H Dorrington wrote: > If I am understanding correctly, since this is a discussion group, what you are saying is that we should display self control by not making a comment if we are not willing to support and explain our comments or even questions for that matter? To me that sounds like a reasonable request since none of us are speaking from Sinai! > > Harry Harry, That is exactly what I am saying. Simply disagreeing with "no, you're wrong" type statements edifies no one. No one ends up wiser, more knowledgeable, or in any way better for being told he is wrong for reasons that will not be given, even upon request. -- john-thomas > > --- On Mon, 6/23/08, john-thomas richards <jtrspam@...> wrote: > >> From: john-thomas richards <jtrspam@...> >> Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] NCT and Psalm 119 >> To: soundofgrace@... >> Date: Monday, June 23, 2008, 12:37 PM >> Chad Richard Bresson wrote: >>> >Apparently you haven't. >>> Don't mistake my lack of time to engage the issue >> for not having a >>> studied opinion. >>> >>> I reserve the right (to the consternation of a few >> here from time to >>> time) to make unqualified drive-by statements. :-) >> Your insistence on doing so makes any sort of discussion >> with you >> pointless at best or frustratingly and maddeningly annoying >> at worst. >> You are one of the top two or three posters on this list >> (in terms of >> frequency of posts) and the majority of your posts are >> "I assert x" with >> nothing to back up your assertion, other than your own >> understanding >> that you are "right." Doing so wastes your time >> and ours. A mailing >> list full of unqualified statements is worthless (witness >> the recent, >> "you haven't read the book" --> "yes, >> i have" conversation). Why do you >> insist on making these "drive-by statements" that >> are of little worth to >> the rest of us? You clearly have a wealth of knowledge but >> you seem to >> have the attitude that we should just trust you that your >> unqualified >> statement is correct. Look at your reply to Jen this >> morning concerning >> her assertion that "law" only has one meaning. >> "No, it doesn't." Dude, >> that is profound - and completely worthless to the rest of >> us. >> -- >> john-thomas