 |
That was pretty good JL. Took a minute to soak in, but I got it! 8D
Post #79 response
1. You make a mountain from a molehill, and crazy to mix english standards with math standards. Dissapointing comparison.
2. It was my honest opinion, but more accurately Athos's honest opinion I agreed with. Thus my vote which I didn't have to hold my nose to make. Can't you just vote NO without the jibber jabber?
Opinion about what? He had many of them. If you are agreeing with his opinion of Trump, then that's to be expected. Please, please tell me you are not agreeing with his ideas about direct quotations and paraphrasing.Quote:
It was my honest opinion, but more accurately Athos's honest opinion I agreed with.
Tell me again what the "8D" means. I am old.
You might be right about that. To explain, we have an old saying in Mississippi that I'm sure you are familiar with. "Don't pour water (we actually use a different word) out of your boot on my head and try to tell me it's raining." Well, don't use a direct quote and then try to tell me it's a paraphrase. The truth still matters.Quote:
You make a mountain from a molehill,
Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. Goodness.Quote:
crazy to mix english standards with math standards. Dissapointing comparison.
Another laugh.
https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.n...a1&oe=5ECE6928
Now that was a hoot!
Turn your head sideways and see if it makes sense you old coot!Quote:
Tell me again what the "8D" means. I am old.
Smiley face???
Actually its a huge grin face. 8) is a smiley face.
Gosh!! It's all so complicated. 8D
{:()>
Trouble reading? Here is what I said. If you had followed my instructions, you would learn something.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You are clueless in many things. As a literalist, there is much beyond paraphrasing that you miss. Trump communicates to his flock in more ways than one. Google "dog whistle" to learn one way.
Note: "...beyond paraphrasing..."
I was describing Trump's incitement to his supporters to "liberate" Virginia. They obeyed, as the picture clearly shows, armed with AR-15s and AK-47s and toting pro-Trump signs. Reports from all over the country described the incident exactly as I did. Why you characterize my words as inaccurate is simply another indication of your inability (or refusal) to comprehend the obvious.Quote:
Employing provocative and inaccurate descriptions of a person's words is completely honest...in your world, at least.
got it in oneQuote:
refusal to comprehend the obvious.
It's alright Athos. I realize your world is a very different place. Hope you enjoy it. I'm just glad I don't live there where a paraphrase and a direct quote are interchangeable. For example, I stated, "I quoted Athos exactly." Your ridiculous reply was, ""Somebody is confused. " Well, you were write about somebody being confused. The somebody was you.
As to the pres, here is your QUOTE.
"Trump calls for insurrection."
"Republicans will turn a blind eye. But history books will say: In April of 2020, when the pandemic had already claimed 35,000 lives, the President of the United States incited people to storm their statehouses with AR-15s and AK-47s."
Never called for insurrection. Never called for guns. Never called for anyone to storm a statehouse. Your description was ridiculous.
You still don't get it. I suggested you read up on "dog whistle"Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That is not what Athos and I have said. They are NOT interchangeable!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"Incite," according to Dictionary.com et al. is defined as "to stir, encourage, or urge on."Quote:
JL said -- As to the pres, here is your QUOTE.
"Trump calls for insurrection."
"Republicans will turn a blind eye. But history books will say: In April of 2020, when the pandemic had already claimed 35,000 lives, the President of the United States incited people to storm their statehouses with AR-15s and AK-47s."
Never called for insurrection. Never called for guns. Never called for anyone to storm a statehouse. Your description was ridiculous.
Trump definitely stirred and encouraged his base to "liberate," which they interpreted to mean make signs, pull their semi-automatics out from under the bed, flout social-distancing orders, eschew protective masks, and assemble with signs and guns (while coughing and sneezing on each other?) to storm government buildings.
(Haven't we already been down this road but with fish-tank cleaner. disinfectants, and UV light?)
Well I'm glad you finally see the light. So when Tal puts words within quotation marks, he is not paraphrasing as you said he was in post 43. We are making progress at last.Quote:
They are NOT interchangeable!
You really don't get it, do you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I get this very well. "So when Tal puts words within quotation marks, he is not paraphrasing as you said he was in post 43." That I get very plainly.
Nope. You've missed the boat.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And do you see the mistake in this sentence of yours in your post I quoted in #43?
"And, I suppose, in your's as well, and that's a scary thought."
You claimed I quoted Trump. I did no such thing. You insisted. So I went back and re-read the entire two threads - this one and the one about insurrection. What you claimed was my quoting Trump were MY OWN WORDS. You then copied those charging me with quoting Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
At one point (already pointed out to you) you even denied that I quoted Trump. Your anger is leading you far astray and into the world of self-delusion.
