07 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadI see you don't know the difference between vocabulary and spelling.
I am not surprised you are not surprised.
[b]I'm glad I could help you improve your vocabulary.
I see you don't know the difference between vocabulary and spelling.
Now we're both "glad". Isn't life swell.
Yes.
And my points still stand.[/b]
Actually I do. When it comes to homophones, it depends on how one cuts up that particular pie.
And my points still stand.
I'm not surprised that you'd think that. It's remarkable how much you struggle with abstract concepts.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 May 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell given that I have already argued that it's impossible [and pointless] to generate such a list, that hope seems to be pretty stupid.
And here I was hoping that you'd get back to me with your list of the major themes and their underlying concepts conveyed by the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, so that you wouldn't be arguing from a place of ignorance.
Carry on.
Almost as if you failed to read or comprehend what I was actually arguing.
07 May 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeI wasn't really hoping. It's call 'sarcasm'. Look it up.
Well given that I have already argued that it's impossible [and pointless] to generate such a list, that hope seems to be pretty stupid.
Almost as if you failed to read or comprehend what I was actually arguing.
You've often shown that you're quite content to argue from a place of ignorance.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneCut you pie whichever way you like, you didn't increase my vocabulary, you just corrected my spelling.
Actually I do. When it comes to homophones, it depends on how one cuts up that particular pie.
I'm not surprised that you'd think that. It's remarkable how much you struggle with abstract concepts.
Its remarkable how you keep repeating that phrase like you actually believe it. It it notable that you never addressed most of my points in any way, abstract or otherwise but instead resorted to your amazement at my apparent struggling with abstract concepts - something you are yet to demonstrate suggesting that it is a lie.
Originally posted by checkbaiterAre you suggesting women should remain silent and play a lesser role?
Are you suggesting women should remain silent and play a lesser role?
That is what Appendix 12 is trying to expose.
God never intended people to think women are second class citizens.
By all means, I hope everyone reads appendix 12 entitled "The Role of Woman in the church". It is about the bias among scribes and religious leaders who entered their bi ...[text shortened]... o the bible.
http://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Appendix/12/The-Role-of-Women-in-the-Church
Absolutely not. The point of my post was exactly what I stated it was: Your underhanded question notwithstanding.
God never intended people to think women are second class citizens.
Agreed. Evidently Paul was unaware of this.
By all means, I hope everyone reads appendix 12 entitled "The Role of Woman in the church". It is about the bias among scribes and religious leaders who entered their bias into the bible.
Agreed. And that includes Paul's bias.
It's also about a group of Christians who seek to correct the bias by finding ways to dismiss the verses that are contrary to their beliefs while simultaneously preserving the dogma that Paul's words are "God breathed" and the bible contains no contradictions. They do this in the most disingenuous ways.
As I said:
"It's pretty clear that those producing the REV are serving an agenda rather than a sincere attempt to arrive at the truth. It's fascinating in a sad sort of way."
Hopefully someday they will also seek to remove the "bias among scribes and religious leaders who entered their bias into the bible" against homosexuality.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot that I have much hope for you to understand this, but there is a concept of spoken and written vocabularies. By adding 'boor' to your written vocabulary, you improved it.
Cut you pie whichever way you like, you didn't increase my vocabulary, you just corrected my spelling.
[b]I'm not surprised that you'd think that. It's remarkable how much you struggle with abstract concepts.
Its remarkable how you keep repeating that phrase like you actually believe it. It it notable that you never addressed most of my points in ...[text shortened]... gling with abstract concepts - something you are yet to demonstrate suggesting that it is a lie.[/b]
Just because you struggle with abstract concepts, does not mean that I "never addressed most of [your] points in any way". It means that you failed to understand how your points were addressed.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 May 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNo you actually and consistently fail to address his [or my] points.
Not that I have much hope for you to understand this, but there is a concept of spoken and written vocabularies. By adding 'boor' to your written vocabulary, you improved it.
Just because you struggle with abstract concepts, does not mean that I "never addressed most of [your] points in any way". It means that you fail to understand how your points were addressed.
Mainly due to having your head stuffed firmly up your posterior.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 May 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm an expert on sarcasm, that wasn't it.
I wasn't really hoping. It's call 'sarcasm'. Look it up.
You've often shown that you're quite content to argue from a place of ignorance.
Your continued insistence on arguing from a stance of smug self superiority [entirely imagined]
is plain for all to see.
My point, [well I had several, but lets stick with this one] that the people of the time wrote in metaphor
and that the context of those metaphors is mostly lost to time rendering it near impossible to determine
what these unknown and mutually contradictory authors actually meant [should one actually care]
remains unanswered by you, in any substantive form.
