How about: "Thank you for accusing me of equivocation, and suggesting that you're using a dictionary without clarifying what the definition says, when you answer my question equivocally." How's that?
No, that's an ad hom. Why don't you try what I said instead.
I should appreciate every ad hom from you guys. BTW...thank you so much for this suggestion. I'm sure Ted would gladly clarify.
Well, his response is up to him.
I apologize profusely. You "didn't say, 'He satisfied me.'" You said, "From where I'm sitting, you asked a question. Ted unequivocally answered: Yes. Then he expounded on that answer like you asked me to do in another post." I'm sorry that I saw in your response satisfaction with his answer. When you suggested that he answered "unequivocally", I really should have said, "Oh. I see. Yes...you're so much brighter than I, I shall rely on your view.
Well, until that last clause, you were doing good. Sorry i didn't see your tongue firmly planted in your cheek.
Ted said 'yes.' That's unequivocable. He answered the question, which requested a yes/no answer. And then he expounded. My satisfaction is not necessary in a conversation between you two. But you probably think I'm writing here to be part of the conversation. I'm not. I'm commenting on the unequivocal answer that Ted gave, since you said it was not.
Equivocation: "the use of ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself." I still have no idea what he meant...and neither do you...and he has avoided committing himself. Make up your own word for it...but do not by any means believe that I know English. I'm unqualified to speak it or know it. I need someone brighter than I to explain the language to me.
How is 'Yes' ambiguous? Go back and read my responses for understanding. But to read them, you have to first put down the sword and shield. You have to have clear sight to the words.
This is bizarre on the threshold of the Twilight Zone. What the fat is "my found definition?"
OK...What is your problem? How have you become incapable of civil discourse?
This is civil discourse. How does it seem that I've become incapable? You have your eyes closed and your mind shut down.
What is my problem, Pete? He said 'yes.' I said 'no.' He expounded. I said I have no satisfaction in his response. What comes of that?? You attack me. You're a peach.
Echo chamber here we come. You guys will like that.
This is not a "veiled ad hom." This is in response to your suggesting that you do not interpret scripture, but rely on brighter folks to do that for you.
So it's not a veiled ad hom when you call me dumb? Brighter chums than me??
You do interpret scripture, and you have done a reasonably good job...and you've taken to spewing nonsense with me for some reason that is baffling me.
And now I'm spewing nonsense.
And as you did with Mik, you begin using phrases others are using. Not because they fit, but simply because you are the mirror in a schoolyard tit-for-tat.
Pete, that is not a Cleo mindreading statement. It is a statement of observation. No Cleo needed. It's already clearly on the table.
So, do you want to argue about observation and what is clear. Or are you here to talk about scripture? I'm really beginning to wonder.
And you, on the other hand, have turned this board into an ad hominem attack on a select group of hated televangelists, so that anyone who is not them should not be mentioned on this board.
When have I ever coddled up to Copeland here? I was the first to speak against him causing one Maestroh to almost have a brain aneurism because someone on the WoF side actually spoke against it's leader. Have I ever coddled up to Hinn? No, I wouldn't even let him under the WoF umbrella, he was so icky. Who else? Dollar with his two headed dog to redefine existence if God so thought to do so? Laughable.
Pete, let me clue you in just in case you haven't noticed. This is not Christian Forums. This site is not WoF friendly, as you know. So if you come here you are coming for the fight, because most people here won't like your doctrines.
This is not an ad hom . This is likewise an observation...I have never "dismissed the major teachers of the message". I've dismissed their jets and focused on the message. For you it's solely them and their jets. The message will outlast them...and it will certainly outlast their jets. Focus on it, and we can still the echoes.
- ...if WoF is officially redefined as only that which Hagin and Copeland spew...
- I've seen Copeland close up...He's not guiding my opinions...ever.
These are your words, Pete. So you include spewing in your teaching? You don't dismiss what is not guiding your opinions? I'm being overly pedantic here. admittedly.
But your inconsistencies will outlast their jets as well.
This is getting bi-polar for me...All of this can be purged of acrimony and become enjoyable. The issues are more important daily, as the Day approaches.
They have meds for that.