From: nospam@buzz.off   
      
   On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 21:42:19 +1100, the following appeared   
   in talk.origins, posted by MarkE :   
      
   Never mind; I see you corrected your error in a later post.   
   Thanks for doing so.   
      
   >On 15/03/2025 4:49 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, the following appeared   
   >> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova :   
   >>   
   >>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>> in talk.origins, posted by MarkE :   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>>>   
   >>>> The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of   
   >>>> Genesis, not the quoting of it.   
   >>>>   
   >>> Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means   
   >>> that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation   
   >>> allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.   
   >>>>   
   >> No comment? OK.   
   >>>   
   >   
   >You've misunderstood. The context was Martin inferring I was a   
   >literalist because I quoted Genesis.   
   >   
   In this particular case, context is irrelevant; you made a   
   declarative statement regarding the measure of literalism.   
   That statement was incorrect; literalism allows NO   
   interpretation. Stop trying to wiggle out; your were wrong.   
   Admit it and move on.   
   >   
   --   
      
   Bob C.   
      
   "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,   
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not   
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"   
      
   - Isaac Asimov   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)