"why I often don't respond"

hs', i'm not out to get your response

when i address you, it's just that i think you might find interesting what i say in response to something you said, however difficult the syntax can sometime get; it's for any and all interested readers, and if on the gpc blogs i figured maybe 1 in a 100 or more would be thoughtful enough to consider my heartfelt output, maybe on babble it's a better proportion, but i just pass by here now and then, and find myself tarrying...

i find most others, with simplistic syntax, simplistic conceptually -- it is tough to swallow a whole world in a sentence, which i am guilty often enough of trying to do

"indoctrination", since the word is offensive really, i'll shoot back is only employable as a term by someone grossly ignorant of what's being criticized -- how could you deign to declare absence of critical thought from what goes on in religious ed.? THAT is offensive, it is pejorative (i take no offence, but you should know what you're putting out, you are demeaning yourself, and a humanist perspective deserves a good hearing -- why not à la Austin Dacey I got to reading because of your suggestion, who, like myself, would invite religion, if provocatively ,into the public square)

you also seem completely oblvious to the grossly deleterious function of the "religion" of our time & place, what i called "scientism", science this science that referred to in the stupidest non-analytical and downright dangerous way possible

that is a gauntlet thrown down, i can lead to some raging examples about misuse of appeals to science vs real critical thinking -- the very kind fostered by traditional reference, the very kind ideally fostered in such ed. environments

ps nb that conning's persence among gpc-ers is a telling sign that dejong could be preparing for real to take over gpc leadership, with a cadre of unfortunate support, and i'll distance myself further still from them at that eventuality