Jl, this discussion on quotation and paraphrase, etc., among you and WG and Tal has become another obsession by you. They are both correct on the issue but you just can't let it go.
You are the King of nit-pickers.
No, he is the king of nits, he just likes to argue, and to do so he will twist what you say. It is useless debating himQuote:
You are the King of nit-pickers.
That's already been straightened out. This discussion is not about that. If any of you want to believe that a quote is a paraphrase, then go for it. When WG claims that words within quotation marks are a paraphrase, and you consider that to be correct, then that's a fantasy world I don't want to live in.Quote:
You claimed I quoted Trump. I did no such thing. You insisted.
I reserve the right to express myself as best I can. If you want to flunk my grammar, go ahead teach, hardly would be my first grammar error or last if indeed it's a error or me just being me! Doesn't change the fact that the dufus has yet again sparked controversy and contention with LAST WEEKS bizarro lunatic dangerous comments fueled by a lack of knowledge. That was last week! Did you see his presser yesterday from the WH with Pence by his side?
This dude learned nothing, so he just straight up blows his own horn with the usual lies and blame game misdirection's and distractions. If anybody can tell me what true thing this dude has said or done since this crisis started, I would love to hear it so I can blast you back to reality!
PS, We have already discussed the slow full of holes travel ban was after the airlines stopped flights.
Then please go to another world of your choosing. We'll be glad to see you go. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
JL claims words within quotation marks "can't be a paraphrase."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I haven't said exactly that. I can quote another person's paraphrase and that's fine, but it must be his/her exact words. But I'll tell you what. If you know of some way to paraphrase another person's words and put that within quotation marks, thus misrepresenting your own paraphrase of that person's statement as being that person's exact words, the tell us all how it works. I'm all ears. Let's hear it. Not copying and pasting something from the internet, but your own explanation.Quote:
JL claims words within quotation marks "can't be a paraphrase."
Athos, if you don't want to read my posts, then block them. Fine with me, but I'm not going to live in that make believe world you have in your head. I'm not going to simply bow low and accept what you say. You have to make some appeal to authority.
I'm still convinced you are running from the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You said: When WG claims that words within quotation marks are a paraphrase....
I said: JL claims words within quotation marks "can't be a paraphrase."
I didn't quote you exactly but paraphased what you had said and enclosed that paraphrase in quote marks.
1. So when we break, bend, or change the rules, you get to punish us in forever? Boy you need a life.
2. Get a room!
3. WOW, truly fascinating how you make a different point of view into a judgmental condemnation the inquisition would be proud of.
"A direct quotation is a report of the exact words of an author or speaker and is placed inside quotation marks in a written work."Quote:
I didn't quote you exactly but paraphased what you had said and enclosed that paraphrase in quote marks.
www.thoughtco.com/direct-quotation-composition-1690461
You did exactly what you are not supposed to do. And if you look at your quoted paraphrase, you will note that you misrepresented my statement. That's why you don't represent a paraphrase as being a direct quote.
This is such a stupid discussion. Surely we can drop this now. Next we'll discuss how you can put a comma in place of dollar sign.
Why do you insist at directing such a sarcastic comment only at me? Are you so blind you cannot see that several people are keeping this alive? I'm perfectly happy to let them believe their strange grammar ideas. By all means let's let it go.Quote:
1. So when we break, bend, or change the rules, you get to punish us in forever? Boy you need a life.
You mean a judgmental comment like this one you just made? If it's OK for you, then why not for everyone else?Quote:
WOW, truly fascinating how you make a different point of view into a judgmental condemnation the inquisition would be proud of.
You know I take most digs and slaps as humor, but I have been told that I'm not very sensitive or empathetic, which is strange for those that say I'm a bleeding heart liberal. Go figure. I think though that anyone who stands alone against popular wisdom will be a target, and on these topics that's you.
You have to see us two are not the only ones here who know how to throw rocks. Plus you're easy, you never duck, even when we yell DUCK!
You can chunk your rocks any time. I know how to duck.Quote:
You mean a judgmental comment like this one you just made? If it's OK for you, then why not for everyone else?
I would not accuse you of being insensitive or unsympathetic. I do think you care about people.
Yeah. It's just me and the entire internet. Somehow I feel like a super-majority!Quote:
I think though that anyone who stands alone against popular wisdom will be a target, and on these topics that's you.
The rocks you guys throw are mere grains of sand. There is no reason to duck.
1. I have limitations.
2. You're not!
3. Noted, so stop complaining!
OK
I'm pretty sure I am.
I will if you will.
