> [Platt] > Boring. > > [Arlo] > And accurate. Again, reflect a bit on your inability and refusal to > answer, and > your need to engage in games in rhetoric instead. Maybe you'll learn > something > about yourself.
You might reflect on why you love to hear yourself talk > -------------------- > [Platt] > Now you can't make up your mind whether you have read Lila or not. If I am > a > coward, you are a pitiful joke. So there. > > [Arlo] > Whether I've read it or not is moot (I have). The fact remains you > continue to > dodge this simple question. > > YOU denigrate "chance" saying "it's not chance, it's DQ". YOU provide me > ONE > distinction, JUST ONE between the two. > > Ask yourself, why is that simple question one you have to run from? What > does > it say about you that you'd resort to turning that one question into the > latest > Limbaugh show with evasions, distractions, and rhetorical tricks, all > designed > for one purpose; to conceal the fact that you CAN'T and WON'T answer. > > That's okay. Really. I do understand why. What I am continually amazed by > is > how you are so unable to reflect on WHY you can't answer this question, > why > it's more important to you do always duck and cover. I call that > intellectual > dishonesty, and I'm sure by now everyone who has been following this > would > agree. > > You retort with the pedantic "read the book". It's a nice Limbaughian > evasion, > except it doesn't hold. Still, I've then asked you to "kindly point out > ONE > passage in LILA you feel illustrates a distinction between "chance" and > "DQ"." > > Just ONE. Page number. Paragraph. ONE PASSAGE. > > But you know you can't do this. But rather than admit it, rather than be > HONEST > about it, you opt to play even more rhetorical games. Seriously, reflect > on > that. Taking the shame you should feel at that aside, what does that say > about > YOU? > > It's too bad you lack the balls to just say "intent". I mean, it's obvious > that > this is the distinction you keep alluding to when you denigrate "oops". > You see > DQ as an "intentional force". One that plans, orders and enacts its plan > based > on deliberate intent. "Man" was not a accident, he was carefully planned > and > the cosmos deliberately ordered so as to produce him. THIS is what you > feel DQ > is. > > "Qualigod". > > This is the worldview that inevitably leads to saying that millions and > millions of years of dinos and jungles and what-not that preceded "man" > were > placed there by DQ so that one day it's ultimate creation (man) would > have > fossil fuels. (If "man" was the plan from the start, why else waste so > many > millions of years of existence populating the earth with giant lizards > and > tropical ferns?) > > In any event, I'll accept your cowardice and dishonesty, but rest assured > that > every time you denigrate "chance" or "oops", I'll start this thread up > again, > ask you the same question, and give you yet another opportunity to show > off > some evasions and distractions. > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
