It is absolutely an act of ignorant and inconsiderate selfishness to place the burden of managing unsolicited nuisance marketing on individuals who are involuntarily targeted. It is wrong to expect the recipients to refine an unsolicited spammers mailing list by requesting to be removed! Furthermore, the vast majority of spam mails contain “remove me” links which serve no other purpose than to verify the email address as a spam target. Perhaps you also think we should take even more time to research each spammer to judge whether they would be likely to honour our request to shut the hell up?

Legitimately frustrated people are going to complain – and when someone makes the ironic faux pas of claiming to be an e-marketing expert via a spam shot, frankly they deserve to be bad-mouthed…and an effective complaint vector would be online opinion (the “internet” or www is not just for parochial marketing purposes, my dear).

Finally, you would claim she was excellent as she’s an associate of yours – you both have “@thetrainingpod” email addresses and appear linked together in your efforts as revealed in a trivial google search. Your disingenuously worded opening sentence makes the subtle but, I suspect, deliberate inference that you were a non-biased attendee. Poor form, sir, very poor form indeed.

If believe that the aim of religions is to provide a sense of belonging and purpose as well as incentive to behave good; and science as an approach to make a better use of physical resources and as a method to systematically analyse information; then I do not see them conflicting at all.

Religion and science can appear as conflicting or complementary depending on how you define each one of them. The truth is that both science and religion have been used for different purposes and ends throughout history. I do not believe there is a universal consensus on a specific aim for any of them, therefore making them both subjective to human interpretation and adaptive to different contexts and needs.

That’s exactly the point, the contexts are entirely different. It’s invalid to take something as subjective as religious belief and seek to give it equal standing with objective science. I don’t see how conflicting ends and contexts can be complementary, really. I could see that they could co-exist without conflict but only where one doesn’t try to do exactly the mixing your describing – i.e. using the supernatural to compete for an explanation of the natural.

Science to me has nothing to do with a “spiritual” sense that (imaginary or not) we might experiment. Science’s aim is not to provide humans with moral guide, comfort or any other emotional needs we as humans might have.

Religion to me is not supposed to provide me with a rigorous explanation on how things work, what are they made of and everything else that we believe religion is. I might be the odd one but for me religion is only valuable in the spiritual and moral realm. In that sense, I am not even sure why we attempt to validate religion against scientific methods, or why we can even say that science has more weight than religion.

To me both models they have very different ends and contexts of application. If anything, clashes between the two can be linked to us humans mixing them, trying to make comparisons and to an extreme, attempting to choose one above the other.

Ironic but some people hate religions precisely because their existence demands followers to believe that it is the absolute truth therefore eliminating other possible truths. However, science tends to have the same effect with religion: it seems to systematically falsify religions based on a series of scientific truths.

Then we see a pattern being developed: an embedded human tendency to believe there can only be one truth at any given time and that this has to be absolute as well. In this case either scientific or religious beliefs. Perhaps because it is more manage to see the world in that way?

I see a future were science and religion are seen as complementary to each other no mutually exclusive. Religion is a truth in itself in the spiritual and moral real, where as science presents us with truths about our physical world. They are both wrong is preaching superiority above the other.

R – Read, W – Write, C – Change and F – Full.

See http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490872.aspx

Cheers!