Debating rules applied

NightEternal · Dec 13, 2007

Yes, I understand you have a "hair trigger.' I don't find that to be a quality worth bragging about frankly.

And I, frankly, don't really care about any assessment you may have of me or my personality. So I guess we are even.

Again, can you document where you or anyone else "pushed" me into changing or recanting an answer?

Do you have any proof that you "pulled" my teeth? I didn't think so.

And again I ask, why did you not just simply say she was wrong from the get-go? The evidence is right there in the thread.

I never said anyone made you change or recant your answer. Your answer was that she may have gotten it wrong. No one changed that from anything.

Was this comment made regarding anything you said, or was it directed to another poster?

Not one thing to do with anything. You injected an element into the discussion that was not warranted. No one is making a case that eating pork is 'a-ok' in this thread. You threw that in as a shameless attempt to set up a strawman no one is maintaining so you can knock it down later on.

An again, 150 years ago she said tobacco was a serious danger, yet just as recently as fourty years ago some breathing problems were prescribed with smoking cigarettes as a cure.

So then your saying that she wasn't wrong after all, it just needs time to be proven. More teeth being pulled.

You could have fooled me.

Yeah, you aren't misrepresenting my position or making false charges concerning my position on EGW. This cryptic comment was meant to reaffirm my position.

Got it.

I don't play these games. I know what you are implying.

StormyOne · Dec 13, 2007

OntheDL said:
As a human? Yes. But if under inspiration? No.

Big If... and even then I refuse to join you out on that limb..... what you are in essence implying is that a person under the influence of inspiration (how would you know they were or were not) is infallible..... sorry, I don't share that view....

NightEternal · Dec 13, 2007

RND said:
I can understand you saying that. You don't seem like the type of friend that can take criticism and correction from another friend.

Not when the criticism is bunk and completely false.

sentipente · Dec 13, 2007

RND said:
This, of course, is coming from an apparent "English" major. The word you should have used is: "than."

Spelling flames are in the worst category. You have not done yourself a favor here.

sentipente · Dec 13, 2007

OntheDL said:
As a human? Yes. But if under inspiration? No.

What do you mean by "under inspiration?" Is this some kind of celestial waterboarding? We are supposed to progress.

sentipente · Dec 13, 2007

mjona3 said:
I think that what in the Bible is guided for our spiritual consumption (note, I didn't say that it was all factually correct).

On the other hand, we just have all of EGW writings.

JM

What do you mean by "spiritual consumption?" Can't we stop using code and speak English? You are a physical being. You were never given a spirit.

RC_NewProtestants · Dec 13, 2007

OntheDL said:
Oh right! Now I remember you are the one who denied smoking cause asthma even when modern science says so. And you deny there is a flood in the biblical account. That pretty much sums up all I need to reply.

Ah yes as ever you remain inaccurate. I guess that is what attracts people to the TSDA side of things. They don't have to think for themselves just believe what someone tells them to believe. Problem is then when they are forced to think even if it is simply to recall past conversation the mind can't seem to remember any details only the things that seem to help their position now with no regard for accuracy only the need to submit to their traditional beliefs.

sentipente · Dec 13, 2007

Jimlarmore said:
I can feel the Holy Spirit on her pen.

What does this mean? How do you know what you are feeling is the Holy Spirit?

RND · Dec 13, 2007

NightEternal said:
And I, frankly, don't really care about any assessment you may have of me or my personality. So I guess we are even.

Was this ever in question?

And again I ask, why did you not just simply say she was wrong from the get-go? The evidence is right there in the thread.

I never said anyone made you change or recant your answer. Your answer was that she may have gotten it wrong. No one changed that from anything.

You said that it took teeth pulling to get me to change my answer. This was incorrect.

Do you have a problem admitting when you're wrong?

Not one thing to do with anything. You injected an element into the discussion that was not warranted.

Not warranted by whom, you? The thread police?! Oh, please.

No one is making a case that eating pork is 'a-ok' in this thread. You threw that in as a shameless attempt to put up a strawman no one is maintaining so you can knock it down later on.

Actually, that was indeed the attempt of the OP, in my opinion.

So then your saying that she wasn't wrong after all, it just needs time to be proven. More teeth being pulled.

It's very possible that "down the road" science may indeed find that leprosy is transmitted through pig flesh. It's possible that science won't. Either way, the best way to avoid such worries is simply not to eat pork.

