Re: Maccies resort to their typical dishonesty [was Re: You wanted an example of a price drop...]

"Donald McDaniel" <orthocross@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
C30E15A1.1CD9%orthocross@xxxxxxxxxxx on 9/12/07 10:16 PM:

To get back to your side issue, though, you asked about Donald's views in
regards to your mistaken comments. I told you I would not speak for him

I didn't ask you to. What I did ask you was:

"OK... then what do you think Donald conveyed?"


Apparently you need Donald to do your thinking for you;)


Steve, once again you need a little course-correction:

You claim that "I didn't ask you to [speak for Donald]...", not
understanding what you were saying, since there is no functional difference
between "tell us the meaning of what he said", and "speak for Donald".

Exactly - I noted that Steve made a mistake when he responded to Edwin:

Edwin:
What's "uninformed" about that?

Carroll:
What's informed about it? He provided nothing in the way
of substance... he didn't inform anyone about anything...

Steve, for reasons he has not explained, asked me what you would think -
though, I admit, it may have been about his mistake in that quote or some
side issue he ran to as he avoided talking about his mistake. Frankly I do
not care which... if Steve cannot stick to a topic so be it!

I alone in the entire Universe can explain the meaning of my own words.

What do you mean by that? :)

Even the Eternal Father will not. His Word tells us, "no one knows the
thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him."

And I have given no man the authority to speak for me. If you want to hear
me, hear me directly, in my own words. I seldom speak figuratively, and use
common everyday English, which any schoolboy should be able to understand,
so I really don't need anyone being a prophet for me. I have no prophets.

My own words will stand or fall according to the authority in them.

Do you REALLY think I give an ounce of bat-*** what you or anyone else
thinks about anything? Not on your life, Bud. I can see right through you
and those like you. You are as transparent as glass to anyone who has
experience with God.

One need not have "experience with God" to see how Steve refused to talk
about the error he made in his reply to Edwin, quoted above.

But you, like the Scribes and Pharisees of Christ's time on the Earth,
continue to argue about the maximum size of the load on a camel's back it
will take to keep a rich man from entering into the Kingdom of Heaven, while
He offered you advice which would save your damned and mortal soul from the
Fire, if you would receive it.

"Apparently, you need Donald to do your thinking for YOU", Steve.

You never fail to give me a wide target, my friend. I just can't help
myself. You really should give it up. You're just no match for us.

Steve repeatedly backs himself into a corner with his comments... when he
does and even he sees it he generally reacts with one of his common "tells"
- he makes references to drugs or substance abuse
- he makes personal attacks against people based on his *claims* about
their income, health or other irrelevancies. He occasionally even
will do so based on sexuality or, I believe, color of skin, though I would
have to hunt a bit for an example of the latter.
- he starts snipping all but the first few words of the post he responds to
and pretends that the post said something he did not. This has been
referred to as his "vandalism" of posts.

Steve also often changes topics, but I am not sure if that is based on his
knowledge of his errors or his lack of understanding. Perhaps it is a combo
of the two?


--
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is
generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David
Friedman


.

Quantcast