Then I and others would not be able to correct you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
As much as you would like, you can't create worlds (make believe or real) simply by wishing it. When you can't reply in a civil or logical fashion, you start again with your insults. Your reputation suffers with such posts.Quote:
not going to live in that make believe world you have in your head.
I never asked you to. Any beliefs I may have will be revealed as necessary in these discussions.Quote:
I'm not going to simply bow low and accept what you say.
Ah, there's your major problem. Your dependence on the authority of a literal interpretation of the Bible. I, and others, have been saying that very thing for months now. Someday, you may listen.Quote:
You have to make some appeal to authority.
Sorry, but I don't buy into this fundamentalist jargon. They are trigger words for your ilk - used to exclude.Quote:
I'm still convinced you are running from the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
Careful Jl, blasphemy. Why would you bring the Holy Spirit into this? are you losing the argument with an unbeliever?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You posted earlier that the NT teaches love for God, love for others, and love for self. That is based upon a completely literal acceptance of the words of Jesus. Why is it that you accept literally the parts you like, and completely reject the notion of coming judgment which is clearly spelled out (every bit as clearly as love for God, neighbor, and self) in Matthew 25? What objective standard are you applying?Quote:
Ah, there's your major problem. Your dependence on the authority of a literal interpretation of the Bible. I, and others, have been saying that very thing for months now. Someday, you may listen.
The conviction of the Holy Spirit is "fundamentalist jargon"? Huh. I thought it was the words of Christ. I suppose that's another NT concept you don't accept as literal since you don't like it?Quote:
Sorry, but I don't buy into this fundamentalist jargon. They are trigger words for your ilk - used to exclude.
I am tempted to say that your approach to the acceptance of the words of the Bible is inconsistent, but then it occurred to me that it actually is very consistent. When you read a passage which agrees with your ideas and strikes you as reasonable, then you accept it as true. When you read a passage which does not agree with your ideas, well then it must be taken metaphorically, or the text had been corrupted, or hundreds of thoroughly professional Bible translators all got it wrong, or the NT canon was politically motivated, or someone else is stupid and a fundamentalist, and on and on it goes. So I will say that it certainly seems that at least you are consistent in your inconsistency.
We all can make our own choices about faith in the words of ancient man and voice them. You have so why can't others. I mean are we required to recognize the legitimacy and authority of the NT to have a personal relationship with a God that we understand? Or is it blasphemy to even question ancient man and his writings?
How do you square your faith with acceptance and support for a cruel unrepentant liar? That I still don't get. Just yesterday he removed liability for meat packing plants so could stay open despite the ravages of corvid19 on the workers and their families while the CDC, and OSHA while suggesting safety measures not requiring compliance to stay open. Seems sort of strange to me.
When have I sad you can't? We are questioning each other here, just as you have just now.Quote:
You have so why can't others.
You have to recognize the authority of something. Take your pick, but you better pick wisely. If I understand correctly, you have recognized the authority of your own ideas about a god. Make sure you're right. For me, after decades of study, I have come to love the Bible for its accuracy and its clear and logical message of a God who is saving undeserving sinners (like me) from judgment.Quote:
I mean are we required to recognize the legitimacy and authority of the NT to have a personal relationship with a God that we understand? Or is it blasphemy to even question ancient man and his writings?
Oh stop the holier than thou stuff. There was no bigger, "unrepentant liar" out there than HC. Biden doesn't even know where he is half the time, and his life is littered with wrong doing. Disagree with his policies if you want to, but the business of politics is a dirty one and you know it. How do you support a political party that proudly flies the flag of unrestricted abortion up to nine months of pregnancy? Nearly a million deaths a year of the unborn, but you want to complain about keeping meat facilities open? How is that consistent?Quote:
How do you square your faith with acceptance and support for a cruel unrepentant liar? That I still don't get. Just yesterday he removed liability for meat packing plants so could stay open despite the ravages of corvid19 on the workers and their families while the CDC, and OSHA while suggesting safety measures not requiring compliance to stay open. Seems sort of strange to me.
It was my turn! 8DQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I do recognize something greater than myself, and I hope you understand I can put NOTHING between my self and that authority. I believe I have chosen wisely in that.Quote:
You have to recognize the authority of something. Take your pick, but you better pick wisely. If I understand correctly, you have recognized the authority of your own ideas about a god. Make sure you're right. For me, after decades of study, I have come to love the Bible for its accuracy and its clear and logical message of a God who is saving undeserving sinners (like me) from judgment.
I disagree with his policies his cruelty his incompetence, his lies, and his cheating. I judge him hardest by his never admitting his wrongs and doubling down on them. Let's see HC, Biden, and the dufus and everybody is worse than the dufus in your view.Quote:
Oh stop the holier than thou stuff. There was no bigger, "unrepentant liar" out there than HC. Biden doesn't even know where he is half the time, and his life is littered with wrong doing. Disagree with his policies if you want to, but the business of politics is a dirty one and you know it.
