wof and living 120 years

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Yeah BA... look it up... like TB complained he had to do with my definition. He just equivocated, again. 😉
Post #60 I respond to Ted.
Post #62, Ted, speaking to BA, accuses me of "equivocating."
Post #66 I respond to Ted's charge of equivocation...challenging him to prove it.
Post #67, Mik chimes in with his bizarre question..."Do you infallibly interpret..."
Post #77 Bob uses a completely different post (#69 where I ask Mike for help in monitoring how I interpret scripture), from the one where Ted derived his false accusation...to accuse me again of equivocation, proving conclusively that critics here don't know what the term means. And the gaslighting becomes more oppressive and pronounced. Still no one will clarify where I equivocated according to the original charge.
#86...Ted, who clearly does not know what the term means, falsely accuses me of the same. Pure ad hom.
#97 Ted's equivocation. I asked: "Do you infallibly interpret Scripture?" He answered, "Yes, by the second definition in the Oxford dictionary." Second definition of what word? He doesn't say. His answer is ambiguous, and non-committal. That is the Oxford dictionary's definition of "to equivocate."
#98 I reply to Ted..."You're equivocating." A fact. This becomes a "well-gaslit" debate.
#103 Bob expresses his complete satisfaction with Ted's response. "Then he expounded on that answer like you asked me to do in another post. Why if Ted follows your requested format is it equivocating?"
#108 I again demonstrate the meaning of "equivocation" using Ted's post as a very clear illustration. I also tell Bob I'm glad he's completely satisfied with Ted's equivocal response.
Then comes post #113, where Bob actually lit the night with his gaslights. I needed special sunglasses to read the post:
"I didn't say he satisfied me. I don't know which Oxford definition he is using either. But he was answering you. It's your ball.
tbeachhead said:
He's "using ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing himself." Lessons in deliberate equivocation. When he says, "...according to the second definition in the Oxford English Dictionary..." he's defined the term "equivocate". The only definition of "infallibly" in that dictionary is "...incapable of error." I also quoted that.
To which Bob set the new gaslight standard for any thread:
"His answer was ambiguous. It was not equivocation. For you to take your found definition and read anything after the word "ambiguous" into Ted's meaning is disingenuous on your part. It is disparaging. And it is Cleo."

Now you don't need to look it up. There is no greater example of "ubiquitous" farming material than what you all dish up here.

I'm wondering if we keep this up until we're all 120 years old, we'll hold the record for the best "lit" thread.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Post #60 I respond to Ted.
Post #62, Ted, speaking to BA, accuses me of "equivocating."
Post #66 I respond to Ted's charge of equivocation...challenging him to prove it.
Post #67, Mik chimes in with his bizarre question..."Do you infallibly interpret..."
Post #77 Bob uses a completely different post (#69 where I ask Mike for help in monitoring how I interpret scripture), from the one where Ted derived his false accusation...to accuse me again of equivocation, proving conclusively that critics here don't know what the term means. And the gaslighting becomes more oppressive and pronounced. Still no one will clarify where I equivocated according to the original charge.
#86...Ted, who clearly does not know what the term means, falsely accuses me of the same. Pure ad hom.
#97 Ted's equivocation. I asked: "Do you infallibly interpret Scripture?" He answered, "Yes, by the second definition in the Oxford dictionary." Second definition of what word? He doesn't say. His answer is ambiguous, and non-committal. That is the Oxford dictionary's definition of "to equivocate."
#98 I reply to Ted..."You're equivocating." A fact. This becomes a "well-gaslit" debate.
#103 Bob expresses his complete satisfaction with Ted's response. "Then he expounded on that answer like you asked me to do in another post. Why if Ted follows your requested format is it equivocating?"
#108 I again demonstrate the meaning of "equivocation" using Ted's post as a very clear illustration. I also tell Bob I'm glad he's completely satisfied with Ted's equivocal response.
Then comes post #113, where Bob actually lit the night with his gaslights. I needed special sunglasses to read the post:
"I didn't say he satisfied me. I don't know which Oxford definition he is using either. But he was answering you. It's your ball.
tbeachhead said:
He's "using ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing himself." Lessons in deliberate equivocation. When he says, "...according to the second definition in the Oxford English Dictionary..." he's defined the term "equivocate". The only definition of "infallibly" in that dictionary is "...incapable of error." I also quoted that.
To which Bob set the new gaslight standard for any thread:
"His answer was ambiguous. It was not equivocation. For you to take your found definition and read anything after the word "ambiguous" into Ted's meaning is disingenuous on your part. It is disparaging. And it is Cleo."

