Of course you do. You don't think there is a difference between "David the adulterer" and "David the repentant adulterer?" If you do, how are we going toknow if you do not tell us?
JD
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:47:24 -0500
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
Let?s make that ?unrepentant? adulterer. Do I have so spell it out? Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 5:10 PM
To:[email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 5:10 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
Let's see--did King David also write the BoM (the sci-fi novel which has deceived millions?) Or perhaps he did that and repented of it as well? (Unlike JSmith who never repented of either.) Izzy
According to your criterion, Izzy, what difference should it make: "I believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials as a prophet of god"?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:57 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> Let's see--did King David also write the BoM (the sci-fi novel which has
> deceived millions?) Or perhaps he did that and repented of it as well?
> (Unlike JSmith who never repented of either.) Izzy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:55 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>
> Izzy wrote > Perry, how does that relate to JSmith and the mormons? I
> believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials
> as a prophet of god.
>
>
>
> How then were King David's credentials any better? Ought he be disqualified
> by the same criterion?
>
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:42 PM
> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>
>
> > I believe the fact
> > that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials as a prophet
> of
> > god. Izzy
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry
> Locke
> > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rg
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional in
> > nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly
> > to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.
> >
> > However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in
> > arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have
> to
> > stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on
> Calvin.
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: [email protected]
> > >To: <[email protected]>
> > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> > >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600
> > >
> > >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for the
> > >great example to the rest of us.
> > >
> > >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifica lly, 'ad hominem
> > >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines
> > >page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the
> > >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or
> > >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does
> > >it
> > >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might
> > >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of
> John
> > >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e.,
> his
> > >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of
> the
> > >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman
> > >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
> > >argumentation on TruthTalk?
> > >
> > >Bill
> & gt; >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: <[email protected]>
> > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM
> > >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> > >
> > >
> > > > TT members,
> > > >
> > > > I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my
> > >referring
> > > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mor mon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After
> > >some
> > > > discussion back and forth, and some research, I am convinced that it
> is
> > >so
> > > > and that I need to apologize to Dave.
> > > >
> > > > I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about
> someone
> > > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing
> a
> > > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true
> > >or
> > > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying
> > >anything
> > > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is
> > >an
> > >ad
> > > > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a
> > >smart
> > > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at
> > > > someone personally.
> > > >
> > > > However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT
> > >wishes
> > >to
> > > > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the
> receiver
> > >of
> > > > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he
> > >thought
> > > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.
> > > >
> > > > So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an
> > >ad-hominem
> > > > reference.
> > > >
> > > > The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem".
> > >Specifically,
> > > > "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT
> > >discussions
> > > > guidelin es page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by
> > > > attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether
> it
> > >is
> > > > true or false.
> > > >
> > > > Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making
> > > > inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from
> anyone
> > >that
> > > > would like to point out such comments. If we have only one watcher,
> who
> > > > watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the group moderates
> me.
> > > >
> > > > Perry the Moderator
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
> may
> > >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> > >http://www. InnGlory.org
> > > >
> > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> > >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----------
> > >"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> > >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> > >http://www.InnGlory.org
> > >
> > >If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> > >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rg and he will be subscribed.
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> know
> > how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> > http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> &g t; [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
> how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to r eceive posts from this list, send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
>
> deceived millions?) Or perhaps he did that and repented of it as well?
> (Unlike JSmith who never repented of either.) Izzy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:55 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>
> Izzy wrote > Perry, how does that relate to JSmith and the mormons? I
> believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials
> as a prophet of god.
>
>
>
> How then were King David's credentials any better? Ought he be disqualified
> by the same criterion?
>
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:42 PM
> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>
>
> > I believe the fact
> > that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials as a prophet
> of
> > god. Izzy
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry
> Locke
> > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rg
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional in
> > nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly
> > to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.
> >
> > However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in
> > arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have
> to
> > stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on
> Calvin.
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: [email protected]
> > >To: <[email protected]>
> > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> > >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600
> > >
> > >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for the
> > >great example to the rest of us.
> > >
> > >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifica lly, 'ad hominem
> > >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines
> > >page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the
> > >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or
> > >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does
> > >it
> > >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might
> > >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of
> John
> > >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e.,
> his
> > >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of
> the
> > >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman
> > >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
> > >argumentation on TruthTalk?
> > >
> > >Bill
> & gt; >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: <[email protected]>
> > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM
> > >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> > >
> > >
> > > > TT members,
> > > >
> > > > I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my
> > >referring
> > > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mor mon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After
> > >some
> > > > discussion back and forth, and some research, I am convinced that it
> is
> > >so
> > > > and that I need to apologize to Dave.
> > > >
> > > > I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about
> someone
> > > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing
> a
> > > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true
> > >or
> > > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying
> > >anything
> > > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is
> > >an
> > >ad
> > > > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a
> > >smart
> > > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at
> > > > someone personally.
> > > >
> > > > However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT
> > >wishes
> > >to
> > > > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the
> receiver
> > >of
> > > > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he
> > >thought
> > > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.
> > > >
> > > > So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an
> > >ad-hominem
> > > > reference.
> > > >
> > > > The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem".
> > >Specifically,
> > > > "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT
> > >discussions
> > > > guidelin es page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by
> > > > attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether
> it
> > >is
> > > > true or false.
> > > >
> > > > Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making
> > > > inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from
> anyone
> > >that
> > > > would like to point out such comments. If we have only one watcher,
> who
> > > > watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the group moderates
> me.
> > > >
> > > > Perry the Moderator
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
> may
> > >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> > >http://www. InnGlory.org
> > > >
> > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> > >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----------
> > >"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> > >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> > >http://www.InnGlory.org
> > >
> > >If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> > >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> > >
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> know
> > how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> > http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> &g t; [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
> how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to r eceive posts from this list, send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
>