And no amount of self satisfied smugness on your part changes that fact.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNot that I have much hope for you to understand this but I won't remember the spelling by tomorrow. You corrected my spelling and didn't improve my vocabulary. And you have been a bit of a boor about it.
Not that I have much hope for you to understand this, but there is a concept of spoken and written vocabularies. By adding 'boor' to your written vocabulary, you improved it.
Just because you struggle with abstract concepts, does not mean that I "never addressed most of [your] points in any way".
You never addressed it in any way. And not because you claim I struggle with abstract concepts.
It means that you failed to understand how your points were addressed.
No, it means you didn't address them. Sorry, but claims that I cannot understand you just doesn't cut it. My poor spelling of rarely used words aside, my reading comprehension is reasonable. If you had really been able to address my points and answer my questions, you would have taken the time to clarify where you thought I was missing the point. You managed to attempt that with the spelling vs vocabulary issue (even though you were wrong). Yet for my other points you have just stuck to repeating your obviously false claim that I have difficulty with abstract concepts. I don't think I would have got my degree in mathematics if abstract concepts were a major problem for me. And if that was really your belief you would have taken the trouble to make the concepts less abstract or explain them better.
07 May 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'm an expert on sarcasm, that wasn't it.
I'm an expert on sarcasm, that wasn't it.
Your continued insistence on arguing from a stance of smug self superiority [entirely imagined]
is plain for all to see.
My point, [well I had several, but lets stick with this one] that the people of the time wrote in metaphor
and that the context of those metaphors is mostly lost to time rendering it ...[text shortened]... ny substantive form.
And no amount of self satisfied smugness on your part changes that fact.
Well, it's my "expert" opinion that it was sarcasm. I'm thinking that I'm in better position to know - seeing as I wrote it. But if you remain true to form, you'll insist that I haven't addressed your point "in any substantive form".
Your continued insistence on arguing from a place of ignorance is plain for all to see. Imagine that.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 May 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes I will continue to insist that claiming you 'were hoping I would read' something was
[b]I'm an expert on sarcasm, that wasn't it.
Well, it's my "expert" opinion that it was sarcasm. I'm thinking that I'm in better position to know - seeing as I wrote it. But if you remain true to form, you'll insist that I haven't addressed your point "in any substantive form".
Your continued insistence on arguing from a place of ignorance is plain for all to see. Imagine that.[/b]
sarcasm is most definitely not addressing my point about the futility of trying to extract
the exact meaning of words written by long dead people in another language written in
metaphors the context of which we no longer have.
Nor does it address any of my other points.
You have not addressed this point in any way shape or form.
You have not even bothered to simply state that it's wrong, let alone present any argument
or evidence to the contrary [which you cannot do because it's not actually wrong].
Which is why you simply try to insult my intelligence, and that of anyone else who disagrees
with you.
07 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot that I have much hope for you to understand this but I won't remember the spelling by tomorrow. You corrected my spelling and didn't improve my vocabulary. And you have been a bit of a boor about it.
Not that I have much hope for you to understand this but I won't remember the spelling by tomorrow. You corrected my spelling and didn't improve my vocabulary. And you have been a bit of a boor about it.
[b]Just because you struggle with abstract concepts, does not mean that I "never addressed most of [your] points in any way".
You never addresse ...[text shortened]... lief you would have taken the trouble to make the concepts less abstract or explain them better.[/b]
lol. So rather than admit that it wasn't incorrect for me to use the word 'vocabulary', you chose to "move the goal posts" and portray yourself as lacking the intelligence for it to actually improve your vocabulary? That's your "point"? Classic. Not that I doubt that you do lack the intelligence.
In that other thread, where I spoke of the "level at which you argue", it was with this type of thing, as well as others such as struggling with abstract concepts, that I had in mind.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt went right over your head as usual.
lol. So rather than admit that it wasn't incorrect for me to use the word 'vocabulary', you chose to "move the goal posts" and portray yourself as lacking the intelligence for it to actually improve your vocabulary? That's your "point"? Classic. Not that I doubt that you do lack the intelligence..
In that other thread, where I spoke of the "level at which you argue", it was with this type of thing, as well as others such as struggling with abstract concepts, that I had in mind.
Well, as long as my 'level' is above yours, I am content.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBut I am not done amusing myself with your feeble attempts at being superior. Pray tell us, what did I say that was illogical? Methinks you don't know what the word means just as you struggle so with the word 'abstract'.
Okay boys. I've had enough amusement for one day. You're both remarkably illogical.