An organization of practicing Doctors of Chiropractic. Public and professional information as well as services offered by the Council.

An organization of practicing Doctors of Chiropractic. Public and professional information as well as member services.

The voice of Chiropractic in Michigan.

Lansing. Non profit statewide association.

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 you think you need to.

You have made it clear that I will need to. But you have still not admitted what
you need to do.


--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( 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 <781E8E3A-453C-D5AD-870E-D01CAA384238@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard
says...

>matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:

>> I didn't "distract the dicsussion off". Your sin was only
>> ONE of the topics I touched on.

>The fact that you touched on my "sin" is proof of your
> distraction.

No, it only proves one of the necessary conditions for
distraction to exist. But you have yet to prove any of the
other necessary conditions.

But I _can_ prove