"I think you call it "conscience-free" because you have some ideals in your mind that you think everyone else should take as seriously as you do."
Paul, that's alright. It is awesome of you to have read and considered my post point by point. I think your first guesses, about what I meant, are excellent first guesses. Thank you for taking time to respond. I am pleased that you think I am merely having expectations that were unfulfilled. I think you might not have witnessed what I witnessed on this forum in the past few months. Since I have been reading and posting and you have not, I tentatively conclude that you did not see much of what I called "conscience-free" behavior. It bothered me a little that you "agree completely" with the cosmology of one of the sources...even after I clearly refute it based on actual science rather than pretty theological poetry...I do like John Donne et al. so please don't think I'm attacking metaphysical poets as such! But when the poet
invokes credentialism in so many ways, then
tries to impose an unrigorous ethical system in the wake of his bullying, I think it is fair to
expect persons of good reasoning to notice it has occurred when clearly elucidated by someone present.
There was nothing ambiguous in the phenomena to which I was referring. I'm a pretty gosh-durn patient guy in the conversation department. Some others here were quite unabashed in the unhumorous illogical and menacing they directed toward my posts on the forum -- some of those posts recently were actually removed by the webmaster -- without, of course, the protagonists refuting the logic of my posts. Thanks for responding. No problem from here...I hope.