D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
I just PMed Knight with a request for him to step in and render a decision on this issue. Perhaps we both should wait to hear from him.
BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale III ~ Dee Dee vs. Jerry
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Perhaps you are right Rapt. Knight will let us know... however, I read the other Battle Talk threads and the combatants did do their trash talking over in those threads.
Oopss.. sorry, I will shut up until I hear from Knight.
Oopss.. sorry, I will shut up until I hear from Knight.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dee Dee,
In my first post I did address some of your points.Do you think that it is fair or appropriate or truthful for you to come on this thread and say that I did not address your points?
You said,"Wow,someone can win a round by totally ignoring the other person´s point..."
As rapt says,he didn´t think that those debating belonged on this thread.And I was not going to make any comments until I saw that you were on this thread and you were making comments like the one I quoted.
In His grace,--Jerry
In my first post I did address some of your points.Do you think that it is fair or appropriate or truthful for you to come on this thread and say that I did not address your points?
You said,"Wow,someone can win a round by totally ignoring the other person´s point..."
As rapt says,he didn´t think that those debating belonged on this thread.And I was not going to make any comments until I saw that you were on this thread and you were making comments like the one I quoted.
In His grace,--Jerry
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Jerry:
Jerry, please, get over it. That is called trash talk... and as a matter of fact, YOU DID NOT deal with my point. I only had one, it was kind of hard to avoid dealing with it, but amazingly enough, you manage to post hundreds of words and not deal with it once. I will, of course,prove that over in the Battle where such proof belongs.
Jerry, please, get over it. That is called trash talk... and as a matter of fact, YOU DID NOT deal with my point. I only had one, it was kind of hard to avoid dealing with it, but amazingly enough, you manage to post hundreds of words and not deal with it once. I will, of course,prove that over in the Battle where such proof belongs.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dee Dee,
One of the points that you attempted to make is the idea that the Lord Jesus did not address the question of His disciples concerning the destruction of the Temple then standing.I did address that point by pointing out that the words of the Lord that are found at Luke 21:20,24 were in fact an answer to the question concerning the desruction of Jerusalem that occured in Jerusalem in AD 70.
There can be no confusion over this.I stated it very clearly.
You could have said that I answered the point but you did not agree with my answer.But instead you said something that was not true at all.You said that I IGNORED your points.
Why would you say that,Dee Dee?
In His grace,--Jerry
One of the points that you attempted to make is the idea that the Lord Jesus did not address the question of His disciples concerning the destruction of the Temple then standing.I did address that point by pointing out that the words of the Lord that are found at Luke 21:20,24 were in fact an answer to the question concerning the desruction of Jerusalem that occured in Jerusalem in AD 70.
There can be no confusion over this.I stated it very clearly.
You could have said that I answered the point but you did not agree with my answer.But instead you said something that was not true at all.You said that I IGNORED your points.
Why would you say that,Dee Dee?
In His grace,--Jerry
C
cirisme
Guest
I don't think this is place for "trash talk," but a place where people can come and debate the issue, I don't see any rule that limits the combatants from joining in. Of course, Dee Dee the admin will let us know what she thinks... 
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Jerry:
I am not going to debate you here. Giving a bogus explanation is not answering a point... it is dodging it with nonsense. Would you prefer that I clarify my statement then and say that you did not ignore my point, you dodged it with nonsense??? Would that make you feel better? (and by the way... you have mistated my point - it kind of helps to understand your opponent's point before answering - just a tip) Save your substantive points for the debate.
I am not going to debate you here. Giving a bogus explanation is not answering a point... it is dodging it with nonsense. Would you prefer that I clarify my statement then and say that you did not ignore my point, you dodged it with nonsense??? Would that make you feel better? (and by the way... you have mistated my point - it kind of helps to understand your opponent's point before answering - just a tip) Save your substantive points for the debate.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Crisisme: LOLOLOL!!! I actually do want to see what Knight decides. He is the Man with the Plan... so whatever he says will go.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dee Dee,
You may think that my answer was "nonsense",and that is fine.But just because you think that my answer is nonsense does not mean that I "totally ignored" the points that you made.
I did not TOTALLY IGNORE the points that you made.You saying that I did does not make it so.
And you say that my answer was a "bogus" answer.Well,I said that the words of the Lord at Luke 21:20,24 do in fact refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.And don´t you also say the same thing?So how can you say that my answer is bogus?
In His grace,--Jerry
You may think that my answer was "nonsense",and that is fine.But just because you think that my answer is nonsense does not mean that I "totally ignored" the points that you made.
I did not TOTALLY IGNORE the points that you made.You saying that I did does not make it so.
And you say that my answer was a "bogus" answer.Well,I said that the words of the Lord at Luke 21:20,24 do in fact refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.And don´t you also say the same thing?So how can you say that my answer is bogus?
In His grace,--Jerry
Last edited:
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Jerry, whatever, I will prove my case on the Debate thread where it belongs.
If someone were to say to me, "The sky is blue prove me wrong," and I went on to say that frogs cannot swallow with their eyes closed, then technically I did not ignore their question, but neither did I answer it.... I dodged it with nonsense. By that definition, any response, including just asking another question (which your favorite type of response) would count as an "answer." And ironically, you demonstrated above that you did not even comprehend my point... hard to answer something you don't even comprehend, isn't it??
You must feel that you are losing pretty bad by how bad you are harping on this. Thanx!!!
