An all-Idaho portal site with links for topics such as recreation, media, travel, schools, and arts. Site includes a mall section for Idaho products.

Directory of arts, business, community, entertainment, travel, recreation, and government sites.

State symbols, emblems, and almanac.

Provides Internet access and web hosting services to North Idaho. Directory of local resources, including government and business sites and forums.

In article , Bart Goddard
says...
>
>matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:
>
>>>Yeah, I have an ex-girlfriend who called everything she couldn't
>>>understand (which covered a very wide scope of knowledge) "stupid."
>>
>> I hope you are not expecting gratitude from here when she finds out
>> about this description of her in such a public forum, Bart.
>
>This is so funny.

I'm glad you got something out of it. For you _clearly_ didn't get the point.

> 1. The guy who made such a big deal about
>my typo in the word "predestinarian" mispelled "her".

That was hardly a "big deal". And I see you never did respond to my real point
in that post. You DO meet Denzinger's definition of "predestinarian". And your
false dogma was CLEARLY condemned at the Council of Orange, and even at Ephesus
and Chalcedon. Yet you claim to support the dogmas of these last two. But your
claim is false.

> 2. The
>guy who's only method of argument is to try to find some sin
>his opponent committed

Would you STOP making that so easy?

> and then distract the discussion off

I didn't "distract the dicsussion off". Your sin was only ONE of the topics I
touched on. It is you, not I, who "distracted the discussion off" by not
addressing most of what I said, and by failing to mark where you snipped.

But these are your old tricks. Like 'tuppence' said, we are one to your tricks.

>to that is so inept at his own method that he can't find a better
>sin than to assert that I've slandered someone I didn't even name.

I did not say you slandered her. And whether you named her or not has NOTHING to
do with why you should not have done what you did. It was still a clear case of
despising the commandment of Pro 15:2.

>I would have thought you'd have honed your skill at ad hominem
>better than that over the years.

So many problems ith this fallacious assertion of yours! First of all, it was
not "ad hominem". Secondly, it is you, not I, who has been working so hard at ad
hominem. There are other problems, but that is enough for now.

> If you want a list of my
>heinous sins, I'd be happy to send you the file.

No, I only have another 20G left on my disk;)

>> But just by saying this, you have irresponisbly overlooked what you
>> had to do first.
>
>You just can't make a sentence without some little accusation
>in it, can you.

You just can't make a sentence without big and nonsensical accusations, can you?
Look around, Bart. Look at any 10 of the many other posts I do. You will find at
least 8 of them have many, many sentences with no accusations at all.

At least, you will see it if you can count.

> Too bad you nev