I greatly prefer genuine iron sharpening iron dialogue.
It's difficult to tell that you do given that response to my last, to you.
You seem to be saying . . . that
Proddys
MUST
1.A agree that certain foundational, original facts are indeed facts.
1.B We do NOT so agree. We believe a good chunk of them to be revisionist lies from hell.
. . . that Proddys, per y'all's !!!!DEMANDS!!!! about the FR Rel Forum
2.A MUST agree with amazingly specific [for the RCC] and amazingly consistent [for the RCC] terms, definitions, sequences, processes of dialogue.
2.B We could likely come closer to that . . . but it's not really necessarily the purview of either side to dictate such things.
===========================================
3.B From our Proddy perspective . . . Basic sound logic, reason, genuine dialogue, solid dependable word definitions are all valued by the Proddys I know of on FR.
3.A It is the RCC side that trashes sound logic, reason, genuine dialogue and solid dependable word definitions.
Yet, somehow, rather arrogantly, the RCC side still manages to blame Proddys for sabotaging the dialogue???
Sheesh.
.
