You may not remember, but I’ve “taken agin you” due to your snide assumptions. It’s impossible to have a conversation with you without your continually insinuating that I’m lying. I do Christians the courtesy to assume that their opinions are what they state they are, I find it annoying and frankly intriguing that the same courtesy is not returned to me.
Please do not address me again. And if you feel the need to read my mind while talking about me behind my back to another poster, don’t do me the favor of giving me a courtesy ping, just remove my name from your post and say “some people”.
There is a poster who has requested in post 542 that I name him no more; and that if I do refer to him, that I do it indirectly by saying "some people":
Please do not address me again. And if you feel the need to read my mind while talking about me behind my back to another poster, don’t do me the favor of giving me a courtesy ping, just remove my name from your post and say “some people”.
I will not comply entirely with these wishes. I will not include a courtesy ping on this post, as requested; but instead of saying "some people" I will instead say "he who has requested that I name him no more" (or HWHRTINHNM for short).
Elsewhere in post 542, HWHRTINHNM said:
It’s impossible to have a conversation with you without your continually insinuating that I’m lying. I do Christians the courtesy to assume that their opinions are what they state they are, I find it annoying and frankly intriguing that the same courtesy is not returned to me.
I am aware of nothing in post 542 which insinuated that *anyone* was lying, but rather that some materialists and strict empiricists are committing a subtle, but perfectly natural, understandable, mistake.
And I went out of my way, when naming Coyoteman and HWHRTINHNM in post 540, to use the word *apparently* within asterisks, to indicate that the description which followed was neither mind-reading nor an accusation, but rather my interpretation of their argument.
Finally, regarding the first line of HWHRTINHNM's post:
You may not remember, but I’ve “taken agin you” due to your snide assumptions.
To demonstrate that I do in fact remember, a bit of history:
A long time ago, in another thread, the issue came up in FReepmail between myself and HWHRTINHNM of divine revelation and just war, and HWHRTINHNM sent me a private freepmail which contained an argument against Christianity. By netiquette, I will not say anything of what HWHRTINHNM said in those emails, but I will quote a single line of mine, which is apparently the one which gave umbrage:
“That *sounds* unanswerable; so I am not sure if you really believe that, or if is a favorite chestnut from some atheist site, or if it is mere troll- or flame- bait.”
Would someone please extend my compliments and apologies to HWHRTINHNM and let him know that I *do* in fact remember, as illustrated by the quote above, and that I did not intend either to read his mind, or to insinuate that he was lying?
Cheers!
There is a poster who has requested in post 542 that I name him no more; and that if I do refer to him, that I do it indirectly by saying "some people":
Please do not address me again. And if you feel the need to read my mind while talking about me behind my back to another poster, don’t do me the favor of giving me a courtesy ping, just remove my name from your post and say “some people”.
I will not comply entirely with these wishes. I will not include a courtesy ping on this post, as requested; but instead of saying "some people" I will instead say "he who has requested that I name him no more" (or HWHRTINHNM for short).
Elsewhere in post 542, HWHRTINHNM said:
It’s impossible to have a conversation with you without your continually insinuating that I’m lying. I do Christians the courtesy to assume that their opinions are what they state they are, I find it annoying and frankly intriguing that the same courtesy is not returned to me.
I am aware of nothing in post 542 which insinuated that *anyone* was lying, but rather that some materialists and strict empiricists are committing a subtle, but perfectly natural, understandable, mistake. How such a post can be interpreted as "behind his back" when he was addressed by name, and in open forum, is beyond me.
Also, I went out of my way, when naming Coyoteman and HWHRTINHNM in post 540, to use the word *apparently* within asterisks, to indicate that the description which followed was neither mind-reading nor an accusation, but rather my interpretation of their argument.
Finally, regarding the first line of HWHRTINHNM's post:
You may not remember, but I’ve “taken agin you” due to your snide assumptions.
To demonstrate that I do in fact remember, a bit of history:
A long time ago, in another thread, the issue came up in FReepmail between myself and HWHRTINHNM of divine revelation and just war, and HWHRTINHNM sent me a private freepmail which contained an argument against Christianity. By netiquette, I will not say anything of what HWHRTINHNM said in those emails, but I will quote a single line of mine, which is apparently the one which gave umbrage:
“That *sounds* unanswerable; so I am not sure if you really believe that, or if is a favorite chestnut from some atheist site, or if it is mere troll- or flame- bait.”
Would someone please extend my compliments and apologies to HWHRTINHNM and let him know that I *do* in fact remember, as illustrated by the quote above, and that I did not intend either to read his mind, or to insinuate that he was lying?
Cheers!