see, he is still aruging. LOL. seebs you were either 1. wrong or 2. arguing to argue in a mean way. I think its number 2 based on what you have posed so far so just move on already. If you want to keep ranting go for it just dont' expect me to pay attention to your ranting anymore.

quote:

Today at 01:45 AM Outspoken said this in Post #99 "I argue just to argue sometimes" Yup, Seebs does that alot. Thats what I was addressing.

And this way of cutting just a portion out of a post and then adding your little snide comments is why you are an *******.  And practically everyone knows it except you.  For you it is "being persecuted for the faith."

Now on the chance that I will get warned or banned for being so brutally personal, can mods see the aggravation that Louis creates with this style of posting.  He took a snippet of my post and used it to ATTACK Seebs--but all in the name of "just telling it like it is."

Badfish, weigh in please, if you are willing. Do you think Christ is honored by the way Outspoken anwers posts? I'm trying to understand if this is a fundy thing or just a personal deal with Louis.

"He took a snippet of my post and used it to ATTACK Seebs--but all in the name of "just telling it like it is.""

Attack? Seebs himself told me a long time ago that he likes to argue. I was just stating a fact.

quote:

Today at 02:49 AM Outspoken said this in Post #101 see, he is still aruging. LOL. seebs you were either 1. wrong or 2. arguing to argue in a mean way. I think its number 2 based on what you have posed so far so just move on already. If you want to keep ranting go for it just dont' expect me to pay attention to your ranting anymore.

I think the answer is "3. Outspoken misunderstood seebs in post #32, and started arguing about it."

Yes, I'm still arguing. You made a false claim about me in post #44. I would appreciate a retraction of that false claim. At no point did I say what you claimed I said; this would make it a false statement about me. False statements about people are generally retracted, once pointed out.

I don't think it's all that unusual that I wish to argue with your claim about me, since I think it's false. If you wish to retract it, that'd be fine. If you wish to support it, that'd be fine. However, if it remains both unretracted and unsupported, then I'll keep arguing that it's wrong.

It seems pretty clear that you misunderstood my original post, and thought I was making a claim other than the one I made. That's no big deal; misunderstandings happen. However, it seems to me that it's disingenuous to pin the blame on me; I don't think my writing was particularly unclear, I think you just misread it.

If you want to point at something I said which was wrong, go ahead. However, I don't see how the other alternative is that I'm just trying to argue (let alone in a mean way!). If someone said something about you that was false, wouldn't *you* correct it? Your post #44 made a claim about me. If it's true, kindly support it. If it's false, kindly retract it.

quote:

Today at 01:45 AM Outspoken said this in Post #99 "I argue just to argue sometimes" Yup, Seebs does that alot. Thats what I was addressing.

 


 compare to my post #95:

quote:

I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.  I argue just to argue sometimes, not all the time, but Seebs is a pretty outstanding person who is consistent and logical in his beliefs and presentation.  Others are consistent, I'll grant that much.  But logic is from the debil.

Can you see that one portion of a sentence lifted from it's context and used to accuse Seebs of arguing for the sake of arguing.

 



 

"Can you see that one portion of a sentence lifted from it's context and used to accuse Seebs of arguing for the sake of arguing."

I totally agree, it was taken out of context. but it 1. wasn't an attack and 2. not a "biblical" point, so it didn't really matter.

quote:

Today at 02:54 AM Outspoken said this in Post #104 Attack? Seebs himself told me a long time ago that he likes to argue. I was just stating a fact.

Ahh, but you seem to have attached the adverb "in a mean way" to my arguments. I do indeed enjoy arguing, but I don't argue *just* to argue; I argue because I believe there's some truth to be uncovered. In this case, after a mere six pages of posts, I finally figured out why you thought you were "correcting" me - because you'd misunderstood my original post on the topic. I would have rather gotten to the point sooner, but it pleases me nonetheless to have finally figured out (around 20 posts back) where the misunderstanding came from.

I would have rather enjoyed a discussion about what I said, or about other topics - but I didn't particularly like trying to have a discussion about what I said, and being accused of backpeddling because I wasn't addressing a misreading of my post.

quote:

Today at 01:58 AM Outspoken said this in Post #107 "Can you see that one portion of a sentence lifted from it's context and used to accuse Seebs of arguing for the sake of arguing." I totally agree, it was taken out of context. but it 1. wasn't an attack and 2. not a "biblical" point, so it didn't really matter.

Yes, it does matter.  It is an example of your willingness to use any means to achieve an end.  And this what makes me furious with you.    LOL!  You aggravate and agitate and spurn and misquote and when called on it-- justify, justify, justify.

"If you wish to retract it,"

It wasn't a claim, it was a statement of fact. You went off into the wild blue ranting for the purpose just to argue.

"I do indeed enjoy arguing, but I don't argue *just* to argue;"

Well that's what you've done here. Thus the statement of fact. You then backpeddled to find out you had no where to go