Now you say this!
<<<Actually, I never quoted you as saying "supports">>>
Well, this is what you said, exactly, in your post 15024. The entirety of that post is pasted here:
<<<It gives an idea of the sort of "social policy" Olasky supports, which you made an issue.......>>>
So, Neocon, your position on whether you "quoted" me or not depends on... what the word "quote" means....
I can't make it any clearer than I have. My question has been not about what Olasky "supports."
I'll say it again.
I have never raised a single question, aside from my glancing reference to his advice re the practice of Christian journalism, about "what Olasky SUPPORTS."
My actual question has been written and rewritten here. It relates, this may ring a bell, to the puzzling notion of Biblical inerrancy as a prospective base for formulating national policy, domestic or foreign.
I'm tired of repeating myself. This is jejune.
Perhaps you would like to produce a rationale for Biblical Inerrancy as, for example, a foreign policy tool. |
