<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Dec 4, 2009, at 11:20 PM, Max More wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">While Condell's aggressive approach definitely has a degree of wisdom (and a load of intellectual good sense), is it really appropriate to, or useful for, or humanistic in, dealing with all situations?<br></span></blockquote></div><br><div>Atheists have played the Mr. Nice-guy part for a very long time and the end result is that religious morons crash airliners into skyscrapers; and the very next day the USA organized a national day of prayer to give homage to the very mental cancer that caused the disaster. It's enough to make you scream. I think it's good that people like Condell and Dawkins are being a little more aggressive; at least it's different and might do some good, it certainly can't work worse than the Mr. Nice-guy approach. </div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div></body></html>