Dear Mel,

You're absolutely right, I did not remember the order of posts
correctly. I jumped in after your second post. That's not exactly the
same kind of misreading you do which I've been talking about: yours is
not merely mistaking a sequential order, you consistently misread
semantic content on the same point in consecutive responses.

Hey, if it makes you feel good to make a big thing of this, knock
yourself out. Looks like an inconsequential detail to me, and I'm
happy to correct it and stand corrected.

"mel" wrote in message om...

snip unnecessary reposting of text: consult the thread's first three
entries

I responded to Glen's question with my second post where I drew the
analogies of the table. Here is how your convenient memory works.

It was just a mistake, Mel, had nothing to do with convenience (that's
paranoid). My point, BTW, which is not affected by the order of
responses to your OP, stands and, more significantly, remains
unanswered. We call this a "red herring" argument.

SnipSince your second post was a response to my concerns about the movie's
non-adherence to the text and anti-semitism, it is not odd , surely,
that we didn't discuss the merits of the film. There's nothing
stopping you from starting a new thread on some NG about this, if
that's what you're after (I did, BTW, grant cudos to the sublimity of
Satan in Gibson's film. She was stunning, for the most part.)

No it wasn't. My second post was a direct reply to Glen consisting of my
interpretation of the analogies of the table in the movie. It was after
this post you contributed your first. Your analysis of the movie using my
analogies as parodies. Creative but not exactly what one might call
respectful. A theme you've touted in every one of your posts. "I get no
respect."

Mel, you don't get to decide how others will respond to your OPs. If
you don't want to participate in a sub-thread, then don't. But don't
whine because someone else has interests that take them other than
where you want the OP to go. Playing Thread Nazi will get you nowhere.

I jumped in after your second post, which was OT, and in response to
Glen. I parodied your list, but I meant everything I wrote, and parody
is a time-honored fashion of criticism. Just ask Elijah. You just have
a problem with people thinking differently than you, I gather.

And Mel, once again you twist what I say to make it fit what you want
to argue. I don't remember saying, "I get no respect". I do remember
accusing you of having the same lack of respect for the text of the
Bible and my arguments alike, because you consistently, repeatedly,
make the same incorrect inferences; then, when those misreadings are
pointed out, you respond with silence, no correction, no retraction.

This whole post of yours here is akin to an author being miffed at a
critic, then pointing to an error on the critic's title page, the
copyright date say, then making that out to be a significant thing on
par with the critics criticism. You are grasping at straws and looking
pretty desperate--which should not be surprising considering the
number of straw men you constructed in prior posts.

And the passive/aggressive approach as got to go. One post acting the
penitent Christian all sorry that readers might be mislead and trying
to avoid all conflict, the next post grasping at straws and
name-calling. I repeat my earlier wish for you: "I hope the
cultivation of your faith eventually makes you happier, or that you'll
find a faith that does." Your posts make a portrait of a very unhappy
guy.

I don't even know your name. H is all you provide.

H is short for Hylourgos, which you can see on the thread hierarchy,
it's really not that mysterious. And why should it matter? Would it
change the nature of the argument if you knew my real name, or I
yours?

Well, "having to do
with wood", let me ask you a simple yes or no question.

snipI get the impression you think criticism is a bad thing. It is not--it
is inescapable, in fact. The only thing that matters is if your criticism
and critical approaches are sound or not. That includes your approach to
religion. It all has to go through your brain, even faith, so you might as
well put what god gave you to work to good ends.

Do you really subscribe to this train of thought? I would like to challenge
you to simply answer yes or no.

Yes, of course. When have I not meant what I said?

H.