[Chrysostom]

(JerryLove) I think Joelsdad's already done that quite well or I would not have gone down that road to begin with.

(Me) Then all you're doing is throwing the argument into more disarray, making the thread useless.



(JerryLove) That was not spiteful.

(Me) When unargued, phrases like "fiction" and "bend the populace to their respective wills" are just spite.

[joelsdad]

ou lie... I post up proof of your lie... you change topics and lie again... I post up proof of your lie again... etc... etc.

And I finally find the web sites that butrtress my claims and you get bore. I catch you half a dozen times twisting my statements around to make them say something different post the proof and you run. That is an old tactic.

Like I told you Jerry most of my infor was from books-you posted web sites that contradicted my clasims, so I spend the time finding how to gwt to the websites, find my claims validateds by such sources as the US census Bureau, The Amer. Psych. Assoc., and several others and you now refuse to answer. Well I for my part (now that I can navigate the web a whole lot better) will conotinue to find sources that show my claims valid.


I also rechecked the websites I found that show you wrong Jerry, relooked at all the statements of mine you twisted in this thread and do beleive you don't like being proven wrong and that you don't like getting caught in you rintellectual dishonesty. When I get the time I may just check all the other threads you and I have discoursed on and see if you did alot of subtle twisitng of my words there as well. That certainly would answer alot of questions I have had.

[JerryLove]

Then all you're doing is throwing the argument into more disarray, making the thread useless.

Imples the thread was not already rendered useless by Joelsdad. I contend that it was already useless meaning I could not render it useless and all I've really done is waste some space.

When unargued, phrases like "fiction" and "bend the populace to their respective wills" are just spite.

I understand what you are saying.. but I think I'd place the "spiteful" criteria on more varied a contextual cue than weather they are argued points.

I think in this case, the comment made statements of direct relevence to teh sub-issue... If I wnt through a discussion on "how big the burning bush was" and kept using discrimitory language like "fictional"; I would agree.

Without going back several pages and re-looking at the post; I belive it was a response to a question about what I thought the Bible was, or something similar. If the comment was completely unrelated to anything being disussed, the entire sentance by be "spiteful" (bordering on ad hominim); but I don't think that's the case in this instance.