The Gospel

[Ducky]

I guess I must like cats! I have more cats than kids!!"5 cats, 4 kids, 2 dogs"

This is a first! Kathy's derailing her own thread!

Way to go kathy!


ETA how do you feel about puppies?

 

[kurious_kathy]

This is a first! Kathy's derailing her own thread!

Way to go kathy!


ETA how do you feel about puppies?

I thought I would just pop in and say Hi! I haven't been on-line too much lately. I did share something the other day on another board pertaining to this topic that I may want to share to bring us back to discussing this topic again. "Why Is The Gospel An Offense?"

 

[Ducky]

I thought I would just pop in and say Hi! I haven't been on-line too much lately. I did share something the other day on another board pertaining to this topic that I may want to share to bring us back to discussing this topic again. "Why Is The Gospel An Offense?"

On at least half of the past 26 pages of this thread you were informed it wasn't, honey.

Topic over.

 

[ceo_esq]

Here, I fixed your post to the relevant statement.

Yes, and it still fails to support any of your recent points.

You don't know me, have never met me, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination know any of my motives. Since you ahve in the past mistaken humor for rudeness, I can only assume that your assertions are your own unfounded bias.

I think it more likely that you have mistaken rudeness for humor, or for some other worthwhile quality. The rest of your statements do not seem on point.

Scroll up.

I saw it, and again my statements fail to support any relevant assertion of yours in support of which you offer them. As usual, your arguments have something of a sow's ear about them, and repeating them is unlikely to yield a silk purse.

Not a diversion at all. You are quite simply looking down your nose and nitpicking other people's behavior. Your mother should have explained this is rude while you were growing up.

Your behavior is objectionable, for which I can take no responsibility. Did your mother skip ahead to the finer points while omitting the more fundamental one that openly insulting people is rude?

And to the extent this removes the immediate focus from the topic of your own behavior, it's a diversion all right.

Think hard.

Still no silk purse, sorry.

Shifting the goalposts. here are your words:

Once again, they fail to support the assertion in support of which you offered them. You are really digging a hole here.

Now, I am sure you are smart enough to know your assertion there not only requires you to provide evidence not only of useage, but useage of that word by the average poster. You determined the timeframe of two weeks. That's shifting from the original statement, but ok, I'll go with that.

Since the original statement referred only to an impression, the precise time frame is irrelevant, but ok, I'll go with that too. Hopefully we can agree to extrapolate in the interest of saving some time.

ou were not "referring to how often you use such expressions in absolute terms, not as a percentage of how many posts you've made." You specifically said I use them more than the average poster.

I said that I had the impression that you use them more often than the average poster. Your decision to force a statistical interpretation of this is not warranted by my statement. "More times" works just fine, though not, I admit, for your argument.

You have yet to provide this evidence. On top of that, statistically that means nothing considering my volume of posts. Please provide where statistically I use that more than the average poster adjusting for volume.

I didn't make that assertion, therefore it is not incumbent on me to provide any such thing. I can tell that you really want to sell this straw man, but nobody's buying.

Your assertion is that I am rude more often than other posters. My response is that I am statistically posting no more insulting posts than the average poster. That my posts are numerous only skew your interpretation of how often you see something you think is insulting.

Your inference that the statement necessarily referred to statistical frequency rather than raw frequency was unwarranted. Please get over it, for the sake of your remaining credibility if for no other reason.

Interesting we've moved from the average poster to those that appear most frequently. Your evidence again is lacking.

Pay attention here. In a given period, the number of times a post containing a specific term was posted by the handful of posters who appear most frequently in a list of all posts in which the term is used is necessarily going to be greater than the average number of times a poster on this board posted employed the term. We don't even need to know exactly what the average was; we know that it is a lower number. The degree of difficulty this concept appears to be posing for you is baffling.

You did not provide that evidence, and your admitted research technique was rather flawed, as I have pointed out.

You've pointed out absolutely nothing that, particularly allowing for time constraints and the limited added-value factor of more exhaustive "research", constitutes a serious flaw. The reason you think you have, I daresay, is that you keep wanting to stretch the relevant hypothesis into something it isn't.

You have defined three different paramaters, and they change with each post of yours. More goalpost shifting.

"Goalpost shifting" typically refers to raising the burden of proof in the face of proffered evidence, or a retreat from a prior position, or the like. Quite the opposite is happening here, at least on this side of the field. I put forth my initial statement, which of course was not a categorical one, and I subsequently advanced from it by making it more categorical as the data warranted. Ironically, to whatever extent there is real goalpost shifting, in the conventional sense, going on here, it's being done by you.

