Gay marriage - is it any of your damned business?

[PaliRichard]

John Cocker.

 

I refer you here in response to your previous (now removed) post.

 

I'm still at a loss as to why you felt the need to equate me with a middle class apologist for simply noting that you had not answered a direct question despite your having plenty of opportunity to do so.

 

Answers to the above linked questions would be appreciated as well as an answer to my original question (below) which you avoided;

 

'Why do those against gay marriage accept the Biblical passages that suggest homosexuality is wrong and not other Biblical rulings.

 

Have you any idea why they do this?'

[MrSmith]

John Cocker.

 

I refer you here in response to your previous (now removed) post.

 

I'm still at a loss as to why you felt the need to equate me with a middle class apologist for simply noting that you had not answered a direct question despite your having plenty of opportunity to do so.

 

Answers to the above linked questions would be appreciated as well as an answer to my original question (below) which you avoided;

 

'Why do those against gay marriage accept the Biblical passages that suggest homosexuality is wrong and not other Biblical rulings.

 

Have you any idea why they do this?'

 

You would give Hanns Scharff a run for his money.

[PaliRichard]

You would give Hanns Scharff a run for his money.

 

It's not too much to ask for people to answer questions is it? Especially on a discussion forum.

 

I would happily accept 'That's my view and I don't really want to discuss it', but tactical avoidance? Is that really necessary?

 

[MrSmith]

It's not too much to ask for people to answer questions is it? Especially on a discussion forum.

 

I would happily accept 'That's my view and I don't really want to discuss it', but tactical avoidance? Is that really necessary?

 

 

I think you see tactical avoidance that isn't there.

[mikem8634]

John Cocker.

 

I refer you here in response to your previous (now removed) post.

 

I'm still at a loss as to why you felt the need to equate me with a middle class apologist for simply noting that you had not answered a direct question despite your having plenty of opportunity to do so.

 

Answers to the above linked questions would be appreciated as well as an answer to my original question (below) which you avoided;

 

'Why do those against gay marriage accept the Biblical passages that suggest homosexuality is wrong and not other Biblical rulings.

 

Have you any idea why they do this?'

 

I would also like to see Mr. Cocker attempt to answer those questions as he avoided and evaded similar ones from me.

[PaliRichard]

I think you see tactical avoidance that isn't there.

 

I think selectively quoting only the part of posts out of context that back up your own argument and ignoring the rest - even when it's pointed out to you several times that the whole post has to be taken into account to be understood correctly and blatantly ignoring this is a pretty good measure of tactical avoidance.

 

Hang on, that's not John Cocker is it that's someone else

[MrSmith]

I think selectively quoting only the part of posts out of context that back up your own argument and ignoring the rest - even when it's pointed out to you several times that the whole post has to be taken into account to be understood correctly and blatantly ignoring this is a pretty good measure of tactical avoidance.

 

 

That’s just your over active and suspicious mind at work, see I selectively quoted you and not because of the reasons you think.

[PaliRichard]

No Mr Smith.

 

I fully understand the difference between selective quoting/highlighting a small section to make a specific point.

 

That's not, and I suspect you know this already, what I was referring to.

 

Let me give you a very black and white fictional example just to humour you based on an actual debate not so long ago.

 

Me - The Alphabet contains 26 letters *proceeds to list those letters*, for it to be 'alphabet' you have to take into account all those letters.

 

Anonymous forum user - But the letter B isn't the alphabet, the letter 'A' is.

 

Me - I never suggested the letter B was, I did specify all the letters in context were the alphabet.

 

Afu - No they aren't, because the letter B isn't the alphabet.

 

Me - let's try again, I never said the letter B or any other individual letter was the alphabet, but when you take the full 26 letters of the alphabet that's what makes the alphabet, you're selectively quoting to back up your own opinion that would collapse if the full context of my post was used.

 

Afu - No I'm not, but you made a post with the letter B in and said that was the alphabet.

 

That - Mr Smith, is tactical quoting, not merelely highlighting a section of a quote to deal with one point.

 

Ta ta.

[MrSmith]

No Mr Smith.

 

I fully understand the difference between selective quoting/highlighting a small section to make a specific point.

 

That's not, and I suspect you know this already, what I was referring to.

 

Let me give you a very black and white fictional example just to humour you based on an actual debate not so long ago.

 

Me - The Alphabet contains 26 letters *proceeds to list those letters*, for it to be 'alphabet' you have to take into account all those letters.

 

Anonymous forum user - But the letter B isn't the alphabet, the letter 'A' is.

 

Me - I never suggested the letter B was, I did specify all the letters in context were the alphabet.

 

Afu - No they aren't, because the letter B isn't the alphabet.

 

Me - let's try again, I never said the letter B or any other individual letter was the alphabet, but when you take the full 26 letters of the alphabet that's what makes the alphabet, you're selectively quoting to back up your own opinion that would collapse if the full context of my post was used.

 

Afu - No I'm not, but you made a post with the letter B in and said that was the alphabet.

 

That - Mr Smith, is tactical quoting, not merelely highlighting a section of a quote to deal with one point.

 

Ta ta.

 

Sorry to disagree but that looks more like someone was winding you up..

[PaliRichard]

Sorry to disagree but that looks more like someone was winding you up..

 

..and that is exactly what I and many other forum users have suspected about this particular forum user for quite a while.