Re: [TruthTalk] On occupying antithetical positions

[Knpraise]

I defer to G.   JD In a message dated 2/3/2005 3:33:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Iz:   below is a post which a few ppl will appreciate--many won't; is it your's?   toward grasping its 'thoughtlessness': thoughtless in its context is bound up in ir/responsibility; initially it may be defined this way: skillfully divorcing the intense thinking behind a public post, IOW, divorcing the authorship qualities required to post it, from the emotions generated in its perhaps captive, perhaps captivated, readers..   the underlying issue, cloaked, is culpability--avoiding it--perhaps decisively, pre-emptively rejecting responsibility for the outcome of its intent manifest in 'careful' wording and structure..its point/s (are?)   for this 'thoughtlessness' the author uses Jesus--acc to many of us here, Jesus himself was speaking, possesses some original literary expertise in his carefully worded generic manner in the sermon quoted; however, the author of your post:) lifted these words of His, applying them directly to Mormons in a widening TT, public conversation the outcome: v nasty feelings/responses, partic while average public readers can realize that emotional 'blood' spills unnecessarily yet easily with no culpability intended by the author as accountable to the author...   e.g., while the author senses no accountability to Jesus, how is the author accountable to the reader/s?   ..so far, there's no mention of ad hominem in the foregoing analysis because i want people to wrap their brains around the essentials of 'it'..forget the Latin which may be confusing, perhaps even the main myth of TT--this myth needs to be demythologized!   the demythologizing of ad hominem includes wanting ppl to back off of each other, on their own, as a matter of respect and/or tolerance   ('unity' is a different issue)   let this author sink in, and, while his message appears to be sinking, he won't render a verdict or send a recommendation (to DavidM) re:  E.g., authorship of  ad hominem   ..also, ftr, you (and anybody else interested) have an opportunity, now, to counter the assumptions you see in the comments, ideas above; a debate, for whatever reason/s, on ad hominem towards its ultimate clarification and meaning is fine, please speak your piece now, publically please, and peacefully (e.g., take time to think abt why you're responding to this author/post before you post it:)   G      On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 08:15:24 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Do you all realize how unlikely it is, naturally speaking, that persons occupying a faith tradition antithetical to yours will ever leave it? My goodness, just look at the conversations BETWEEN 'professing' believers. Some put forward skilled and articulate arguments for ...(whatever). When did you last see someone respond with, 'by jove I believe I'll change my mind on this!'? It hasn't happened and it ain't gonna happen.   At some point SPâs efforts to evangelize hardened mormons are violating Jesus commandment below. They shouldnât be surprised when they are torn to pieces. Izzy   Matthew 7:6  Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.