Doctor X

Non sequitur

Argumentum ad hominem et Poisoning the Well. There is "no shame in being born in the shit but a damn sight to wish to remain in it," to quote the venerable Sgt. Harper.

Unable to handle rational debate the individual rather, predictably, descends to fallacy and insult.

Note the use of:

Well Poisoning. Unable to actually address the topic, the individual attempt to smear responses. An individual actually interested in debate, if unsure of the terminology, need only ask for clarification and explanation.

Now, if an individual can only spout invective in a feeble pretense towards wit, she should at least strive towards accuracy:

This is a written medium which requires reading comprehension. If the individual "listens" to her computer it remains her error. However, note also the use of the word "infidel" as an argumentum ad hominem with a dash of Poisoning the Well--characterizing the response as from an "infidel" [Boo. Hiss.--Ed.] apparently frees her from actually addressing it.

Unfortunately, placing a FAILED THEORY IN CAPITALS does not elevate it to scholarship. The Chronicles are not "written from a 'spiritual perspective'"--this is an ipse dixit. Should the individual bother to compare the DH with the Chronicles she may achieve a modicum of understanding.

An irrelevent rambling on spiritual perspective follows which does not respond to the answer given previously.

Almost an argumentum ad ignorantium. On the contrary, anyone is free to judge, though one would hope one would read the texts one wishes to judge.

Non sequitur which does not address the answer given previously.

Ipse dixit and incorrect.

Thus ever the apology--"it means what I think it means and only what I think it means unless what I think it means actually proves rather silly, then it means something else."

Well the individual may wish the play to be "Romeo and Julian" the great homoerotic exploration, but Shakespeare did not write it that way. Similarly, she cannot "make" biblical texts state what they do not.

On the other tentacle, she could, if honest, try to learn what they actually say.

The Chronicler's redaction of the DH as described above is a great example of the development of a story. Now one can, as with this individual, bury one's head beneath the sands of the banks of the River DeNile. I would hope that the Readership prefers a braver approach to scholarship.

For [Cue Pomp and Circumstances.--Ed.] do we seek to remain ignorant?

Do we seek never to question what evidence demonstrates? No sir! We shall strive, never yield, we shall fight them in the fields, we shall never surrender [No Churchill!--Ed.]

Right . . . yes . . .

Cannot let this gem of denial pass:

So there!

I gather Junior was born twice ten years appart from two separate lineages. Poor Judas . . . hung himself, then bought a field . . . then exploded.

Are we to gather that females of the region were not interested in the passage of time?

Nevertheless, note the argumentum ad vertatem obfuscandam:

Yes, our recognition that it is a flood myth with connections to previous sources is exactly the same thing as people believing in a literal flood. . . .

More confession of personal faith follows which does not address the topic.

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately, wrong. As noted previously, whilst many theorists argue whether or not the FBI, CIA, Star Fleet Command, or a motely crew in search of curry assassinated JFK they do tend to agree on the date and place.

The Synoptic writers could not prove this accurate?

The writers of Exodus could not prove this accurate?

Now comes the whine:

"Slings and arrows . . . slings and arrows. . . ."

Evidence indicates otherwise, of course.

More fallacious confession of faith follows.

I take it, then, that the individual wishes to resume the practice of child sacrifice as required in Exodus? Do let us know, saves on Christmas presents.

"Try, dear Zirkov, to cultivate a sense of humor!"

Ipse dixit and wrong. Should members of the Readership watch a nation blasted and smoted by plagues and pestilence, then witness a "sea of destruction/reeds" parted, an army demolishes, a pillar of fire or two, I am afraid they are HIGHLY UNLIKELY--capitals are fun!--they would decide to build an idol out of fear that Big Daddy is not scary enough.

I also gather the Readership would not vote to return to the land of said people who were blasted and smoted.

People hold grudges.

Now, if the individual proves so fickle, that remains her error.

Name one.

I shall be happy to name some "non-miracles," beginning with country-western music.

More non sequitur follows.

Argumentum ad vertatem obfuscandam, for I have made no such claim.

See above.

More pleading to a confession of faith follows.

This was an improvement?

Most unfortunate.

--J.D.

Prophetessofrage

--------------
MY REPLY TO YOUR RUBBISH DOC.....Since when did this board become 'analyze one's reply' board? Not only do Mr.Tod play English teacher, but you plop in, and become PSYCHIATRIC ANALYSIS on what my answers mean. Oh, yeah, that's reaaaaally staying on the subject....duh....:notworthy

Doctor X

It appears that the unfortunate delusion that CAPITALS convey weight persists. . . .

Poisoning the Well of course. If an unkind man I would note "garbage in, garbage out," and suggest that if the individual posted responsibly she would find her reception all the more precious.

Last I looked Debate Forums . . . no . . . let me see . . . how about . . . DEBATE FORUMS . . . not clear? . . . perchance DEBATE FORUM require examination of arguments. Whilst I understand the disappointment the individual feels in having her fallacies and blathering exposed as such with such humble efficiency, I can only reassert my kind advice she commence with honest composition.

it appears that his lessons have gone unlearned.

Non sequitur ipse dixit, and, of course, incorrect. On the contrary the personal biases and fallacies upon which the individual slaps together her posts have bee exposed.

I will leave consideration of the psychopathology behind them to others.

From an individual who could not find the subject if it wandered over and invited her leg to a romantic night at the opera, I can only recognize this as a compliment.

--J.D.

[Edited to redact to the Textus Recepticus.--Ed.]

Peter Kirby

MODERATOR
Prophetessofrage, I use Mozilla for a browser, and it renders some pages differently than Internet Explorer. In particular, when there's a long series of dashes like ---------------- and so on, it doesn't break them up to fit the size of the HTML table. So what happens is that your message extends off to the right side of the screen, making it harder to read. My edits above were simply to reduce the length of your lines of dashes. I kindly request that you don't use lines longer than ---------------- from here out.

best,
Peter Kirby

gregor

Dr. X

I might have to place you on my 'ignore' list - simply to get some work done. Your posts are a prime reason that my productivity at work is slipping.

And we ought to be able to attach sound clips to posts - as I suspect the pithy wisdom would be even better with sound effects.

Doctor X

gregor:

Indeed, if only I could find some way to bring in the dancing cats, my arguments would prove irrefutable!

--J.D.

Prophetessofrage

MY REPLY:naughty, naughty, doc, and yeah, I'm not crazy about your obnoxious, rude, idiocy as well.

Doctor X

gregor:

One would hope the individual could have at least provided COLORFU[color=sea-green]L[/color] argumentum ad hominem of a level that surpasses that of a three year-old suffering from a rather nasty case of worms.

Alas not.

Nevertheless, I will recognize it as the cowardice it is and give it no further attention.

--J.D.

Nowhere357

Hehe.

Proverbs 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.