I think that was the point I was making.

Yeah, you aren't misrepresenting my position or making false charges concerning my position on EGW. This cryptic comment was meant to reaffirm my position.

Got it.

By simply asking a question you think that it somehow is making false charges against you or misrepresenting your position? You are truly paranoid. (Go ahead and report me now!)

I don't play these games. I know what you are implying.

If you quit giving people the necessary ammunition to use against you, you'd be much better off. You have the distinct air about you that you feel EGW is a quack and 100% incorrect. (Which is typical of the "Brat-ventist" that I've run across.)

RND · Dec 13, 2007

NightEternal said:
Not when the criticism is bunk and completely false.

Of course, only in your mind.

RND · Dec 13, 2007

sentipente said:
Spelling flames are in the worst category. You have not done yourself a favor here.

This isn't a spelling flame. it's a grammatical error flame. Lot's of people misuse "then and "than."

I just felt that the high and mighty attitude of the poster telling another poster that they were medically less informed deserved a grammatical correction.

sentipente · Dec 13, 2007

RND said:
This isn't a spelling flame. it's a grammatical error flame. Lot's of people misuse "then and "than."

I just felt that the high and mighty attitude of the poster telling another poster that they were medically less informed deserved a grammatical correction.

Grammar flames are no less distasteful.

RC_NewProtestants · Dec 13, 2007

RND said:
This, of course, is coming from an apparent "English" major. The word you should have used is: "than."

Yes you are correct and I admit to mixing then and than. But the reason I responded to onthdl was not simply to point out that it was a bacteria rather then a virus. But to point out that we do know the cause of Leprosy (Hansen's Disease) the medical community knows the cause, has good evidence to know the spread of the disease and even knows how to treat the disease. contrary to the idea that the medical community does not know the cause of leprosy.

It is the difference between dealing with issues and ideas and the anal retentive technique of dealing with inconsequential errata

NightEternal · Dec 13, 2007

Was this ever in question?

Nope.

You said that it took teeth pulling to get me to change my answer. This was incorrect.

Sorry, that is NOT what I said:

At least we managed to get RND to almost admit it after pulling teeth:

You inserted the rest yourself. What I was saying is that we managed to get you to FINALLY almost admit something, not that we had succeeded in changing your answer. How is this possible when you never even gave a different answer prior?

Do you have a problem admitting when you're wrong?

Nope. Not when I am wrong.

Not warranted by whom, you? The thread police?! Oh, please.

No, by the rules of proper debate, which was also a main issue of the OP. Setting up strawmen is sloppy debate tactics.

Actually, that was indeed the attempt of the OP, in my opinion.

In your own opinion and in you imagination more like. The OP certainly never said any such thing. He was simply asking if the claim could be proven. Where you get the rest of the anti-EGW/pro-pork implications I have no idea.

Now who's paranoid?

It's very possible that "down the road" science may indeed find that leprosy is transmitted through pig flesh. It's possible that science won't. Either way, the best way to avoid such worries is simply not to eat pork.

More teeth pulling.

By simply asking a question you think that it somehow is making false charges against you or misrepresenting your position?

I know that is exactly what you were doing. Which is clearly shown in your next couple of comments.

If you quit giving people the necessary ammunition to use against you, you'd be much better off.

What 'ammunition'? It's only 'ammunition' if the individual misunderstands or deliberately misrepresents my position, which most Trads eventually do.

You have the distinct air about you that you feel EGW is a quack and 100% incorrect. (Which is typical of the "Brat-ventist" that I've run across.)

Oh brother. Not patronizing at all, are we?

I suppose you consider Graeme Bradford, Alden Thompson and George Knight (all who hold the same position as I on inspiration) as 'brat-ventists' as well? Not too condescending

I guess I am in good company then. Most Trads feel Graeme Bradford is attacking, discrediting and undermining EGW also, which is not even remotely the case. But that is precisely what they assume from his book:

Kevin D. Paulson Reviews Graeme Bradford’s More Than A Prophet (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 2006), and People Are Human (Look What They Did To Ellen White) (Victoria, Australia, Signs Publishing Company, 2006).

