area of cyberspace was useful. Irritating, time consuming, and pathetic, but not useful. Sorry.