From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 07:57:19 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:43:05 -0400, the following appeared   
   >in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 14:37:15 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >>wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:12:26 -0700, the following appeared   
   >>>in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak   
   >>>:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On 3/14/25 9:19 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Note that interpretation and literalism are not mutually exclusive. For    
   >>>>example, if I say, "The cat chased the dog" and you think, "It must have    
   >>>>been a pretty mean cat," that's interpretation, even though you still    
   >>>>read it literally.   
   >>>>   
   >>>So if I interpret "chased" to mean "played poker with", and   
   >>>you interpret it to mean "had sex with", "chased" is   
   >>>literally true for both? Seems like a not very good way to   
   >>>ensure accurate communication, but whatever floats your   
   >>>boat...   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>Not sure why I bother, but try this:   
   >>   
   >>You are correct, that it's important to agree on definitions.   
   >>   
   >>You are not correct, that the definitions you prefer are necessarily   
   >>the correct ones for a given context.   
   >>   
   >Not sure why I bother, but try this:   
   >   
   >Replace "the definitions you prefer" with "the definitions   
   >found in the OED", which I noted and you ignored. Again.   
      
      
   You originally specified a SINGLE definition.  And again above.  So   
   twice you made zero accomodation for other definitions. Either way,   
   unless you're now claiming those are NOT the definitions you prefer,   
   then your objection is non sequitur.  Again.   
      
   And not sure why I bother, but try this one: The trick to using the   
   same words is to make sure they actually fit what is written.  You   
   should try it sometime, if only for the novelty of the experience.   
      
      
   >>For most adults, this isn't hard to understand.   
   >>   
   >I agree, but you seem to have problems with it.   
      
      
   Aping JTEM doesn't help your case.   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)