Because of the significant length of Pr. Paulson’s Book Review, it will be published in eight installments over the next eight weeks

Pt. 1: Introduction, Published 2007-04-19 20:30Z
Pt. 2: The Subversion of Prophetic Authority, Published 2007-04-25 14:49Z
Pt. 3: Ellen White’s Authoritative Role, Published 2007-05-02 21:15Z
Pt. 4: Ellen White and Eschatology, Published 2007-05-09 14:33Z
Pt. 5: A Wrong Use of History, Published 2007-05-16 13:46Z
Pt. 6: Ellen White and the Adventist Salvation Controversy,
Published 2007-05-23 21:38Z
Pt. 7: Other Matters. Published 2007-05-30 21:05Z
Pt. 8: Conclusion: The Loss of Transcendence, Published 2007-06-06 06:06Z
For Completeness’ Sake: Bacchiocchi’s Original Departures Addressed:Stampeded Interpretation, by Kevin D. Paulson, Published 2002-08-02
Shall Any Teach God Knowledge? by Larry Kirkpatrick, Published 2002-08-09
The Reliability Equation, by Larry Kirkpatrick, Published 2002-09-13.

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/

Pure ignorance.

RND · Dec 13, 2007

sentipente said:
Grammar flames are no less distasteful.

But not calling someone "less informed?"

NightEternal · Dec 13, 2007

RND said:
Of course, only in your mind.

And you speak for this whole forum as well as for all of those who know me in real life?

I don't think so.

RND · Dec 13, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
Yes you are correct and I admit to mixing then and than.

Ah, progress!

But the reason I responded to onthdl was not simply to point out that it was a bacteria rather then a virus. But to point out that we do know the cause of Leprosy (Hansen's Disease) the medical community knows the cause, has good evidence to know the spread of the disease and even knows how to treat the disease. contrary to the idea that the medical community does not know the cause of leprosy.

It's possible you missed JimLaimore's post that referrenced Encarta's viewpoint:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578788/Leprosy.html

If so, you would have wanted to retract the above statement.

"Today scientists know that leprosy is not easily transmitted, but they are still not sure how it is spread from person to person."

It is the difference between dealing with issues and ideas and the anal retentive technique of dealing with inconsequential errata

Maybe you might want to rethink calling someone less informed then instead of using the English language incorrectly and removing all doubt regarding yourself inparticular?

RND · Dec 13, 2007

NightEternal said:
And you speak for this whole forum as well as for all of those who know me in real life?

I don't think so.

No, not at all and never claimed to. I'm only going off my individual encounters with you.

mva1985 · Dec 13, 2007

RND,

I'm really enjoying your style!

RC_NewProtestants · Dec 13, 2007

RND said:
Ah, progress!

It's possible you missed JimLaimore's post that referrenced Encarta's viewpoint:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578788/Leprosy.html

If so, you would have wanted to retract the above statement.

"Today scientists know that leprosy is not easily transmitted, but they are still not sure how it is spread from person to person."

Maybe you might want to rethink calling someone less informed then instead of using the English language incorrectly and removing all doubt regarding yourself inparticular?

Well let's see what I said about transmission:

has good evidence to know the spread of the disease and even knows how to treat the disease.

Now what does Encarta say:

Throughout much of history, people believed leprosy to be a highly contagious disease, fearing that merely touching an infected person could spread the disease. Today scientists know that leprosy is not easily transmitted, but they are still not sure how it is spread from person to person. Nasal droplets released when a person with untreated lepromatous disease sneezes may contain large numbers of leprosy bacteria. Conceivably, these released bacteria could infect a new person who inhales the droplets, or the bacteria could invade through a cut or abrasion in the person’s skin. Scientists suspect that these processes may be the primary means of spreading the disease, but do not know for certain. In any event, the well-known case of Father Damien, a Belgian missionary who contracted the disease while caring for leprosy patients on the Hawaiian island of Molokai during the late 1800s, appears to be the exception rather than the rule. Only very rarely do health-care workers who care for patients with leprosy develop the disease themselves.

[/quote]

But feel free to continue to dig yourself deeper, few will look at your words as very wise however.

So if you feel like presenting the evidence for leprosy caused by pigs I would eagerly await your scientific examination. I mean you must have some good evidence surely better then the current science about respiratory droplets or spread like so many other bacteria via contact through respiration, mucus membranes and broken skin.

Debating rules applied

Evangelical SDA

Senior Veteran

Evangelical SDA

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Evangelical SDA

Senior Veteran

Evangelical SDA

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency