Posted on 03/30/2007 11:57:47 AM PDT by NYer
|
| The Vatican picture with the ‘angel’ clearly visible |
 |
| Andy Key with the camera that produced the ‘angel’ picture |
I think I'm about done here. There's no getting through to you.
"The subject is fraud and the perpetrators of fraud. The descriptive terms Catholic and CtoC refer to the respective subjects. They are not the subjects themselves."
You should have paid attention in English class. Put it up to any objective jury of men skilled in English.
"The subject again was story telling and fraud. The adjectives Catholic and CtoC, simply describe the respective subjects."
Weasel, weasel, weasel. Just because you think you know what you meant to say doesn't mean you said what you thought you did.
"Oh, thou art so merciful."
Indeed. It's a lot more courtesy than you would extend in my place.
"I gave no indication at all regarding frequency of the occurrence of outright fraud."
Yes, you did.
"The motive to do such things is fundamentally an abandonment of reality in preference to embracing mystery and imagination."
More arrogant bigotry.
"The promotion of the mental discipline"
Sorry, I had to stop for a good belly laugh at the spectacle of you using the term, "mental discipline."
"A reasonable person"
A second belly laugh. Thanks, I really needed that.
"They will simply continue on with a rational contemplation they were inspired by, and not take the physical trigger itself as a miracle."
No contemplation that is bound by an unfounded, a priori assumption of impossibility can correctly be termed "rational."
"Matthew 12:39
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."
According to your interpretation of that scripture, then, only the miracle of Jonah was a true miracle. All the other miracles in the Bible are false, but that one alone is true.
Truly a fascinating exegesis.
"There are those that seek the signs and wonders, and others that provide them."
How pat. How insulting. How maliciously bigoted.
"If mystery and imagination takes precedence over rationality"
What you take for rationality is nothing more than a bigotry that excludes all troublesome evidence.
"You're acute analytical skills are simply miraculous."
That's not analysis; it's observation. Word, you can't even get off a well-aimed zinger.
"My intent was clear from the beginning"
Only if we agree that your intention was to slur people of belief, while preening your own sense of superiority thereto.
"As far as the supernatural goes, there is no such thing"
And the laughs just keep coming.
"As far as the various claims of "well documented" miracles goes, there are none that stand up to rational scrutiny."
Certainly there are. It is only your bigoted assumption of impossibility that could blind you to that fact.
"Whatever. ...same difference."
No, the one phrase is correct, the other wrong.
"Thanks, I never would have guessed that."
Guess not. Willfull ignorance seems to be one of your strong suits.
"So, an apparition is a miracle. It is a miraculous happening."
Sorry, but you're not entitled to your own private definition of common terms.
""Prove it, or stand guilty of bearing false witness.""
"Your logic sucks. You want hard evidence cough up the cash and the original in .tiff."
(1) You are the one making the assertion. It is up to you to support it; not to others to rebut it.
(2) This constitutes an admission that you have not taken the least measure to ascertain the truth of your repeated assertion that the photo is fraudulent. Your accusation is grounded only -- ONLY -- in your bigoted assumption of impossibility. And you don't even have the honesty to admit it.
"My observations are..."
Totally specious. You're working with a small, low res image file, you're blinded by your assumption that the white figure is a smoke pattern, and you even presume to make judgements on what an actual image of an angel should look like. Frankly, it's pathetic to watch you whistle past that graveyard.
"Again, the logic is bad. Your conclusion that I hate God is completely ridiculous and is w/o justification."
Oh, I wouldn't expect you to recognize or admit the fact, but you've certainly spent a good deal of bandwith justifying the conclusion.
"simply means you could care less about anything other than communicating the slur."
How interesting, considering that the very first hit that Google serves up on the phrase gives its meaning as, "To say what everybody knows is no injury." IOW, no slur.
The slur was not contained in the Latin. The slurs were all in English and occurred though out your posts. As I pointed out, the Latin was bad and really meaningless. In order to guess at what it meant, I had to make corrections, such as determining that, there was no such word as "palman". Non est is backwards and meaningless, and "repetitio injuria" should be "repetitio iniurio", which means repetition injury, and makes no sense.
"How interesting, considering that the very first hit that Google serves up on the phrase gives its meaning as, "To say what everybody knows is no injury." IOW, no slur."
The Latin you gave, in no way translates to the English phrase you claim it does. The English phrase you just ave translates into Latin as, "Loquor quis quidque teneo est haud iniuria." The Latin you first gave, "Si palman res est, repetitio injuria non est", translates to, after making necessary correction for the nonexistent word "palman", "If the victory award is the object, repetition injury not is." So your Latin's imaginary also.
Oh my God!!! It's an angel... quick bust one out of the quiver.
What I said before.
Check out the angel above Marley's head!! OMG!!!
I'm guilty of a typo. Palman should be palam. As for the rest of your post, to quote you, "Whatever."
injurio, injuriare, injuriavi, injuriatus V (1st) TRANS [FXXEM] Medieval uncommon
injure; do injury; wrong, do wrong;
The problem seems to be that I made a couple of typos, and you weren't up to the task of seeing past them. So, as seems to be a pattern with you, you leapt to the conclusion that you were dealing with the "imaginary."
More thana couple of typos. iniurio = injurio J just replaced I at some point. The meaning remains the same, which was clear. The English translation of the Latin you first posted is completely wrong, regardless of the extra "n" and reversed est non.
"iniurio = injurio J just replaced I at some point."
No, in some texts the j is replaced by i to remind people that the j is not hard. The definition in my last post was from a current dictionary.
"The English translation of the Latin you first posted is completely wrong"
No, it isn't. It may not be what you got in freshman Latin, but that's not my problem.
"and reversed est non."
Grasping at straws again. The phrase "non est" turns up 1,160,000 hits just on Google, including the famous "De gustibus non disputandum est." This can also be rendered, "De gustibus non est disputandum." Either way, we see that the bug up your butt about "est non" is as silly as the rest of what you've been shoveling.
Now your Latin is complete and utter nonsense. Palam means openly, or publicly. "Si palam res est, repetitio injuria non est." => "If the object is openly, repetition injury is not."
The bogus translation you gave is your problem, because it doesn't jive with any published meanings. Then you focused on petty differences that have no relevance to the meaning of what you gave. "Is" is often simply implied in Latin, so that matter is irrelevant to the meaning.
"Grasping at straws again."
LOL! For someone that claims to be fluent in Latin, you're doing a piss poor job playin' stump the chump with the ignorant.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
"The bogus translation you gave is your problem, because it doesn't jive with any published meanings."
I got it from a published source, so that is clearly false.
"Then you focused on petty differences that have no relevance to the meaning of what you gave."
That's exactly what you've been doing with this whole "est non" nonsense. You've managed to get completely off the insults you delivered to people who know or believe that there is a God.
"For someone that claims to be fluent in Latin"
Is unwarranted assumption the only weapon in your arsenal? I made no claim of fluency.
"you're doing a piss poor job playin' stump the chump with the ignorant."
Not at all. I've gotten you to admit that you have no support for your position above and beyond your assumption that it couldn't be true (that is, it isn't true because it couldn't be true, and because it couldn't be true, it isn't true), and that's pretty much enough for anyone who recognizes circular logic when he sees it.
I take it you've never been to Rome. In the Vatican, if something is not allowed, it is NOT allowed at all.
I've already covered all the relevant matters. Have a nice day.
"I've already covered all the relevant matters."
Astounding. You really imagine that to be true?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.