-Marc-
> Stephen, I'm not going to engage in point-by-point games here.
> Life's too short,

Not that I necessarily disagree with the above, but if that's how you 
feel, why are you so willing to engage in "point-by-point games" at 
other times?

> and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear
> and unamibiguous.

And he clearly, unambiguously did not mention Iraq.

> The Economist article, which I used (not having anything to do
> with Elder Nelson's talk -- this occurred before conference
> weekend) was specific and it was unbiased.

Seems I recently critiqued an Economist article you referenced and 
demonstrated its tremendous bias. I think you'll have a hard time 
maintaining that the Economist's articles are unbiased. But maybe I'm 
wrong. Can you give a URL to the specific article you're citing?

> There seems to be some confusion between using emotional words and
> bias which it seems you and Dan both need to clarify in your own
> minds to improve your critical reading skills, imho.

Well, it's easy for you to claim my "critical reading skills" aren't 
where they should be. You certainly might be right. But I notice you 
never bothered responding to my dismantling of your extraordinary claim 
that Latter-day Saints are necessarily pacifists.

> Anyone paying attention to the thread could have figured this out,
> and seen that Dan and I were interpreting data differently.

Apparently that's not the case. I was indeed "paying attention to the 
thread", and it looked to me like you were dismissing his sources as 
biased and proclaiming your own to be unbiased.

> I thought I could ease myself out of this by leaving the last word
> to Dan and he abused what was meant to be a gentlemanly gesture by
> calling me a liar.

I don't believe Dan was calling you a liar, though of course I could be 
wrong. That would be out of character for Dan. I think he was applying 
that term to those who author slanted news articles and present them as 
unbiased. And fwiw, I don't think it's particularly gentlemanly to say, 
in effect, "I'm right and you're wrong, and if you can't see that then 
you're blind as a bat, but I'll give you the last word."

> I'm off this thread. Elder Nelson's words are very clear, and
> if you want to twist them so as to make yourself feel more
> comfortable, fine.

I've demonstrated in some detail how I believe you're twisting Elder 
Nelson's words. Please return the courtesy.

Stephen

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================

Reply via email to