The Judy template. The setup that's launched a thousand arguments. Or at least used to. PTL for that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote :
No no no, Share, that isn't an answer to the question I asked. If you can't or don't want to answer it, just say so. But don't pretend you did answer it. Judy, short answer: yes. Long answer: I had already read the wikipedia article when your post appeared. And I don't think anybody on the planet is fully developed. For me, in the context of FFL, I find that I guess about how developed someone is by the TONE of MOST of their posts. On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 2:49 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: No, it doesn't. Did you not read the Wikipedia article I linked to? But my question stands even if we use your definition: Are you saying that being an apologist for a belief or idea that is unproveable or that other people think is unreasonable indicates that one is not fully developed? Thanks, Judy, I was replying to the connotation of the word apologist as I interpreted it in what Michael was saying. It does seem to have had, from the beginning, the connotation of defending a belief or idea that is somewhat unreasonable and or unproveable. On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 7:13 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: Share, do you know what "apologist" means? Steve, since you asked me what I think (-: I think we all have apologist tendencies to some degree. Meaning that we all have parts of our brain that are still developing and maturing, are not yet fully developed. Because you seem to be saying here that being an apologist indicates that one is not fully developed, i.e., that "apologist tendencies" indicate a lack of maturity. You might just want to check out the actual meaning of the term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics
