XPost: alt.christnet.christianlife, alt.religion.christian.baptist   
   From: shell-stamford@cox.net   
      
   "Mike Painter"  wrote in message   
   news:VRXok.18271$mh5.12873@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...   
   > Chuck Stamford wrote:   
   >> "Mike Painter"  wrote in message   
   >> news:sSLok.17867$xZ.13681@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...   
   >>> Chuck Stamford wrote:   
   >>>> "Mike Painter"  wrote in message   
   >>>> news:yUJok.17854$xZ.7785@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...   
   >>>>> Chuck Stamford wrote:   
   >>>>>> "Mike Painter"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>> news:iMCok.4209$zv7.1598@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...   
   >>>>>>> Chuck Stamford wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> "Mike Painter"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>>> I would have answered the question and shown it to be wrong.   
   >>>>>>>>> You just talk about it and snip the choices.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> You express your opinions as if they were facts beyond the fact   
   >>>>>>>> they're your opinions.  That's nothing but pure arrogance, and   
   >>>>>>>> I'm not going to waste my time on that degree of arrogance. Showing   
   >>>>>>>> you wrong is easy.  Getting it through to you that your thoughts   
   >>>>>>>> do not demarcate reality for us all isn't.   
   >>>>>>>> If you can control yourself to behave in a reasonable fashion,   
   >>>>>>>> we can have an adult discussion.  If not, I'm not interested in   
   >>>>>>>> your questions, or anything else you can think up to say or   
   >>>>>>>> ask. Ball's in your court.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Again you waste time telling me that you are not going to waste   
   >>>>>>> time explaining your comment.   
   >>>>>>> It would seem that explaining your statement would take less   
   >>>>>>> time. It does make clear why you defend JW.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Fine, have it your way.  It's obvious you can't afford to proceed   
   >>>>>> on any other.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> There was no discussion. Discussion's require people respond to the   
   >>>>> issues not talk about why they won't respond.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There was no discussion because you rhetorically frame all of your   
   >>>> opinions as facts, and can't seem to do otherwise, even now.   
   >>>   
   >>> Still unable to actually respond...   
   >>   
   >> That was a response, knucklehead.  It just wasn't the response, you   
   >> as the Gengis Khan of dialogue, required.   
   >   
   > "Look, a bird" may be a response but usually people respond to the   
   > questions and don't try to change the subject.   
      
   In a friendly, civil converstation, yes.  But in a friendly, civil   
   conversation one person doesn't start telling the other his choices in   
   response.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> And I'm going to have to seriously downgrade my initial estimate of   
   >> your intelligence, I'm afraid.  You've convinced me you really think   
   >> what you're doing is opaque to the discernment of others.   
   >   
   > Your inability to answer my questions...   
      
   And in a friendly, civil conversation one person doesn't intentionally   
   misconstrue a demand for civility as on the part of the other as the other's   
   inability to answer.   
      
   Now, I know you're not stupid, and that you're intent on getting your own   
   way, and that's just not going to happen.  You want to discuss/debate with   
   me, you're going to do it in a respectful and courteios fashion (as I will   
   do with you), or you're not going to do it at all.  Since it couldn't be   
   clearer you're not going to, or can't change your surly attitude...   
      
   EOD   
      
      
      
    is not a reflection on others.   
   > I have stated a number of times what I am doing and why.   
   >   
   > I suggest to you the same thing I suggest to JW.   
   >   
   > But in the meantime, Thank you for your support.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)