We're No. 1!

Here's the thing about the barbarian goths who smashed the western empire: they quickly went 'native'. The Visigoths conquered and settled in Roman Spain -- but archaeologists have found no graves of that Visigoth elite, only predictable Roman funerary practices. Answer: those goths quickly Romanized their culture. Why live like a Goth when one could live like a Roman? ('cause that's living!) That's why Will's point still stands: our current barbarians are ideologically indisposed to wake up and realize they actually want their MTV. Your point about the historical sense of the tragic still holds, but I don't think Rome's barbarians offer much insight into ours.

And as a brief aside, I would respectfully remind you, Rod, that you mentioned making a more substantive response in our brief exchange about the social consequences of the Baptist doctrine of soul competency.
Just last week, you made the heretofore unprecedented move of criticizing the doctrine -- the doctrine, not individuals or their actions -- of another Christian denomination, my denomination, by asserting (wrongly, I believe) that soul competency is indicted for the regrettable habit of some to think of religion as "a purely private thing." It's a serious charge, I've responded at length, you apparently stand by the accusation, and in the early hours of March 24th you wrote, "It's late, and I'm headed to bed, so I'll respond more fully tomorrow." I've been patient in giving you time beyond that to give that response, and I would like to ask you to provide that response. Since this comment's off-topic, feel free to delete it, Rod, but if you're not going to retract what I believe to be a ridiculous slander of Baptist doctrine, I would appreciate your keeping your promise to explain that slander more fully.

Even were terrorists to strike a further, perhaps chemical, biological or nuclear blow against one of the English-speaking peoples' principal cities, it would not destroy that primacy. I don't *feel* like a triumphalist, but I agree with the above statement. That's why I worry about people who seem willing to curtail all of our freedoms to prevent "another 9/11".
Now I wasn't there, so maybe I speak of what I know not, but "another 9/11" is not the worst that can happen.

Rod, here, to argue that I "impute the worst possible personal motive to everything [you] say," you're presuming that my use of the word "slander" matches the legal term in that it involves malice aforethought. I'm not sure anything I've written justifies that presumption. It may suffice to say that I often do draw negative conclusions about you -- conclusions that require leaps from what the evidence strictly implies -- but you clearly do the same.
It may not serve either of us in understanding the other to go through a litany of reasons we don't like each other. Instead, I'll stand waiting for your reply.

Thanks, Rod. I saw the comment actually, and it was at least worth a laugh.