Silly wabbit, I already did. You just ignored it. To repeat from my last post:
And lest you continue to try to wriggle free of your own commitments, I would remind you of the outstanding opportunity I gave you to clarify the matter. In one of our email exchanges I said:
“You’d have to know with certainty the motivations of every Protestant apologist on the planet for the generalization to be true.”
To which you responded:
“That is not difficult to ascertain as they demonstrate their motivations often enough.”
Here I clearly show you I am understanding you to be including “every Protestant apologist on the planet,” and you not only fail to deny this gargantuan scope, you confirm your belief that they all lie. Although, as usual, you offer no data beyond your worthless, tiny, anecdotal scraps to support your planet-wide defamatory attack on all Protestant apologists.
There. Any reasonable reader, myself included, would understand your “they” as referring back to “protestant apologists.”
Again, I invite the reader to observe the evasive technique vlad is using here. It is masterful. Unfortunately, in the end it is also ineffective. Watch this:
Vlad, do you believe there is such a thing as a Protestant apologist that does not lie? A simple yes or no will do.
“And lest you continue to try to wriggle free of your own commitments, I would remind you of the outstanding opportunity I gave you to clarify the matter. In one of our email exchanges I said:”
I don’t need an “opportunity” to “clarify the matter”. It has been clear from the beginning.
“To which you responded:”
Your comment is irrelevant. The fact that you used a term I never did does not prove you were right in any case or way.
“Here I clearly show you I am understanding you to be including “every Protestant apologist on the planet,””
Your understanding is irrelevant.
“and you not only fail to deny this gargantuan scope, you confirm your belief that they all lie.”
Actually, no. But it doesn’t matter if that is what you believe either.
“Although, as usual, you offer no data beyond your worthless, tiny, anecdotal scraps to support your planet-wide defamatory attack on all Protestant apologists.”
It doesn’t matter what you consider to be “data beyond your worthless, tiny, anecdotal scraps”. Your opinion is irrelevant.
“There. Any reasonable reader, myself included, would understand your “they” as referring back to “protestant apologists.””
It doesn’t matter who you judge to be any “reasonable reader” nor does it matter what you think, feel, or believe he or they would conclude. Your opinion is irrelevant.
“Again, I invite the reader to observe the evasive technique vlad is using here. It is masterful.”
I am not using an evasive technique. Your opinion is irrelevant in any case. That’s not a technique. That’s simply a statement of fact.
“Unfortunately, in the end it is also ineffective. Watch this:”
It doesn’t matter what you consider to be ineffective.
“Vlad, do you believe there is such a thing as a Protestant apologist that does not lie? A simple yes or no will do.”
I decide when a simple yes of no will do to any question put to me by anyone, any time, anywhere.
“I have not changed my story at all.”
Yes, you have. I said PROTESTANT ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTS. You repeatedly said I said “Protestant apologists” when I never once mentioned “Protestant apologists”. At the least that is an error. At the worst, you’re simply fulfilling the generalization you attacked.
When will you post the post # where I mentioned “Protestant apologists”?