<$BlogRSDURL$>

Sunday, February 08, 2004

Jessica reminds Rob that he could not have addressed it because she has been moderated since she TRIED and he keeps rejecting the posts!



Subj: Re: Message not approved: NO MORE POSTS--Galatians 1:1, "negative inference," etc.
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 01:29:22 +0100 (CET)
From: jessica
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rob:
< Jessica,
< I'm sorry, this message is not being posted.
< You wrote:


<<< In my latest post to you I outlined a number of problems with
< your analysis. You made a few good points but you completely skipped
< the section which I titled "The Negative Inferences in your restated
< position." >>


< Actually, I explained what I saw to be the error in your response to
< my argument when I commented on earlier parts of that post, and then
< stated that you continued making the same error in later portions--
< which includes the section you say I skipped.


Jessica:
Rob, you might have a point if you had not on 2/4/04 restated your view that Paul said he would not be an apostle if he had been appointed by a man.


To top it off you claimed that I had not yet addressed that point and when I do you skip over it and do not respond saying that you had already addressed it!


< One reason why I have called this thread, besides the fact that you
< (and recently Dave and Yon) keep repeating this same criticism, is
< that you never have responded to what you call my "few good points."
< It isn't a discussion when one side consistently keeps hitting one
< note while ignoring what the other side is saying.


< You wrote:


<<< In #11210 you outlined logic which you claimed I had "yet to
< refute." Yet when I refute it (and quite adeptly I might add) you do
< not comment on it. Is if fair of you to claim that I have not
< refuted it and then not comment on my refutation? Is it fair for you
< to close the thread down when you have not answered this? >>


< Jessica, I have answered it, several times, and in fact you have
< NEVER answered or even commented on the logical analysis I made of
< the text.


Jessica:
This is the point where you had claimed I had never addressed the point. I have been on moderation since I addressed the point and so it is impossible that you have answered it!


< You wrote:


<<< I can understand your consternation. You very clearly state that
< Galatians 1:1 can be construed that Paul is speaking about how he
< would NOT have been an apostle (emphasis by you). How can this be
< anything other than the Negative Inference Fallacy? >>


< My logical analysis of the argument explained this, as did my
< discussion of the larger context of Galatians 1. Since you refuse to
< discuss these matters, there's no reason for the thread to continue.


< In Christ's service,
< Rob Bowman


Rob, I did not make the original argument. Dave made the original argument. My only involvement has been with regards the fallacious manner of your challenge. Remember when I asked if it was a riddle and you said yes?


Well I have responded to your riddle. However, not before you fess up to your fallacy you want to expand the discussion with me.


I say, first things first. Fess up first and then we will talk.


Just me,
Jessica


--
Name: Jessica M. Carter
Email: jessica_m_carter@yahoo.com
Blogger: http://jessicacarter.blogspot.com/
RSS sitefeed: http://jessicacarter.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Web page: http://www.geocities.com/jessica_m_carter/index.htm
Yahoo profile: http://profiles.yahoo.com/jessica_m_carter


Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?