No, actually, Strainger’s and mhendo’s replies made perfect sense when I read them this morning. What I am curious about is how my request for clarification of your original post (which Strainger and mhendo gave) somehow equals " dropping in out of nowhere just to twist somebody’s words ". That’s the one you can clear up for me.
You agree that post #80 - the one we’re talking about here - was your first post in this thread, right?
Yup.
So…why, RT? Why did you define my question to you as “dropping in out of nowhere just to twist somebody’s words”. I really want to know. What did I “twist”? Can you tell me? 
Now you agree that when you ask for a cite for something somebody said, you’re saying they’ve said the thing you’re asking for a cite for.
Are you able to answer my question in plain english, or are you limited to cryptic phrases that make no sense like “Now you agree that when you ask for a cite for something somebody said, you’re saying they’ve said the thing you’re asking for a cite for.”
What’s so cryptic about that? You asked me for a cite. Does that mean you’re claiming I said whatever it is you’re asking me for a cite to support, or not?
And if I didn’t say it, then why the hell are you doing, asking me for a supporting cite?
That shoulda been ‘what’. :smack:
I didn’t ask for a cite. I asked what it was about my request for clarification of your original post that constituted “twisting your words”.
That’s asking for a cite. And it’s in the post we’re having this conversation about:
I just saw this commercial for the United Church of Christ on the Discovery Channel. The funny thing is, I’m an atheist and the diversity and community and openness proffered in that commercial made me a little misty.
Yes RT, I did ask for a cite. That was the clarification I asked for. Mhendo and Strainger both answered that request, you basically echoed their explanation, and if you’ll notice, I said " No, actually, Strainger’s and mhendo’s replies made perfect sense when I read them this morning." The question of cites was laid to rest <i>four days ago</i>. All I’m concerned with it your assertion that I am “twisting your words”, and you keep ignoring that. So, please, tell me: What words did I twist? If the answer is none, than admit you were wrong, and the matter will be finished.
No it hasn’t. What I’m talking about here is the meaning of asking for a cite - what its inherent implications are.
There’s only one obvious answer to my question - that when you ask someone for a cite for X, the implication is they’ve said X. Because why would you ask someone for a cite to support something they haven’t said?
Agree, or disagree? I will translate any further evasion as agreement.
Well, it’s good to know that you agree with yourself, and you can take “further evasion” for a performance of the Nutcracker Suite by dancing elephants accompanied by a muskrat orchestra for all I care, but in here in the real world, asking for a cite is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, without hidden “meanings”, it’s simply a request for more information, one that usually gets one of three responses: The cite, weaseling because there is no cite or clarification that a cite is not necessary coupled with an explanation of why. Two other posters clearly saw that the later was appropriate, you preferred to toss out a little passive/aggressive shot at me, and now you’re dancing like Rove on a hot stove to avoid admitting that you made a mistake. I wonder why?
I was raised UCC, and though I have been more agnostic than anything since leaving home at 18, I’m somewhat proud of “my” church and this commercial.
I think that, for a TV commercial, it embodies the true spirit of Christianity more than any other I have seen.
Go UCC!
:marching bands, cheerleaders, cheering crowds:
The “more information” you mention is generally verification. A cite may indeed sometimes provide more information, but the fundamental purpose of a cite - and of the request for one - is to ascertain that the poster has backup for what he’s saying, that he isn’t just making it up.
As was the case here:
The “more information” you were asking for was the cite (whose existence you were skeptical of) that would have said “the administration was somehow involved in this decision.” That’s verification, friend, not clarification.
OK, now that we’ve established that (over your objections, but you’re a crybaby who descends to the second-grade playground technique of turning an adversary’s name into a taunt when the argument doesn’t go his way, so who cares?), what we have here is a twisting of words: the request for a cite that the Administration was involved in this decision was, in effect, a pretending that I had said such a thing. And since it was your first post in this thread, it was essentially ‘dropping in out of nowhere’.
Ergo, you dropped in out of nowhere to twist my words, without evidencing any intention to get involved in the debate per se.
Talking to you is almost as much a waste of time as debating fundies, and for a lot of the same reasons (blinders are blinders, no matter what they’re made of), so seeya 'round.
Pretty ironic considering that I have launched not one insult your way in this thread, a claim which you can not make in light of the above posts amongst others. Sadly, this is the continuation of a posting style you’ve adopted lately; launching insults at people out of the blue instead of discussing what they’ve posted. Pity, really, you used to be a fairly intelegent debater, it’s sad to see you floundering away with nitpicks and insults instead of substance and facts.
False. Other than when two people are emotionally close to one another, one’s addressing another by a diminutive form of their name is generally regarded as an insult.
What, now you don’t love me anymore either? I’ll try and keep that in mind. Considering that it’s your name and all, what’s the big deal? If you hate your name so much, perhaps you should take it up with your mother. You wanna call me Davey? shrug big deal, it’s my name after all. Davey, Dave, David, whatever floats your boat. If your skin is that thin, maybehap you shouldn’t go around insulting other people in a forum like the pit. Usually they insult back.