What? Did you not say it was a South Park video (when it wasn’t)?"“Debate via youtube?...Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??”[No, of course I didn't.]
In post 1561 you wrote, “Debate via youtube?...Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??” So you say it was a youtube video and you said it was a South Park video. Are you now denying that you wrote that? Seriously?
See the question marks? It was a QUESTION, not a claim. Noticing your apparent propensity for obtuse absurdity, I just took a guess and asked you a question.
Go back and look at #1561. I don’t see how you can deny that you wrote, “Debate via youtube?...Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??”See how I asked you a question, no making a claim there. I don't deny what I wrote, note your seemingly lack of reading comprehension.
“Plus you are right even when you are wrong. Got it.”As in this case. You are wrong.No, when I’m wrong I’m wrong
Again, post # 1561: “Debate via youtube?...Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??”
Redundant, already shown to be "misunderstood." Giving you the benefit of the doubt...
“I did NOT claim what the video was about, and I did not claim to have watched it.”Redundant X 2, explained already.Again, post #1561: “Debate via youtube?...Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??”
Oh, so you’re saying you posted something that was worded in such a way that someone would believe its literal meaning when that was actually false?Nope. It wasn't false, it was a question as any rational intelligent individual could see quite easily. I think the clue was the question mark at the end.
So it's literal meaning is that it was a question.
There’s nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I took you at your word and I bet many here - even the anti-Catholics - would agree. You wrote, “Debate via youtube?...Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??”Well let's see if anyone else doesn't know what a question mark means.
From seeing the nature of your posts, it was simple to guess that you were attempting to debate with a South Park video.
Bad guess, and I still did not watch the link you provided to apparently a Tom Hanks clip.
Go ahead and use Newman's take on False Witness, I prefer the Biblical take.
From Exodus:P.S. Five times you post the same quote from me, and 5 times I patiently showed you how to properly understand it.Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
You shall not raise a false report: put not your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
And Proverbs 19:9
A false witness shall not be unpunished , and he that speaketh lies shall perish.
And I wish to thank you for referencing the post # for documentation. That was very gracious of you and I thank you.
It vindicates this poster.
That was convoluted and unclear. I am not sure who made the reference to “south park. “ Nonetheless, it seems to me that it was easily misconstrued as I could not tell whether the two question marks where to express surprise, imply audacity, or impeach the witness for the reference, and not an actual question per se.
“No, of course I didn’t.”
You did if these are your words: “Debate via youtube?...Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??”
And you’re now saying, “No, of course I didn’t” [say it was a South Park video]
So you say it was a youtube video and you said it was a South Park video. And now you say, “No, of course I didn’t” [say it was a South Park video]
Let’s directly compare your statements:
1) “Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??”
2) “No, of course I didn’t” [say it was a South Park video]
“See the question marks? It was a QUESTION, not a claim.”
No, it was a question about me supposedly posting a South Park video which would only make sense if I did so or if you believed I had done so. I didn’t. Look at your quote:
“Debate via youtube?”
See that? When you see “youtube” in this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M8szlSa-8o you can’t possibly be asking if it is from youtube BECAUSE IT SAYS IT IS FROM YOUTUBE. No, your question was about me supposedly engaging in “debate” using youtube.
In the same way, your question, “Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??” means you are saying that the video was a South Park video. It’s just that simple. And if someone writing that didn’t believe it was a South Park video then it is even worse because that can only mean something was known to be untrue (it was not a South Park video) but it was stated as if it were...which you acknowledged when you said: “You will see you fell for my wording so I could find out what the video was about. It worked quite well!”
I posted a link to a video.
You claimed it was one thing when it was another.
The question mark in your claim as to what the video is is immaterial because you yourself admitted what you were doing in a later post, “you fell for my wording”. Remember that?
There’s no way out of this for you. As John Henry Newman wrote: “Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.”
“Noticing your apparent propensity for obtuse absurdity, I just took a guess and asked you a question.”
Syncro wrote: “you fell for my wording”. That is clearly an example of “obtuse absurdity”.
“See how I asked you a question, no making a claim there. I don’t deny what I wrote, note your seemingly lack of reading comprehension.”
My reading comprehension is fine. But when someone posts in such a way that they later say about their own writing, “you fell for my wording” what does that tell us?
“As in this case. You are wrong.”
No, your words told me you were wrong: “you fell for my wording”.
“Redundant, already shown to be “misunderstood.” Giving you the benefit of the doubt...”
Benefit of the doubt? “you fell for my wording” Who is creating doubt with that sort of comment?
“Redundant X 2, explained already.”
Oh, it was explained - “you fell for my wording”
“Nope. It wasn’t false...”
Really? “you fell for my wording”. That is a false way to write.
“So it’s literal meaning is that it was a question.”
It was in the form of a question. But it was written so that “you fell for my wording”. Those are your words after all.
“Well let’s see if anyone else doesn’t know what a question mark means.”
Do they have meaning for you? When someone writes so that “you fell for my wording” how can any punctuation convention they use be trusted that it is used in the right way? Seriously, does “you fell for my wording” speak of a clear form of communication?
“From seeing the nature of your posts, it was simple to guess that you were attempting to debate with a South Park video.”
Oh, so now it wasn’t a simple question but a guess toward something in particular? Wow, your story seems to keep changing. How will you next explain, “you fell for my wording”?
“Bad guess, and I still did not watch the link you provided to apparently a Tom Hanks clip.”
As this goes on, it seems more appropriate by the post and not even for the reasons I originally had.
“Go ahead and use Newman’s take on False Witness, I prefer the Biblical take.”
If I keep using it, it is because it is so appropriate.
“From Exodus:
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
And yet you wrote “you fell for my wording” so how would anyone know you really are taking the commandment to heart?
“P.S. Five times you post the same quote from me, and 5 times I patiently showed you how to properly understand it.”
No. I posted a link to a video. You claim you never went to the video. Early on, however, you wrote, “Debate via youtube?...Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??” That clearly says it was a South Park video. The import of the question - if we’re following the standard rules of English usage is - “You have nothing to back up your claims so you post a South Park video.” It would be the same as if someone said, “You had no money so you robbed a bank?” No one would say that if they were asking if the man had no money (no “backup” for my claims). They already know the man has no money. They would only ask that question if someone actually had robbed a bank (post a South Park video). In other words, to any normal English speaker out there the import is the idea that someone did something for a particular reason. You were asking me if I posted a South Park video because I (supposedly) had no evidence for my claims. Then you said you never went to the video link. Then you said you only said what you said so that I would tell you what the video is without you going to see it. You said you wrote it so I would fall for your wording = “you fell for my wording”.
“And I wish to thank you for referencing the post # for documentation. That was very gracious of you and I thank you.”
No problem.
“It vindicates this poster.”
Nope. Not even close. “you fell for my wording”