Bart, based on the level of vituperation I have observed in many of
your posts, I have decided that I will not respond to any posting of
yours. Please feel free to declare victory.

- Peter

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Bart Goddard wrote:

> lsenders@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > As I've already pointed out, do not place your mindset on me. I am
> > not being argumentative. I was discussing. Obviously there is a
> > difference of option, but I'm not arguing.
>
> Yes you are. I say you're arguing and you say you're not.
> That's an argument.
>

No, it isn't.


:-) :-) :-) :-)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <177.29.16.05.609509000@srcbs.org>, entropy says...

>matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote...

>> In article <173.53.11.05.826849000@srcbs.org>, entropy says...

[snip]

>> >> Maybe not. This would be a good thing, if only you understood that
>> >> comma placement is NOT always trivial. It is certainly NOT trivial
>> >> here, which is why there is argument about it.
>>
>> >Please explain to me how you think any interpretation arising from
>> >where that comma is placed affects your salvation even one iota.
>>
>> See below.
>>
>> >(People argue about it, therefore it's a priori not trivial? Your
>> >logic is often, albeit not always, sharper than that.)
>>
>> But that was NOT my logic! If you cannot understand the difference
>> between my logic and _this_ straw man of yours, how can I explain to
>> you how the issue of the comma affects our salvation?
>
>You can't explain it anyway, and you know it! :)

No, I can explain it. But not to someone who is so incompetent at even the
simplest logic.

> Your complaint
>about logic is just trumped-up window dressing to hide your attempt
>to change the subject.

No, it is not. It is a relevant statement of fact -- even of a painfully obvious
fact. If you really believe I said "people argue about it, therefor it is a
priori not trivial", you are simply too dense to follow an argument.

>But I'm not going to let you do it. Back to the comma, Matt.

You miss the point: admit your error in logic, and then I will explain the comma
to you. Until then, I would be wasting my time.

>Explain how you think any interpretation arising from where that
>comma is placed affects your salvation even one iota.
>
>Use small words if yo