Ad homs: (1) Dishonest? Not never but not often. More likely expressed
through self-deception. (2) An arrogant son of a gun? Some of what you've
written that I've read over time 'reads' that way to me. (3) A poop? As the
definition is elusive, I'd give that one a pass unless it means legalist.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: October 17, 2005 16:29
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On knowing the Father through the Son by the Spirit
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.
----------
"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.
