\o/ !HALALU Yah!
\o/
Greetings in the Matchless Name of
YahShua !
OK, now for some "attention to detail" in case any legitimate scientists or
scholars are paying any attention
...
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller"
Sent: 05/13/2004 4:05 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] "ad
hominem"?
> Chris wrote:
> > Y'all have such great difficulty even knowing
> > what "ad hominem" is. Y'all identify "name
> > calling" as "ad hominem" ... 'tain't necessarily
> > so. Y'all identify "calling a spade a spade" as
> > "ad hominem" ... t'ain't never so.
>
> > Y'all have such great difficulty even knowing
> > what "ad hominem" is. Y'all identify "name
> > calling" as "ad hominem" ... 'tain't necessarily
> > so. Y'all identify "calling a spade a spade" as
> > "ad hominem" ... t'ain't never so.
>
David M. wrote:
> Whether or not Jesus called people
names is not the issue here.
cb responds:
I wasn't talkin' 'bout 'Jesus' or any
specific individual. Maybe you need a southern dictionary to know what
'y'all' means? I only get to being specific and bring in The Saviour later
in my writing. I was addressing "y'all" in reference to "li'l ol' me" at
this juncture.
> Nobody
> is telling you that you cannot call people names in other forums. What
> we are saying is that on this e-mail list, we find name calling and ad
> hominem arguments unproductive with regards to intelligent discussion.
> is telling you that you cannot call people names in other forums. What
> we are saying is that on this e-mail list, we find name calling and ad
> hominem arguments unproductive with regards to intelligent discussion.
Your actions from my first day on TT and
those of many others on this e-mail list speak much louder than your
words.
> Your recent posts are a classic
example, because you seem to think that
> you have added something to the conversation by calling me names.
>
> you have added something to the conversation by calling me names.
>
What names have I called you besides David
M. in recent posts?
> In regards to ad hominem arguments,
please consider the following from
> the encyclopedia britannica. It might help you understand it better.
>
> the encyclopedia britannica. It might help you understand it better.
>
My understanding on this matter is
perfect. What you have submitted is what I have been trying to tell you
and this list. You either know this and are therefore dishonest or you
don't know this which relates to blindness. That is not name calling,
rather that is identifying the relevant matters.
> So the point is that instead of
casting aspersions upon the character of
> list members, we want you to discuss the subject matter.
> list members, we want you to discuss the subject matter.
That is a non sequitur a la "Do you
walk to school or do you carry your lunch?" I do discuss the subject
matter. The problem 'round here is that I stick to the subject matter and
don't go down the rabbit trails ... at least until the subject matter is
addressed and concluded. That drove folks nuts when The Saviour did it ...
still does today when this servant of His does the same.
> For example,
> rather than saying that I am braggadocios
> rather than saying that I am braggadocios
You have written inaccurately here. I
didn't say that you are braggadocios. I referred to your braggadocio (re
"attention to detail", and "the scientist in me" type of comments). The
word braggadocio is a noun identifying what you did rather than what you
are. Now if you are of the school that "one lie a liar makes" then I
understand your inaccuracy in this regard.
> and that I am going to burn in
> the lake of fire,
> the lake of fire,
I didn't say/write that. Is this
dishonesty on your part? Exaggeration is a form of lying. Perhaps
you are extrapolating? Perhaps you just don't see at all? That would
be a matter of blindness. That relates to your comments
following:
> try just telling us the manuscripts
that Jahn used.
> You claimed to know what they were. Why can't you tell us what he used?
> Did he consult Wycliffe's translation? Why won't you answer?
>
> You claimed to know what they were. Why can't you tell us what he used?
> Did he consult Wycliffe's translation? Why won't you answer?
>
I have given answer. You are the one
who has refused answer so I'm not chasing you down any rabbit trails. Even
though it seems about as futile as trying to describe color to a blind man I'll
try one more time.
Jahn used ONLY manuscripts used by King
Jimmy's boys. That was my WHOLE and ONLY point. I didn't say Jahn
used ALL those used by King Jimmy's boys. I only noted that Jahn did not
use any that King Jimmy's boys didn't. You said that is the same as
Green. Green used other manuscripts than those of King Jimmy's boys.
Do you remember early math instruction on intersecting and non-intersecting
sets? There is some intersecting between Jahn and Green re King Jimmy's
boys, but Green went beyond that. If you can't/won't see the plainness of
that then I'm not going any further.
> Concerning what Jesus said to the
woman, I have a few things to say.
>
> Chris wrote:
> > "Truth, Adonay, yet bitches eat of the crumbs
> > which fall from their masters' table."
> > Was that an "ad hominem" from The Saviour? No.
> > Was that an insult from The Saviour. Yes, and
> > one of a very degrading nature.
>
> I am going to ignore for the moment that you changed a proper word
> within Scripture into a curse word.
>
> Chris wrote:
> > "Truth, Adonay, yet bitches eat of the crumbs
> > which fall from their masters' table."
> > Was that an "ad hominem" from The Saviour? No.
> > Was that an insult from The Saviour. Yes, and
> > one of a very degrading nature.
>
> I am going to ignore for the moment that you changed a proper word
> within Scripture into a curse word.
By bringing up this assertion of yours you
have made it an issue - an accusation if you will. Saying, "I'm going to
ignore for the moment that you are ugly" is an accusation whether you pursue it
or not. Not pursuing it makes it an unfounded accusation for
starters. Have you done this because you are dishonest? Are you
blind to this? This is not the first time. For instance
...
