Misunderstanding and Correction or Misrepresentation and Deception

Not necessarily. For example, in the post in question, PD was responding to the first line and not the paragraph that followed it. Not necessarily. She *did* mean to reply in the negetive, and she *did not* write a negative sentence that immediatly followed the question but istead used a positive sentence that followed the paragraph after the line she was replying to... Bullshit. It is impossible for you to distinguish what she actually meant better than herself, as exemplified by this thread. It was simply an error in your interpretation.I do think that her reply was worded badly, badly formatted, and even a little bit ambiguous, but its very obvious what she intended to say. Especially in light of her explanation of herself. Trolling lies. Bullshit. Ergo, no confession has ever been used in court because the defendant must be a different person than the one that confessed. I'm not detecting any honesty here. This isn't literary criticism and the author is capable of speaking for herself to tell us what she actually meant and exactly how you've misinterpreted it. You couldn't be more obviously incorrect nor more blatanlty showing your unreasonableness and inability to admit errors of interpretation. Irrelevant. We're not judging the success of a work of literary art. I believe you've never studied this and simply looked it up in wiki, possibly for the first time ever today. Are also irrelevant.Besides, we have PD here, herself, telling us what she meant and clearly exposing how and why you misinterpreted it. You are the only person who cannot see it. Obviously totally false and the last ditch resort of a lying troll who can't bring himself to admit that he was wrong in interpreting something. Especially not when he's in this deep. You think that your interpretation of some words somebody pecked into a text box is more accurate than their own explanation of what they meant and where you went wrong.The arragance is blatant. Not in the slightest. You think that you are right and that there's no possible way that you could be wrong about this. Or you're just trolling.I honestly think its both. I can hardly believe a single word you type anymore.

But when you change the persons position and then expect them to argue the position you've created for them, problems arise. Then you are no longer arguing their position.

quote:

---

That's correct. You quoted material, and then you replied to that material.

​

You quoted a paragraph and then you replied to that paragraph. So I was correct in how I originally interpreted you.

---

No you didn't because you didn't take into account the whole paragraph which includes the question, which you demonstrated by no quoting the question when referencing it.

quote:

---

So you intentionally responded to the paragraph instead of to the question.

---

As I point out in Message 1, the first sentence was a response to the question and the second was a response to the rest of the paragraph.

quote:

---

Um, this is precisely what I was instructed as an English major - how to interpret text without preoccupation with author biography. As I've just explained to CS what I was instructed in as an English major was not to commit the Intentional Fallacy, as you are now asking me to do.

---

This is not a case of Intential Fallacy. This is a discussion.

quote:

---

My recollection is that several posts over several days elapsed in between my reply indicating that I had interpreted you as assenting to a paragraph instead of contradicting a question and your first insistence that I had "misrepresented" you, and that your insistence that I misrepresented you began only when I showed you how positions you had indicated assent to had directly contradicted the position you opened the thread to defend.

---

They are all date and time stamped. Show me the time line with links.

quote:

---

You're responding to the paragraph. When you want to answer questions, you quote only the question - as you've done in this very post:

---

That's not a fact. Just another excuse.This example you gave isn't part of a paragraph. This is how it looked in the post. They were three separate sentences. Come on English Major, you know what a paragraph is.

quote:

---

They are all date and time stamped. Show me the time line with links.

---

I reviewed the issue earlier. Here are my findings:

Since Crash brought it up again, I assumed he didn't accept what you presented earlier. He didn't respond to the msg or acknowledge it. I was hoping he would show us what he considers a long period of time on a forum like this.

quote:

---

Thus, in reality Purpledawn waited only 9 hours to provide a correction, not days. And on a forum like this, a 9 hour delay is far from unreasonable.

---

And that was overnight, so I was sleeping. Crash posted after 11pm my time and I responded after 7am my time the next morning.If he can't understand me when I'm awake, he definitely won't understand me while I'm asleep.

Nevertheless it is worth repeating, just to have it accessible in this thread. And I don't see much room for dispute. The links to the original posts back up everything I say.

quote:

---

But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days? There's not a lot of competition for Christianity anymore, at least not among polytheistic religions. That's the reason that the passage in Jeremiah is interpreted, in modern theology, to refer to not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns.

---

quote:

---

I think it is an appropriate way to construe it.

---

Not even ambiguous Blatently obvious that this is disagreement, by repeating Crash's words back at him. If PD had written

quote:

---

I think that is an appropriate way to construe it.

---

then Crash would have a good point. But she didn't and Crash doesn't. End of. Cannot believe there is any possible discussion over this.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

So, what do you think is wrong with him?I'm doubting his sincerity... that he doesn't really believe that he's right, he's just arguing for the sake of it. As if he's just trolling.Or do you think that he really thinks he's right here? And if so, doesn't that stem from arrogance and/or conceit?

Ah, psychology - well above my pay grade, I'm afraid Now if only Holmes were here to straigten it all out. Crash always listened to him...

Pussy! I know, right!I think its just hilarious that he used to bash heads with Holmes and Rrhain for doing the exact same shit that he is doing here now.Oh, and the whole " I used to study english " bullshit is soooo Rrhain.... ... "I was trained to interpret writing so I know better what they mean"... Remember that stuff?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I can understand why a creationist doesn't want to let go of a belief they have held for decades. It could be a major life changing event.I don't understand why Crash has a need to hang on to this misunderstanding. There's nothing major riding on it. There's no fame, no fortune, no free parking, etc.He's actually hurting his credibility on this site just like some creationists do.If he truly is an English Major, then I would say he's doing this on purpose. If he truly believes he is right, then he needs to check his meds. If he is doing this on purpose, then he is breaking forum rules, but he claims he isn't.At least this issue gives me insight into how to advise people to deal with similar situations with Crash.

Pride? Big time. I used to think he was just an arrogant jerk who really did think he was right, but now I'm convinced that he's doing this on purpose. Yeah...

I agree. There are no winners - the 'game' is not over.
But there are already losers*.I am not convinced that this thread should have been started.
I am convinced that it should be brought to a close. *Not the derogatory use of the word.

quote:

---

I am not convinced that this thread should have been started.
I am convinced that it should be brought to a close.

---

I feel the thread is needed. My opponent supposedly has an aversion to misrepresentation. He threw down the gauntlet months ago, but refused to do a Great Debate. He basically has thrown down the gauntlet again and I'm taking him up on it.He's accusing me of deceit and misrepresentation. I've only accused him of misunderstanding. We have a science guy who isn't accepting facts.He's provided no evidence of deceit or misrepresentation, only assertions.I couldn't do this within the threads. It is an attempt to discern whether he is innocently misunderstanding and unable to admit when he's wrong or intentionally misrepresenting to create side battles.Personally, I can ignore him. As an admin, I won't always have that option.

It was just my opinion. I would not dream of trying to censor you.
If you feel that there is something to be gained from this discussion, then good luck.