- From: "Zuiko Azumazi" <azumazi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Jul 2005 23:40:02 GMT
"Harold Arden" <arden4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> That was answered. Did you not read the answer?
No it wasn't. The so-called tricky "answer" changed the subject which isn't
straight thinking, well not in a true Islamic context.
As an intelligent change, from the alter-ego, I would certainly welcome any
input from 'unrelated' subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, if they deemed that
Altway's obscurantist "answer", duly reiterated in your message, actually
addressed the question in any meaningful Islamic way?
Other than, perhaps, remarking on the obvious fact that 'psittacism' is
alive and well in the dissociative reactionary world that both of you must
live in (BTW are you still both sharing the same computer cage, or should I
say, perch? :-).
Would Muslim subscribers, as a discerning group, say that the so-called
"answer" met the "ineffective communication" criteria or not? That is the
question, is it not? In fact, I'm not even sure if they would understand
what was written, even if it wasn't framed as an so-called "answer" to a
question, other than, perhaps, being of the popular straw man kind?
> As I understand it, and probably everyone else also,
Then, , perhaps, if they want to understand the truth, they should
"logically" re-visit this informative link (obviously, putting 'psittacism'
But, is truth a logical necessity in Muslim forums, such as SRI?
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Zuiko Azumazi, aka Azumazi Zuiko, aka ZA, aka AZ and "Polly my pet Parrot"