Re: Trying Hard not to swear

Jerry Joplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Randy Burns wrote:
> 
> > Guys, I think *this* is his best *parting shot*!
> > 
> > Randy
> > 
> 
> 
> Ahh, a glimmer of hope ignites in Randy's TRB persona!
> 
> Jerry

And my previous post remains unanswered:

Jerry Joplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Paul Hammond wrote:
> > Sorry Jerry.
> > 
> > This was a parting shot - and it was the only part of my post
> > you saw fit to respond to?
> 
> Paul, I don't play the 'parting shots' game.
> 

Did you have some difficulty with my last post?

Jerry Joplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Paul Hammond wrote:
> > Jerry Joplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>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.
> 
> Its irrelevant because of your brain clog, when you're able to discern 
> relevance from irrelevance, please let me know.
> 
> Jerry


Sorry Jerry.

This was a parting shot - and it was the only part of my post
you saw fit to respond to?

Maybe you couldn't comprehend the rest - here it is, in
case you've got any comments on the main body of the text:

Micheal McKenny says that ad-homs are always an admission
that the argument is superior, because you have no argument
to counter it - perhaps the same is true of cut-and-runs.

It *is* difficult to see what argument you could possibly
offer to counter the clear back-tracking and refusal to
justify your accusations against Rod that we have seen
from you here.

I take it you now accept that your in your posts of 7th
and 9th of November you made an assertion which you
backtracked from on 11th November?  Or do I have to 
google up that evidence once again?


[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 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