As a general remark, though, full points for efforts to use the formal and informal vocabulary of rhetoric in this thread, even though it's hard to say whether you're getting any more proficient at it.

Now, either provide the evidence that I use those terms more than the average poster, or withdraw the statement and acknowledge your whole problem here is your impression and bias, not a forum rules violation (to which you hinted I violated twice now.)

You know, fowlsound, I may on occasion be willing to cut your food for you, but I don't see why I should have to chew it for you as well. I directed you to the data, which is equally available to both of us, and I described how I sorted it. I then reported the result. If you're unwilling either to accept it or expend the modicum of effort involved to consult the source itself, why should anyone take your reservations seriously?

In the future, I would suggest rather than act like the pedantic jerk you have here, you simply report the post to the mods and keep to yourself how you think the rest of us should act.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but as I said, I think such things make better last resorts than first ones, and I daresay that most posters and moderators would not object to this principle. Still, take your own advice if it suits you, complain to the mods that I'm being a rude jerk, and abstain from publicly commenting on it.

That's a good point. ceo_esq has yet to actually cite the times I called someone an idiot or moron, so at this point it is still his word.

So ceo:

Evidence?

The forum records are only a click away. It's almost as though we both had the same encyclopedia sitting next to us and I've given you the page number. See my earlier observation about chewing your food for you, and why it is so difficult to take your stance seriously.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, and it still fails to support any of your recent points.

Window door tango alpha

I think it more likely that you have mistaken rudeness for humor, or for some other worthwhile quality. The rest of your statements do not seem on point.

Always proactively untwist octoganal hippopotomus pants.

I saw it, and again my statements fail to support any relevant assertion of yours in support of which you offer them. As usual, your arguments have something of a sow's ear about them, and repeating them is unlikely to yield a silk purse.

Paul is dead.

Your behavior is objectionable, for which I can take no responsibility. Did your mother skip ahead to the finer points while omitting the more fundamental one that openly insulting people is rude?

Never put salt in your eyes.

And to the extent this removes the immediate focus from the topic of your own behavior, it's a diversion all right.

I'll never tell.

Still no silk purse, sorry.

Have you seen the muffin man?

Once again, they fail to support the assertion in support of which you offered them. You are really digging a hole here.

Discordian is ha ha?

Since the original statement referred only to an impression, the precise time frame is irrelevant, but ok, I'll go with that too. Hopefully we can agree to extrapolate in the interest of saving some time.

Tower of power.

I said that I had the impression that you use them more often than the average poster. Your decision to force a statistical interpretation of this is not warranted by my statement. "More times" works just fine, though not, I admit, for your argument.

I am the very model of a modern major general.

I didn't make that assertion, therefore it is not incumbent on me to provide any such thing. I can tell that you really want to sell this straw man, but nobody's buying.

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

Your inference that the statement necessarily referred to statistical frequency rather than raw frequency was unwarranted. Please get over it, for the sake of your remaining credibility if for no other reason.

Gentlemen prefer blondes.

[PONTIFICATE]
Re: The rest of your quote.

Dear Sir,

I find your lack of manners distrurbing. In conclusion; trout.
[/PONTIFICATE]

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Pardon me, I didn't mean to make more sense, and contribute to the conversation more than you, ceo.

 

[Ducky]

Yes, and it still fails to support any of your recent points.

Or yours.

I think it more likely that you have mistaken rudeness for humor, or for some other worthwhile quality. The rest of your statements do not seem on point.

So you were being humorus when you were tellnig me how to behave? Perhaps your delivery needs work.

I saw it, and again my statements fail to support any relevant assertion of yours in support of which you offer them. As usual, your arguments have something of a sow's ear about them, and repeating them is unlikely to yield a silk purse.

Rhetoric. You have yet to admit you are doing nothing but asserting your unsubstantiated bias. You provide no evidence for your assertions, and yet continue to slander me.

Your behavior is objectionable, for which I can take no responsibility. Did your mother skip ahead to the finer points while omitting the more fundamental one that openly insulting people is rude?

It is good to know you've solved the problem of what is objectional behavior on this forum. Please inform the moderators so they can appoint you a position as Moderator of objectionable behavior.

Still no silk purse, sorry.

That's ok, the weekend is coming up, you can get one to match your silver pumps then.

Once again, they fail to support the assertion in support of which you offered them. You are really digging a hole here.

Once again, you're sidestepping that you have asserted your own insult as something of fact. You have not provided evidence.

