1. I spoke of hell’s intent regarding the perspective, the ideas in the OP. I didn’t speak of the Original PostER. I don’t know the original poster. . . . besides it being against the rules.
2. You are welcome to make of my posting style etc. whatever you will.
3. The lack of a clue about me is persistently comforting in such cases.
4. My writing AND my style continue to result in plenty of confirmation.
5. Many, if not most, naysayers hereon will likely find that incomprehensible this side of eternity.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.
>> 1. I spoke of hell’s intent regarding the perspective, the ideas in the OP. I didn’t speak of the Original PostER. I don’t know the original poster. . . . besides it being against the rules. <<
I don’t know what to make of this. I pointed out to you that the post was a vanity, something you could easily confirm. Yet you separate the original poster from the original post as if they are unrelated.
>> 2. You are welcome to make of my posting style etc. whatever you will. 3. The lack of a clue about me is persistently comforting in such cases. <<
I’m obliged not only by FR rules, but by my own conscience to be charitable in my inferences about you. That’s not to say that you cause people to form impressions.
>> 4. My writing AND my style continue to result in plenty of confirmation. 5. Many, if not most, naysayers hereon will likely find that incomprehensible this side of eternity. <<
Incomprehensible? You write that as if you expect you’ve handed some great wisdom down to fools who can’t begin to fathom it. In fact, the “confirmations” remind me of nothing so much as dufflepuds from C.S. Lewis’ “Voyage of the Dawn-Treader.”