As is obvious, it doesn't seem that way to me, and I am not going to entertain a great deal more of the nitpicking and derailing.
Quite frankly, there wasn't nitpicking/derailing until you started insisting for some reason that you should reply to a post in this topic in another topic, and that I should go there to debate it, instead of the topic where I was actually making the post.
Certainly, one could still put some blame on me for continuing to respond to you, of course. But it seemed to me everything was going along normally until you decided to reply to my post in a dead topic instead of here. But I suppose that since we both have bias in this area, it is difficult for either of us to ascertain who would be more at fault.
Anyway, I considered taking that post you put in another topic and replying to it here, but I expect then you'd continue to insist we must do it there and would put your reply there, and having my posts be here and your posts be there would be needlessly confusing, both for me and for anyone reading this.
Six months is not a long time; the topics are exactly the same; and your arguments are exactly the same. I say put the redundancy to bed.
No they aren't the same. The other one had some more broader things to it, whereas this (or at least the sub-discussion that was started) was much more specifically about Constantinople II. Some of the stuff you were talking about there, which might have had at least some relevance there, has none here.
And on message boards, six months is a very long time. Obviously "bumping" can occur in some cases, but there's a reason people usually call that a "necro" of a thread, because the thread was previously dead.
It's not at all uncommon for redundant tangents to be redirected on internet forums. And even if it were, I have never had much regard for argumentum ad populum.
While suggestions of taking things elsewhere aren't necessarily uncommon, it's extremely rare to see what you were doing, for a user to absolutely insist that you must go to this other older topic in order to engage in what is going on in this topic and to then post a reply in another topic to a post in the present topic. I've never seen that before.
The two topics are so similar that after I drafted the post to you in this thread, I compared it to my last (unanswered) post to you in the other thread. Noticing that the two posts have significant overlap, I just posted it there. You are of course free to continue to ignore the responses to and difficulties with your arguments, but I am not going to recreate the exact same debate here.
The topics are identical. Just look at the first two sentences of your first post from the other thread, "
The claim that it was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople is often alleged, but doesn't seem to be true. I see no condemnation of universalism among its canons."
And the things you are posting in this topic in reply to me, even if we include the reply post you insisted on putting in another topic rather than this one, I feel are really not actually addressing the points I have made here. Maybe you are misunderstanding me or something, but I feel your arguments attack other things I wasn't saying or bring up claims I feel are irrelevant. Some of them, perhaps, had some relevance in that other topic, but not here--again, another reason to keep things in their actual topic rather than forcing them into a different context.
