Re: The first of Yowie's 10 questions/concerns about aloe in the New Testament

Yowie wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0258e5bf-c5eb-4b34-9dc4-eaf536ef4da8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 24, 7:46 am, "Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

*snip*

Still, even just a reference that actually answers the questions
and concerns I have posted (repeatedly) would be better than you
falsely claiming that you will answer all questions asked of you
when you have consistently and repeatedly failed to do so.
I wish you hadn't given him this out. He will take it by
regurgiposting Thieringisms without giving you a shred of his own
original, or even synthetic, thought. He demands much from others that
he is unwilling to do himself, and this is one case where you could
have held his feet to the fire by asking him to answer in a normal
fashion.

I know, and I would have liked to have done that. SRQ however is not a
scholarly forum an I'm not playing 'as a scholar' (whilst a 'scholar' my
degree, research and patent is in Chemistry) so it would be unfair of me to
expect others to meet the tough requirement of being 'scholarly' and using
references correctly, even if I perhaps out of habit, tend to do so.

Fair enough, although it would be interesting to see Dave put answers
in his own words and *then* provide citations to references he thinks
support his views.

However, this is not about David 'scholarliness', its about David's honesty
here in the newsgroups.

True dat.

He continues to make false claims such as "I have
zillions of face book friends", "I am a meterologist" and "I will answer all
questions".

The first has been demostrably disproven - David has two facebook entries,
and both have precisely the same 7 friends, hardly "zillions".

The second is his total failure to document any of the formal
qualifications, licence or practice of a *meterologist* rather than a lay
person who is interested in the weather (heck, if thats the case, I am a
meterologist too. Lookie! I even post at Weatherzone.com.au!). Whilst one
cannot disprove a negative, to my mind, anyone *with* qualifications as
matter of public record would give them if challenged.

The third can also easily be shown to be false by citing the questions he
has failed to answer in the past.

All true. However, I hope that this current effort -- answering the 10
questions you enumerated here -- gets all the focus for now. To the
extent that other posters bite on Dave's red herrings, or raise
unrelated issues themselves, Dave gets a chance to avoid answering
your base questions.

Right now, he is fighting the hook in a number of ways. I am trying to
keep him on topic. If you would like me to back off, let me know.

Until David can answer all nine of those questions (and I will welcome from
other posters and questions of theirs David has also failed to answer in the
past) the failure to answer questions he said he would is just further proof
David P "Carl" Christiansen is a liar and can't keep his word.

Agreed. (Well, except that I don't think he has a middle name with the
initial "P".)

I am pulling for Dave to come through with good answers to your
questions, to your (not his) satisfaction. Whatever he may think, I do
not wish him ill; I wish him to claim his honor and honesty. With his
energy and interests, he could be a useful discussant on Usenet if he
could occasionally put aside his peccadilloes.

If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many
pancakes can you fit in a doghouse? None, icecream doesn't have bones.

BTW, I took my canoe out the other day and found your answer isn't
correct.

The correct answer is cosmic background radiation. HTH.
.

Relevant Pages
Loading