spin

Strangely enough, I know what it says. You are the one who shows difficulty in reading.

Do think about context

You're trying to equate fact with insult. This is what I wrote:

you haven't shown any expertise in the matter to be in the position make such remarks with any conviction. All you've done is waved your hands and rehearsed your usual background noise.

If you think I've misrepresented you, can you provide evidence in this thread where you have "shown any expertise in the matter to be in the position make such remarks with any conviction"? If you can't then, shouldn't you accept that "you haven't shown any expertise in the matter to be in the position make such remarks with any conviction"? I would be much happier not to be in a position to have to make the comment.

That's because you are not trying. It's related to your comment, "The same applies to nearly all the classics, tho" and the material that followed it. You seem to be pretending that the polemical effects of hegemony, here specifically christian hegemony, do not exist. This is an issue you can't afford to dismiss as you have.

Here is what I said:

Again, sorry Roger, you haven't considered the proposition, shown no desire to do so, and for that matter no ability to do so. Perhaps, if you got some exercise, you might find out how to sound more meaningful. Try to respond to the criticism of this martyr story in A.15.44, rather than avoid it.

Can you show where you have "considered the position"? If not why do you think you have been insulted? Have you shown any desire to consider the matter? You have just repeated your usual nobody supports this position, which is ultimately meaningless other than as an appeal to authority, and you're selectivity is biased ("obscurantism", "inconvenient"), indicating you are not dealing with the complaint itself at all. If these comments are accurate and reflect your actions, why would you find your actions insulting? In fact, there was no intention of insulting you. There was the desire to hear something more from you than what I see as pat cliches (the appeals to authority and complaints of bias). I was using a well-known linguistic approach in the field of discourse analysis dealing with cohesion and, if you don't want to deal with it, that's fine.


spin

Roger Pearse

Well that put me in my place.

<edit>

But I have no interest in personalities, so the argument is over. Let those who think dragging the argument into the gutter is a win sit in the gutter crowing by themselves.

Sincerely,

Roger Pearse

spin

<edit>

As always, if you ever want to get involved substantively in a discussion on anything I've posted on, I'll be happy to listen to you.


spin