Yes, Chuzzlewit, that was the problem. That is, you did not respond to the position Sidney expressed in that specific post, but to a position he allegedly expressed in earlier posts.
Actually, Sidney does not "invoke supernatural explanations and 'proofs'" in the earlier post you cite [#reply-8899089], but a quick search revealed to me that he does indeed appear to belong to the "Bible as literal truth" school.
I still think it is best to stick to the points in the post we are responding to. That is, unless we recapitulate the argument made in past posts, or insert a phrase like the following: "....in your earlier posts, you seem to have argued that..."
Why? Because this is a public forum. We tend to forget that not everyone who reads our posts has followed all the ins and outs of our previous exchanges with Poster X or Poster Y. Thus, when you come in in the middle of the story, it is easy to get the impression that the debaters misunderstand one another, and are talking at cross purposes (particularly since often that really is the case).
On another point:
Jousting with a woman who is simultaneously a grammarian and a logician is simply too much for me. The only thing worse would be if she had legal train too.
1) Why "woman"? Why not just "person"? In argument, at any rate, I am sexless.
2) But don't worry. I don't have any legal train. I don't have any illegal ones, either. No choo-choos at all. <gg>
Joan
|
