|
|
Posted by Steve on 10/15/07 05:02
<danielcarrington4@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192415531.093041.156110@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 13, 4:45 pm, "Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote:
>> "Giganews Moderator" <nob...@mixmin.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:552beb84d92a5ac8cd4711544a10cd04@anon.mixmaster.mixmin.net...
>>
>> > In article <E%VPi.90$3d2...@newsfe06.lga>
>> > "Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> "Drew" <whoisthatmasked...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:4710047c$0$4996$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> >> > Steve wrote:
>> >> >> "Drew" <whoisthatmasked...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>news:470ff10d$0$20614$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> >> > Pay attention. [drum roll please]
>>
>> >> is beyond me.
>>
>> > Bingo!
>>
>> you're a knob.
>
> All right, now GN IS being a jerk. But he really wasn't talking about
> you before - he was talking about OMH. I think he's just frustrated
> because you're refusing to "get it."
>
> No offense meant.
i'm pretty thick skinned. and, while i knew he was referring to omh, we've
all been 'raging'...see the length and depth of this thread? so, it can
equally apply to all. what i wanted gn to do was to apply appologetics to
his biblical passage reference(s). he obviously didn't 'get it' even though
i took paigns to break down each fallicy...begging him to respond, in
essense. i assume either he didn't catch that or he can't make a descent
defense. i tend to believe the latter, since ad-homonyms are generally a
sure sign of that.
btw, my refusal to 'get it' the *way* he intended it is a conscious
decision. i got it just fine. i just wasn't going to let him off the hook
with passing meaningless analogy off as wise or profound. ;^)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|