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller"
Sent: 05/03/2004 11:13 AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Bible versions - ad hominem arguments
Let me just be open and honest with you about my feelings and
thoughts
when reading something like the above. When I read such rhetoric which
labels me a fool, and as someone who has exposed himself as a fool by
opening his mouth, I am VERY tempted to rake you over the coals for such
irresponsible statements. I have knowledge that would very well prove
you wrong in some of what you have said. My CARNAL reaction is to
present this knowledge of mine, then defame you as a BIG HEAD and BIG
MOUTH full of hot air and without any education at all concerning
translations. Why do I have these feelings within me? Because I am
flesh like everybody else. I have a sin nature within me that is ever
present and ever wanting to be my master. But I have learned through
the eternal spirit to reject the carnal impulses of my flesh, so you
will not see this kind of reaction from me.
when reading something like the above. When I read such rhetoric which
labels me a fool, and as someone who has exposed himself as a fool by
opening his mouth, I am VERY tempted to rake you over the coals for such
irresponsible statements. I have knowledge that would very well prove
you wrong in some of what you have said. My CARNAL reaction is to
present this knowledge of mine, then defame you as a BIG HEAD and BIG
MOUTH full of hot air and without any education at all concerning
translations. Why do I have these feelings within me? Because I am
flesh like everybody else. I have a sin nature within me that is ever
present and ever wanting to be my master. But I have learned through
the eternal spirit to reject the carnal impulses of my flesh, so you
will not see this kind of reaction from me.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Well, David, you concluded, "you will not see this kind of reaction from
me" right after giving that kind of reaction -- including assertions not pursued
which makes them unfounded. AGAIN I ASK, have you done this because
you are dishonest? Are you blind to this?
David M. continued:
> I want to point out to you that
> Jesus did not speak to this woman the way that you have spoken to me on
> this list.
> Jesus did not speak to this woman the way that you have spoken to me on
> this list.
David, if you want to "point out" that fire is not hot, well, you
can't. Fire is hot. I have actually addressed you more kindly than
The Saviour spoke to this woman. My fire has been less hot. You have
claimed it is more hot. In order to "prove" your point you then assigned
to me writing of an inflammatory nature that is much hotter than that which I or
The Saviour made.
> If Jesus had your attitude, he would have said something
> like, "You lousy dog, how dare you think that you can ask for healing
> when I am sent only to the house of Israel. You are such a stupid dog,
> you idiot. GET OUT OF MY SIGHT. By the way, you are going to burn in
> hell fire too, so have a nice day."
>
> Jesus did not do that at all.
> like, "You lousy dog, how dare you think that you can ask for healing
> when I am sent only to the house of Israel. You are such a stupid dog,
> you idiot. GET OUT OF MY SIGHT. By the way, you are going to burn in
> hell fire too, so have a nice day."
>
> Jesus did not do that at all.
Neither did I "do that at all". Are you familiar with the phrase, "no
offense given, none taken". You have taken much more offense than any
given. Guilty conscience? Pride? Dishonesty?
Blindness? These are questions, David. They are not accusations, ad
hominem, or name calling.
> In fact, he never directly called her a
> dog. He spoke a proverb and the woman gave a great answer to it.
> dog. He spoke a proverb and the woman gave a great answer to it.
THIS IS CLASSIC! I did exactly the same thing! I wrote a
proverb, "Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth
and remove all doubt." I "never directly called" you a fool! The
difference here is that you did not give a great answer to it! The woman
was humble in her response. You were proud in yours! THANK YOU FOR
MAKING MY POINT!
> Did
> Jesus know before hand that the woman would give a good answer? I think
> he did.
> Jesus know before hand that the woman would give a good answer? I think
> he did.
I am sure that He did not. However, that is a meaty subject not to be
delved into until milk can be readily handled.
> Nevertheless, if God calls you to rebuke and call people names, we
are
> not telling you that you are not allowed to do it. We are only saying
> that such is not productive on this list.
> not telling you that you are not allowed to do it. We are only saying
> that such is not productive on this list.
That could make for an interesting discussion although some might call it
an argument.
> Such should be done face to
> face if it is done at all.
>
> face if it is done at all.
>
I am open to that. I just have not seen that as a rule that is
observed on TT with any consistency at all. For instance, as I've been
writing this to you the following came through TT ...
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 05/13/2004 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] SOME WOMEN JUST WANT TO LOOK LIKE TEMPLE
PROSTITUTES
I heard that Jan refused to weasr the headcoverings Elsman bought for her
because they all had the word "Dunce" written on them. She put them
in his closet.
Now, did this person really hear "that"? Is this a lie? This
person "never directly called" Elsman a "Dunce". Yet this person did just
that. Do you deny that? Furthermore, it was done under a false
pretense of 1) what he heard from another, and 2) the actions of another ...
unless of course this person really did hear these things from another regarding
the actions of another.
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
>
> David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
>
Peace is with me, David, thank you very much. From what several have
written here about me they think that I am angry ... but then they think many
other things inaccurately almost as a matter of course. I am walking in
complete and total shalom.
Ahava b' YahShua
(Love in The
SAVIOUR)
Baruch
YHVH,
(Bless The
LORD)
a servant of
YHVH
