JD wrote: > The left knows exactly then they are being > ad hom and usually do "repent."
I have not heard any of you repent for calling me dishonest, an arrogant son of a gun, and a poop. Are these not ad hom statements? JD wrote: > Daivd can give three choices -- uneducated, dishonest > or "just plain stupid" and then (falsely) claim that this is > not ad hom. I never said "uneducated." I referred to a level of understanding that would be lower than that which is represented by you. For example, you claim that you have had formal education in New Testament Greek and that you are able to read the Greek New Testament, but based upon many things you say, I find myself doubting that you really can read Greek. JD wrote: > And why does he not narrow the three choices? > Why didn't he? God back and read of his logic. > BECAUSE TO DO SO WOULD VIOLATE THE > AD HOM RULE ON THIS FORUM. David is an > avowed legalist. As a result, he believes he can construct > insults in such a way as to not go over the line, technically > speaking...........................when it is abundantly clear what > he really meant. He didn't narrow it down because he didn't > need. He believes all three about me. > Whatever. John, I do NOT believe all three about you. Some of this was said tongue in cheek, as I'm sure you are well aware. I'm sure there were others who laughed at what I wrote. You gave your thinking about why I would write as I did. Let me now give you a little more insight into my thinking. I have explained in the past that I have learned a scientific way of thinking called inductive inference. It is formally known as Strong Inference. It is a method whereby we consider explanations by listing as many hypotheses as we can and then disproving each one until only one remains. This kind of process shapes much of what I write. It is part of the reductionist way that I think. In this case, I was simply considering the possible explanations to explain what appeared to me to be your blindness concerning translating texts. These were 3 possible interpretations. I tossed them out there to see if you would either acknowledge the validity of one of them, or perhaps add another alternative hyposthesis to the list. As the Lord is my witness, I would love for you to add a fourth alternative that would not only explain all the inconsistencies, but would put you in the best possible light. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "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.
