Some?
Who exactly failed to express their concern?
However, I certainly think it’s valid to post back explaining my belief they are mistaken.
Mistaken about WHAT?
It is hard to follow the reasoning, if the facts are merely vaguely referred to.
Elsie: Below is a good example of either 1. You are goofing around or 2. You really are not able to follow simple points. Below are your responses to my post. First, I said I don’t understand where some posters got their particular concern about Mormonism. Your response is a bit of a non sequitor. My very next sentence says, but I believe they are mistaken.
You then say I didn’t identify what they are “mistaken” about. Did you not get that one sentence follows another and I am saying they are “mistaken” to have a “particular concern about Mormonism” (meaning a serious concern about Mormonism in particular)?
I mean really, are you yanking my chain, or do you really think it’s valid to answer each sentence separately, and not to understand the meaning of two sentences, or a whole paragraph?
I notice this is very common on the thread. You take every sentence and “disprove” it, meanwhile not seeing the whole and claiming to not even understand the point the person made in a few paragraphs. Seems to be related to a very doctrinaire interpretation of isolated Biblical quotations.
example below:
“I don’t even underdtand where some posters got their particular concern about mormonism.
Some?
Who exactly failed to express their concern?
However, I certainly think it’s valid to post back explaining my belief they are mistaken.
Mistaken about WHAT?
It is hard to follow the reasoning, if the facts are merely vaguely referred to.”