Since the original statement referred only to an impression, the precise time frame is irrelevant, but ok, I'll go with that too. Hopefully we can agree to extrapolate in the interest of saving some time



I said that I had the impression that you use them more often than the average poster. Your decision to force a statistical interpretation of this is not warranted by my statement. "More times" works just fine, though not, I admit, for your argument.

wrong. I have shown three different value sets you set on this criteria.

I didn't make that assertion, therefore it is not incumbent on me to provide any such thing. I can tell that you really want to sell this straw man, but nobody's buying.

pedantry. Still no evidence of yoru assertions, and yet more rhetoric and sidestepping, which is the norm for you anyway.

Your inference that the statement necessarily referred to statistical frequency rather than raw frequency was unwarranted. Please get over it, for the sake of your remaining credibility if for no other reason.

What else would you use to support your position that I use those insults more often than the "average poster"? Your impressions? harldy evidence.

Pay attention here. In a given period, the number of times a post containing a specific term was posted by the handful of posters who appear most frequently in a list of all posts in which the term is used is necessarily going to be greater than the average number of times a poster on this board posted employed the term. We don't even need to know exactly what the average was; we know that it is a lower number. The degree of difficulty this concept appears to be posing for you is baffling.

so again, flawed methodology on your part. In order to establish the "average" you're going to need more statistics. You completely missed the point that I am no more or less using this in volume to all my posts than anyone else on this forum.

You've pointed out absolutely nothing that, particularly allowing for time constraints and the limited added-value factor of more exhaustive "research", constitutes a serious flaw. The reason you think you have, I daresay, is that you keep wanting to stretch the relevant hypothesis into something it isn't.

I'm still waiting for your evidence. Are you just going to nitpick here, or pony up something to support your assertion that's worth a damn?

"Goalpost shifting" typically refers to raising the burden of proof in the face of profferred evidence, or a retreat from a prior position, or the like. Quite the opposite is happening here, at least on this side of the field. I put forth my initial statement, which of course was not a categorical one, and I subsequently advanced from it by making it more categorical as the data warranted. Ironically, to whatever extent there is real goalpost shifting, in the conventional sense, going on here, it's being done by you.

As a general remark, though, full points for efforts to use the formal and informal vocabulary of rhetoric in this thread, even though it's hard to say whether you're getting any more proficient at it.

That's great, but again, you gave three different sets of criteria for your evidence. Still goalpost shifting.

You know, fowlsound, I may on occasion be willing to cut your food for you, but I don't see why I should have to chew it for you as well. I directed you to the data, which is equally available to both of us, and I described how I sorted it. I then reported the result. If you're unwilling either to accept it or expend the modicum of effort involved to consult the source itself, why should anyone take your reservations seriously?

Please explain how this has anything to do with the fact that my asking for your evidence to your assertions that I use rude terminology more than the "average poster." Since you admit you reported the post, what then did you further need to get a dig in at me in the thread about it? What purpose did that serve except for you to feel superior?

I'm sorry you feel that way, but as I said, I think such things make better last resorts than first ones, and I daresay that most posters and moderators would not object to this principle. Still, take your own advice if it suits you, complain to the mods that I'm being a rude jerk, and abstain from publicly commenting on it.

Sorry, you haven't done anything I feel is worth reporting, and if you had, I wouldn't then point out your behavior to you in a thread.

The forum records are only a click away. It's almost as though we both had the same encyclopedia sitting next to us and I've given you the page number. See my earlier observation about chewing your food for you, and why it is so difficult to take your stance seriously.

Sorry, it does not work that way. It is not my job to gather your data for you. I am fairly certain you understand the burden of proof. Now post your evidence. Not your reports of what you found, actual evidence.

 

[Ducky]

Oh, and thank you ceo_esq, for helping derail this thread further. It is rather ironic you don't see yourself helping to derail the thread you didn't want derailed, but it does serve the purpose just fine for the rest of us.


ETA: Care to add any thoughts on gay wookie sex? We did have quite a discussion about that also...

 

[Ladewig]

I thought I would just pop in and say Hi! I haven't been on-line too much lately. I did share something the other day on another board pertaining to this topic that I may want to share to bring us back to discussing this topic again. "Why Is The Gospel An Offense?"

Great. Just three pages ago I asked

Oh and if you have a moment, how about letting us know whether you still believe that the posters here find the Gospel offensive?

and

So if I introduced you to a Muslim friend of mine who says that she knows that the Quran is true because when she became filled with Allah's love the holy scripture came alive to her, then you would accept her belief as being as valid, authentic, and true as your beliefs?