Now you don't need to look it up. There is no greater example of "ubiquitous" farming material than what you all dish up here.

I'm wondering if we keep this up until we're all 120 years old, we'll hold the record for the best "lit" thread.

lol .......

Classic
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
lol .......

Classic
The post was really fun...going back and reviewing all the collaborative gaslighting that goes on here was an exercise in discernment. It started early on, and was practically self-sustaining, with only a bare minimum of actual substance. You guys are an admirable team...
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
The post was really fun...going back and reviewing all the collaborative gaslighting that goes on here was an exercise in discernment. It started early on, and was practically self-sustaining, with only a bare minimum of actual substance. You guys are an admirable team...

and an Angel went to report to God concerning BD.

Saying do you know BD mis- applied Psalm 94 in regards to Genesis.

God's response: ya, it happens.
 
Last edited:

Slyzr

Well-known member
and an Angel went to report to God concerning BD.

Saying do you know BD mis- applied Psalm 94 in regards to Genesis.

God's response: ya, it happens.


OH ...... and BTW God ....... his spelling and grammar isn't very good either.

God's response .......

Oy vey ........ OY vey.

( Yiddish: אױ װײ ‎) is a Yiddish phrase expressing dismay or exasperation. Also spelled oy vay, oy veh, or oi vey, and often abbreviated to oy, the expression may be translated as, "oh, woe!" or "woe is me!" Its Hebrew equivalent is oy vavoy (אוי ואבוי, ój vavój).
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
Ted equivocated. This is gaslighting. Look it up. You don't have to be in school to know the term. But you have to be ignorant of the tactic for it to affect you. This is another post about the evils of being me.

Sorry, Bob. Wrong bait. Wrong fish. Not biting.
You know Pete, if you would spend as much time actually talking about the topics as you do posting accusations at people with your ten cent words (which, dang, if you don't think I know the language by now...) you might actually get people to engage instead of be on the defense so much. And I don't care if someone else used a word first; I don't care if Ted said 'equivocating' first, it doesn't justify the next six times you use the word. Or your three post witch hunt on 'infallible interpretation' just because someone asked that of you. And now you bring in gaslighting and your still rolling the comedy act with equivocating.

Stop it.

Focus on the topics. And if agreement or some form of acceptance can't be found: MOVE ON. Next Topic Please. Let it go!

I have a hard enough time letting go of a topic, so if you and I are both tugging on the same pull toy, then golly gee, we'll be here all week.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
Post #60 I respond to Ted.
Post #62, Ted, speaking to BA, accuses me of "equivocating."
Post #66 I respond to Ted's charge of equivocation...challenging him to prove it.
Post #67, Mik chimes in with his bizarre question..."Do you infallibly interpret..."
Post #77 Bob uses a completely different post (#69 where I ask Mike for help in monitoring how I interpret scripture), from the one where Ted derived his false accusation...to accuse me again of equivocation, proving conclusively that critics here don't know what the term means. And the gaslighting becomes more oppressive and pronounced. Still no one will clarify where I equivocated according to the original charge.
#86...Ted, who clearly does not know what the term means, falsely accuses me of the same. Pure ad hom.
#97 Ted's equivocation. I asked: "Do you infallibly interpret Scripture?" He answered, "Yes, by the second definition in the Oxford dictionary." Second definition of what word? He doesn't say. His answer is ambiguous, and non-committal. That is the Oxford dictionary's definition of "to equivocate."
#98 I reply to Ted..."You're equivocating." A fact. This becomes a "well-gaslit" debate.
#103 Bob expresses his complete satisfaction with Ted's response. "Then he expounded on that answer like you asked me to do in another post. Why if Ted follows your requested format is it equivocating?"
#108 I again demonstrate the meaning of "equivocation" using Ted's post as a very clear illustration. I also tell Bob I'm glad he's completely satisfied with Ted's equivocal response.
Then comes post #113, where Bob actually lit the night with his gaslights. I needed special sunglasses to read the post:
"I didn't say he satisfied me. I don't know which Oxford definition he is using either. But he was answering you. It's your ball.
tbeachhead said:
He's "using ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing himself." Lessons in deliberate equivocation. When he says, "...according to the second definition in the Oxford English Dictionary..." he's defined the term "equivocate". The only definition of "infallibly" in that dictionary is "...incapable of error." I also quoted that.
To which Bob set the new gaslight standard for any thread:
"His answer was ambiguous. It was not equivocation. For you to take your found definition and read anything after the word "ambiguous" into Ted's meaning is disingenuous on your part. It is disparaging. And it is Cleo."

