Re: Trying Hard not to swear

Jerry Joplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Paul Hammond wrote:
> > It's right, actually Jerry, and I reposted your messages
> > of 7th and 9th of November where you claimed that
> > ALL attacks on the Baha'i Community were attacks on
> > the Baha'i Faith, before trying to pass off the idea
> > that what you had actually said was an attack on
> > the Baha'i Community *can* be an attack on the
> > Baha'i Faith.
> > 
> > THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO STATEMENTS.
> 
> If I can say one, then I can certainly say the other.  Are you 
> disagreeing with this?  I can say BOTH and not be 'backtracking.'
> 

You are backtracking if you begin by asserting the strong
version, and then pretend that you only ever presented the
weak version - and you do this in the teeth of the
evidence of your own words.

Big shame job, Jerry.

> If I believe all attacks on the community are attacks on the faith, then 
> its certainly true that there exists an attack on the community which is 
> also an attack on the faith.  Do you understand this?
>

I'm a mathematician.  Don't talk down to me.

2 certainly implies one - but you asserted that *all* attack
on the community were attacks on the faith, and then when
asked to justify that, you went for Proposition 1 instead.

Proposition 1 is trivially true, (since no-one here
disputes it) - Proposition 2 is clearly false

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS???

> I would like to eventually get around to discussing the attributes of 
> attacks on the community which make it an attack on the faith.  Are you 
> ready to talk about that yet?
> 

I would like to eventually get around to discussing the first
assertion that you made, where you accused Rod of attacking
the faith by attacking the community, before you started
down this diversionary backtrack.  Are you ready to talk
about that yet?

> 
> > Well, reading your messages is clearly an unreliable
> > way to work out what you are trying to say.  The
> > next day, you'll be backtracking over the hill
> > as fast as your little lallies can carry you.
> > 
> > Even when someone reposts your actual statements
> > showing that you changed what you were saying, you
> > still insist that the world alter to match your
> > imagination rather than the other way about.
> 
> Is there really anything worth commenting on in the above?
> 

you told me that "if I wondered a bit harder I could
work out what you meant for yourself".

Considering that you change what you have said
to suit yourself depending on the day of the week,
and the time of the month, it is clearly not possible
to discern what you mean by paying attention to what
you say.

Maybe you are telling me I should attempt to read your
mind?

Maybe you'd better learn to say what you mean and
mean what you say!

> > No, it didn't.  Everyone except yourself saw you
> > backtracking, and saw me call it.
> 
> No, read above.
>

Yes, read above.
 
> > It's a new irrelevance, so I'm not wasting my time on it.
> > 
> > Shall we get back to you actually justifying why you think
> > it is cool to treat Rod as an Enemy of the Faith?
> > 
> > Did you, perhaps, read his name on a list sent out from
> > Haifa?
>  >
>  > I'm pretty sure that you are incapable of taking the slightest
>  > responsibility for your behaviour here, so don't try to
>  > put this one on me.
>  >
>  > Paul
> 
> Its not irrelevent, you just seem to have a problem trying to think 
> about it.  When you unclog your brain, please let me know.
> 

It's irrelevant to me.  And I am not the one with a brain
clog.

When you get YOUR brain working properly, you'll let me know,
I'm sure.

Paul