A misrepresentation of facts and exaggeration to boot, and your usual lumping different subjects together makes you very consistent for sure, but abortions are lawful with restrictions, and the meet supply and the virus are happening NOW! I will never be holier than thou, nor do I try too be.Quote:
How do you support a political party that proudly flies the flag of unrestricted abortion up to nine months of pregnancy? Nearly a million deaths a year of the unborn, but you want to complain about keeping meat facilities open? How is that consistent?
How did you come to know of the existence of that god? How do you know that god's will?Quote:
I do recognize something greater than myself, and I hope you understand I can put NOTHING between my self and that authority. I believe I have chosen wisely in that.
I didn't say that.Quote:
Let's see HC, Biden, and the dufus and everybody is worse than the dufus in your view.
In what way? My statement was entirely accurate.Quote:
A misrepresentation of facts and exaggeration to boot,
I never cease to be amazed at your attempts to justify abortion by saying that, after all, it is "lawful". Slavery was legal for decades. Jim Crow laws were legal. School segregation was legal. White political dominance was legal. Would you have suggested everyone back then just accept that because, after all, it was lawful? Does being lawful equate to being right? What a strange position you hold on that. It strikes me as the political position of convenience. "It might be a moral outrage, but its lawful, so its OK." Is that your thinking?
1. FAITH, just like yours. I looked within through prayer and meditation, and started listening and recognizing the blessings that I had been ignoring a long time. Changed my whole perspective and my life.
2. I stand corrected as you said HC was a bigger unrepentant liar, and Biden was old and clueless. We don't know what kind of president HC would have been nor Biden will be if he wins but we know what kind of prez the dufus has been. Good or bad depending on which side of the fence you're on.
3. There was NO accuracy at all in your rather broad statement, and like me saying all conservatives are racist slugs. Untrue, unproven, and false as all get out.
Minorities back then as now, had no choice but accept those things they could not control, and while lawful was felt as wrong, and I respectfully submit that changing the laws is a helluva struggle that still goes on. Changing minds and hearts is even harder, so be aware of those truths in your struggles at the changes you want to see.Quote:
I never cease to be amazed at your attempts to justify abortion by saying that, after all, it is "lawful". Slavery was legal for decades. Jim Crow laws were legal. School segregation was legal. White political dominance was legal. Would you have suggested everyone back then just accept that because, after all, it was lawful? Does being lawful equate to being right? What a strange position you hold on that. It strikes me as the political position of convenience. "It might be a moral outrage, but its lawful, so its OK." Is that your thinking?
Practical EXPERIENCE is what guides my thinking. I have no need to justify anything, and that includes abortion, and admit I do struggle to deal with it's reality, and recognize I cannot control others, only MYSELF. I do object to your constant yammering about the million abortions a year by women in dire straits, and inadequately resourced, but say nothing of the 10's of millions that have the resources to pursue their options privately and safely with their own OBYGYN provider. That makes you a bully in my book who targets the least, and most defenseless amongst us, that you justify with your concern for the unborn which you quickly abandon after they are born. You whine all the time about being forced to support them, just like a deadbeat dad!
That's my think that I have consistently expressed.
But another person could "look within" and come up with ideas completely the opposite of yours about god. Is there any authority outside of your own ideas and impressions you appeal to?Quote:
FAITH, just like yours. I looked within
Of course they had a choice! They marched in the streets. They appealed to the government. They changed laws. Why do you just accept abortion as fine since it's "lawful", but not other areas?Quote:
Minorities back then as now, had no choice but accept those things they could not control, and while lawful was felt as wrong, and I respectfully submit that changing the laws is a helluva struggle that still goes on.
What was inaccurate?Quote:
There was NO accuracy at all in your rather broad statement,
You have no idea what you're talking about. Both groups are part of the nine hundred thousand. In your mind protesting the destruction of innocent human life is "yammering". That's really sad.Quote:
I do object to your constant yammering about the million abortions a year by women in dire straits, and inadequately resourced, but say nothing of the 10's of millions that have the resources to pursue their options privately and safely with their own OBYGYN provider.
Completely, totally, 100% false. We have talked about this repeatedly in the past. Practically every PRIVATE organization set up to support single moms is conservative based, many of them Christian. In my own area there are MANY churches that are willing to reach out and help single moms. Your statement is just despicable.Quote:
That makes you a bully in my book who targets the least, and most defenseless amongst us, that you justify with your concern for the unborn which you quickly abandon after they are born.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:36 PM. |