Now you don't need to look it up. There is no greater example of "ubiquitous" farming material than what you all dish up here.

I'm wondering if we keep this up until we're all 120 years old, we'll hold the record for the best "lit" thread.

🤦‍♂️

I don't believe you spent the time....
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
You know Pete, if you would spend as much time actually talking about the topics as you do posting accusations at people with your ten cent words (which, dang, if you don't think I know the language by now...) you might actually get people to engage instead of be on the defense so much. And I don't care if someone else used a word first; I don't care if Ted said 'equivocating' first, it doesn't justify the next six times you use the word. Or your three post witch hunt on 'infallible interpretation' just because someone asked that of you. And now you bring in gaslighting and your still rolling the comedy act with equivocating.

Stop it.

Focus on the topics. And if agreement or some form of acceptance can't be found: MOVE ON. Next Topic Please. Let it go!

I have a hard enough time letting go of a topic, so if you and I are both tugging on the same pull toy, then golly gee, we'll be here all week.
Dang...another post about the evils of being Pete and how I should engage...without engaging.

gasss.gif
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
🤦‍♂️

I don't believe you spent the time....
It was worth it. Your techniques are masterful...and ubiquitous...and the progressive nature of the gaslighting is both subtle and fascinating.

When I say, "There is no equivocation."You do not engage, or point out from the aforementioned post any equivocation. You turn to a post where I ask for help to discern where I err...and you call that equivocation.

I am trying to help, here, Bob. There should be enough gaslight for you to see this...although, we might soon run out of oxygen.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
It was worth it. Your techniques are masterful...and ubiquitous...and the progressive nature of the gaslighting is both subtle and fascinating.

When I say, "There is no equivocation."You do not engage, or point out from the aforementioned post any equivocation. You turn to a post where I ask for help to discern where I err...and you call that equivocation.

I am trying to help, here, Bob. There should be enough gaslight for you to see this...although, we might soon run out of oxygen.

Sometimes just engaging at all is all the trolls need to be fed.

Trolls.jpg
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Sometimes just engaging at all is all the trolls need to be fed.

Trolls.jpg

Most of these friends are not trolls, but there is an exhibition of deeply intellectual interest expressed here most of the time that is engaging and enlightening. But then, if you have followed this thread, there is a substantial amount of gaslighting that does take place. I think some folks believe they have too much oil for their lamps, and they need to burn it away.

If the remark is addressed to me, I'm not a troll. But I could be almost lightheaded, when the gaslighting is without restraint and the oxygen supply is diminished.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
I do..., it's all equivocation on his part. 😆
Keep working on the definition, Ted...look back at your response...ambiguous and without commitment...so as to avoid answering directly. It's the best example of equivocation on this strand. A college level example.

Here's a question, since Bob suggested I should simply ask you to clarify: For which word did you cite "the second definition in the Oxford dictionary?" Were you citing the definition for "interpret"? Or for "infallibly"...because the latter only had one definition...and therefore your "yes" seemed oddly bold.

If you ever feel like showing where you suggest I equivocated in my first response to you, I'd appreciate seeing what you believe defines "equivocation." I certainly had no intention of equivocating. I try to be as clear and as forthright as the situation allows.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
🤦‍♂️

I don't believe you spent the time....
I'm just sitting here thinking, since you're always so kind to give helpful suggestions, maybe you can allow me to make one here. Instead of being stunned by my willingness to do the research, take the time to go over it. It's highly informative. Then you can say something like, "Thanks, Pete. This was a valuable study in deliberate equivocation and gaslighting. You spent some time in reviewing this thread. Quite an evident pattern, once it's all assembled like this. I've not even seen that I'm given to that belittling tactic whenever your posts come up. Perhaps I should see that you're primary goal is to stay on topic, and I keep bringing the thread around to your weaknesses and perceived failures."
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
I'm just sitting here thinking, since you're always so kind to give helpful suggestions, maybe you can allow me to make one here. Instead of being stunned by my willingness to do the research, take the time to go over it. It's highly informative. Then you can say something like, "Thanks, Pete. This was a valuable study in deliberate equivocation and gaslighting. You spent some time in reviewing this thread. Quite an evident pattern, once it's all assembled like this. I've not even seen that I'm given to that belittling tactic whenever your posts come up. Perhaps I should see that you're primary goal is to stay on topic, and I keep bringing the thread around to your weaknesses and perceived failures."

What an equivocating gaslighter. :sneaky:
 
Top