 

[delphi_ote]

I decided to do an analysis using ceo_esq's research technique. ceo_esq has 258 posts which include the word "evidence." If we divide that by the number of times he has actually supplied evidence, we get... damn. I think I broke my calculator. DIVO is an awful band, not a number.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Great. Just three pages ago I asked



and

Hi Ladewig, You are right I forgot to get back to you on that one. When it comes to the book the Muslims follow I would have to sit down with this person and take the time to pick out the big differences in what they believe and what the Holy Bible teaches. I am not purposely wanting argue their religion verses Christianity, but I would have to tell this person I believe they are being deceived and if they want to have a heart to heart on the difference between what they believe and what I believe I would like to sit down and talk with them. It would be the work of the Holy Spriti to possibly open that persons eyes if possible. I can't say they would ever come to faith in Christ, but I could never rule out the possibility either. Gods timing in each and every persons life, not mine.
I guess I would hope to be someone God could use to reach that person?

 

[Roadtoad]

Well, I was hoping with Kathy's kitty post.

Back to the usual litter.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Hi Ladewig, You are right I forgot to get back to you on that one. When it comes to the book the Muslims follow I would have to sit down with this person and take the time to pick out the big differences in what they believe and what the Holy Bible teaches. I am not purposely wanting argue their religion verses Christianity, but I would have to tell this person I believe they are being deceived and if they want to have a heart to heart on the difference between what they believe and what I believe. It would be the work of the Holy Spriti to possibly open that persons eyes if possible. I can't say they would ever come to faith in Christ, but I could never rule out the possibility either. Gods timing in each and every persons life, not mine.
I guess I would hope to be someone God could use to reach that person?

Kathy, if you have the time, I will look at your book, and outline to you, in detail why your beliefs are asinine, bigoted, and amoral. I'm not saying that you'll wake up, but I'll try.

 

[Pauliesonne]

but I would have to tell this person I believe they are being deceived

Reminds me of someone.....

wait, I'll get it.....

is it yhtak_suoiruk......

no, that can't be right......

is it you, kurious_kathy?

YES, IT IS!

 

[kurious_kathy]

Kathy, if you have the time, I will look at your book, and outline to you, in detail why your beliefs are asinine, bigoted, and amoral. I'm not saying that you'll wake up, but I'll try.

Well if you are a Muslim and believe Jesus once lived among us a a prophet then you might be more open to what I would share about Him being the Son of God.
And in my own defense because I am a follower of Christ and am becoming discipled, I posted this to an other thread on another Forum the other day which believers in Christ were discussing whether if they "Are Once Saved, Always Saved?"
My response was this...I definately think God holds us accountable to share Christ with others. The scripture that comes to my mind is when Jesus says if you confess me before men, I will confess you before my Father and His angels. I do not remember where this particular scripture is right now but I do think it's an important aspect of what we need to be remembering as believers and followers of Christ. Why are we saved?..."To be a witness to others that Jesus Christ was here and is still very much alive!"

1 Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

 

[Ducky]

Any excuse to preach, eh kathy?

Sorry, but this was all covered in the past 29 pages. We jumped the shark about 19 pages ago.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Well if you are a Muslim and believe Jesus once lived among us a a prophet then you might be more open to what I would share about Him being the Son of God.
And in my own defense because I am a follower of Christ and am becoming discipled, I posted this to an other thread on another Forum the other day which believers in Christ were discussing whether if they "Are Once Saved, Always Saved?"
My response was this...I definately think God holds us accountable to share Christ with others. The scripture that comes to my mind is when Jesus says if you confess me before men, I will confess you before my Father and His angels. I do not remember where this particular scripture is right now but I do think it's an important aspect of what we need to be remembering as believers and followers of Christ. Why are we saved?..."To be a witness to others that Jesus Christ was here and is still very much alive!"

1 Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

You misunderstand me. I think you are in error, and that your beliefs are causing you harm. I have no interested in having your imaginary freinds thrown at me.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Hi FS I was answering someone from a question asked 3 pages ago. Anyway I am keeping busy and haven't been on to chat with you guys much lately, "I know you probably don't miss me?"
Anyway FS I want to thank you for last week when we talked a bit about other things we do to try to help others and get involved in meeting some of the needs in this world. You made me want to get a bit more motivated to get out and help even more in my community here in Sonora. Thanks! I have to push myself sometimes to get out but it does feel great to go out and be with other people.

 

[Roadtoad]

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

"I know you probably don't miss me?"

Correct. We don't miss your endless preaching, we don't miss your superior attitude and we certainly don't miss your continued and complete inability to understand the correct use of the question mark.

Maybe you could ask your imaginary friend about that.