#51590 I'm not making the case that gambling in and of itself is wrong...I'm making the case that gambling for monetary gain is wrong whether you can afford to lose it or not.
Your constant harrangue ignores the fact Doug explicitly exempted insurance proceeds from his definition of gambling. Yet you continue to persist. Why?
Answer the question. Did he or did he not say that all gambling for money is wrong?
As in your sizzling analysis of my "misreading" of Jim's bigotry, you were obviously reading an "all of" where it was not written.
As in your sizzling analysis of my "misreading" of Jim's bigotry, your nitpicking attack on Doug you were obviously reading an "all of" where it was not written. Touche!
Reggie: Your constant harrangue ignores the fact Doug explicitly exempted insurance proceeds from his definition of gambling.
He did no such thing. He never modified his definition.
The fact that he does not consider insurance "gambling with money" is the key. His definition never changed, and you and he are both ignoring this fact. I am using his definition that he put forth.
Now, I have had several others here acknowledge that insurance is indeed gambling with money. So Doug needs to change his definition.
Not call me a liar for using it.
SD