Xmas, and solstice, and pagans, and times and seasons

[David Koot]

" round and round we go, in a spin, under the spell of that Old Black Magic called......"

A team of two who ridicule.

[Planey]

Would you like me to up that number to three?

Graeme

[Neil D]

Gentlemen.....

I fear that we may have left the subject of "Xmas and Solstice and pagans and times of seasons" and move on to talking about people....Which, if I remember correctly, rules of the board require us to start a new thread. .....Somehow, I suspect that the powers that be will not allow a thread on one or two specific people....at least without thier consent....

So, in an effort to turn this dialogue back to the subject, I would like to ask David a question-

Should the emphasis of a valid point supercede the amount of knowledge of the subject, especially when same valid point is outside of traditional emphasis?

Oh dear....I fear that this subject may again get sidetrack!

[David Koot]

Would you like me to up that number to three?

Certainly not. Ridicule is inappropriate on a Christian forum, whoever engages in it.

[David Koot]

Should the emphasis of a valid point supercede the amount of knowledge of the subject, especially when same valid point is outside of traditional emphasis?

A valid question and IMO appropriately asked. The response that comes to mind for me would be, how may one know if the point is valid? That would seem to be a place where a person could avail himself of resources such as those who have thoroughly studied an issue.

Dave

[Planey]

Oh come on David.

I just looked back over what has been said in this thread and it is drawing a very long bow to call any of it "ridicule". A little gentle nudging is all.

My comment was certainly meant to be nothing more than a good-humored prod, hence the smilie attached.

I'm starting to think some people here could do with a sense of humor transplant.

Graeme

[David Koot]

I just looked back over what has been said in this thread and it is drawing a very long bow to call any of it "ridicule". A little gentle nudging is all.

[David Koot]

What is the first defense of an undefensable {sic} position,

[Neil D]

Quote:

The comment which I initially responded to, in regard to someone else, focused on the individual rather than on the issues, and in a deprecating manner.

Ok, you don't like "depreciating manners", David. I get that. But what do you call it when you do thus-

Quote:

In the case at bar, the referenced party does indeed have a high level of familiarity with the subject, whereas the other party does not have that level of familiarity. In other instances, of course, the facts would be the final arbiter of a person's assertion of superior knowledge.

Here, you resort to a 'legal-ese' type of arguement, and are as obtuse as you can possibly be all the while being pointed. Who were you refering to, David? And just for your information, I concider the above quote a form of being rude- Talking about someone all the while NOT talking about someone specifically.

Quote:

And a belief that one has such knowledge needs to be

accompanied by manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit,

such as kindness, gentleness, forbearance, and so forth.

In the same post that you have, David, you make this post. I assume that the above quote is continuing to talk about the same person. Such obtuse mannors serve only to futher the suspicious and preconceptions of others. This is a rudeness that is becoming common among intellectuals. Where is the application of mercy and tolerance here?

[David Koot]

I concider {sic} the above quote a form of being rude- Talking about someone all the while NOT talking about someone specifically.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

I concider {sic} the above quote a form of being rude- Talking about someone all the while NOT talking about someone specifically.

There may be times when one or more engaged in a discussion make the level of knowledge an issue. At such times, it would seem appropriate IMO to respond to that issue, in an appropriate manner. In this case, the response you are referring to was on two levels, and stating the reality that in general, the facts are the final arbiter of a person's position statement.[/quote']

The highest form of rudeness is talking about someone in thier presence while assuming that they are not in your presence. This was the origional case. And David, it doesn't matter on what level the knowledge base is, or at what level one is talking on ...it is rude to act as if the person isnt there when it is obvious that he is. And that sure appeared to be the case here.

Quote:

I assume that the above quote is continuing to talk about the same person.

As you have noted, that is your assumption.

And a valid assumption it is.