From: Pi (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 03:28:44 BST
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 11:20:00PM +0200, Wim Nusselder wrote:
> Not a response that conforms to the normal pattern in this discussion
> group... My post must have been outdated and superfluous (also given the
> extra time you will need for fatherhood). Unlike Johnny I'm not a great fan
> of traditional static patterns of fatherhood as he described them 10 Jun
> 2003 19:11:59 +0000... I wish there were more women who 'attend to important
> matters of morality and philosophy here on the forum', because the lack of
> them throws serious doubts (in my view) on their importance...
I wish there were more women who actively take part in these type of discussionstoo, but I would not let that absense cast doubts about their importance! 99% of the people I know, male and female, are not involved in matters of philosphical thought and yet they have earned my respect over the time. I personally may not respect their rare philosophical comments (because I dismiss them quicly), but yet I consider the people important in their own way.
I guess the question is `what is importance?'. I think importance is nothing other than Quality. So when we say that someone does not have importance, we are essentially saying `Quality does not have this person'. :)
BTW, I also doubt the value of the static patterns of fatherhood or even marriage.
-- One man's constant is another man's variable. MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 02:32:05 BST