If someone were to say to me, "The sky is blue prove me wrong," and I went on to say that frogs cannot swallow with their eyes closed, then technically I did not ignore their question, but neither did I answer it.... I dodged it with nonsense. By that definition, any response, including just asking another question (which your favorite type of response) would count as an "answer." And ironically, you demonstrated above that you did not even comprehend my point... hard to answer something you don't even comprehend, isn't it??
You must feel that you are losing pretty bad by how bad you are harping on this. Thanx!!!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dee Dee,
Since you came on this thread making comments concerning my responses,don´t you think I shold have a right to make comments to defend what I said?
Do you think that it is fair for you to say that I must feel like I am behind in this debate because I do come on this thread and defend myself against your false accusations?
You say that your profession is the "law",but you do not seem to have the slightest idea of the concept of "fair play".
Now I will quote your exact words that you used in your argument so we can all see that I did not ignore your point:
"Jesus makes it clear what Temple and city are in view beyond any shadow of a doubt in the Olivet Discourse,which futurists believe is speaking of the 70th week of Daniel..."
Your words cannot be plainer.You are saying that "futurists believe" that the Lord´s words are in reference to the events described in the 70th week of Daniel.
Well,this "futurist" does not believe that all of the Lord´s words were in reference to the 70th week of Daniel.Therefore,I responded to that point.I did not "totally ignore" your points,as you say.
Instead,I said that the Lord´s words at Luke 21:20,24 are in fact the Lord´s response to His apostle´s question concerning the Temple standing at that time.
So you see,Dee Dee,I did answer your point.I did not ignore it,as you say.
And your attempt to justify your action only makes your behavior that much worse.
In His grace,--Jerry
Since you came on this thread making comments concerning my responses,don´t you think I shold have a right to make comments to defend what I said?
Do you think that it is fair for you to say that I must feel like I am behind in this debate because I do come on this thread and defend myself against your false accusations?
You say that your profession is the "law",but you do not seem to have the slightest idea of the concept of "fair play".
Now I will quote your exact words that you used in your argument so we can all see that I did not ignore your point:
"Jesus makes it clear what Temple and city are in view beyond any shadow of a doubt in the Olivet Discourse,which futurists believe is speaking of the 70th week of Daniel..."
Your words cannot be plainer.You are saying that "futurists believe" that the Lord´s words are in reference to the events described in the 70th week of Daniel.
Well,this "futurist" does not believe that all of the Lord´s words were in reference to the 70th week of Daniel.Therefore,I responded to that point.I did not "totally ignore" your points,as you say.
Instead,I said that the Lord´s words at Luke 21:20,24 are in fact the Lord´s response to His apostle´s question concerning the Temple standing at that time.
So you see,Dee Dee,I did answer your point.I did not ignore it,as you say.
And your attempt to justify your action only makes your behavior that much worse.
In His grace,--Jerry
Last edited:
LOL!
Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pot.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Jerry:
Get a grip. That last sentence was a joke. I certainly believe that you can come and make comments defending yourself. In fact, I encouraged you to do that. What I objected to was your posting of substantive responses and debating the issue here. You are now trying to justify yourself for your inappropriate posts before by claiming that you were defending yourself from a prior post of mine. Nonsense. The inappropriate posts you made that started this whole broo-ha-ha were to Rapt and Rev7:17 and had nothing to do with what I said. But when I challenged on that behavior, you had to find something else......
I encourage you to make comments here all you want. I object to you raising substantive issues.
And what makes you think that the law has anything to do with fair play?? You did watch the OJ Simpson trial didn't you??
Get a grip. That last sentence was a joke. I certainly believe that you can come and make comments defending yourself. In fact, I encouraged you to do that. What I objected to was your posting of substantive responses and debating the issue here. You are now trying to justify yourself for your inappropriate posts before by claiming that you were defending yourself from a prior post of mine. Nonsense. The inappropriate posts you made that started this whole broo-ha-ha were to Rapt and Rev7:17 and had nothing to do with what I said. But when I challenged on that behavior, you had to find something else......
I encourage you to make comments here all you want. I object to you raising substantive issues.
And what makes you think that the law has anything to do with fair play?? You did watch the OJ Simpson trial didn't you??
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dee Dee,
In my lastest post I quoted your comments from the debate.You can clearly see that I did not "totally ignore" what you said.
Can you please tell me why you said that I "totally ignored" your points when anyone can see that I responed in a clear and concise manner.
In His grace,--Jerry
In my lastest post I quoted your comments from the debate.You can clearly see that I did not "totally ignore" what you said.
Can you please tell me why you said that I "totally ignored" your points when anyone can see that I responed in a clear and concise manner.
In His grace,--Jerry
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Jerry:
That comment that I made was in the opening posts of this thread. It was not after several posts that you have made... so asking me this question is after the fact. I do think that you have not addressed some very important points, and yes, have ignored some. I will point those out in my next post on the Battle post if that is okay.
I want to extend the olive branch here, and save the fighting for the Battle if that is okay. Someone whom I respect has privately told me that I am getting out of line here on this thread with you and others, and since I trust that person's opinion, I am backing off as I do not mean to offend anyone.
If that comment is really bothering you that much, would you like me to go back and edit it out?? If you do, I will.
I am also willing in the interest of keeping everyone happy and things fair to agree with you for both of us to refrain from posting here. Would you agree to that??
That comment that I made was in the opening posts of this thread. It was not after several posts that you have made... so asking me this question is after the fact. I do think that you have not addressed some very important points, and yes, have ignored some. I will point those out in my next post on the Battle post if that is okay.
I want to extend the olive branch here, and save the fighting for the Battle if that is okay. Someone whom I respect has privately told me that I am getting out of line here on this thread with you and others, and since I trust that person's opinion, I am backing off as I do not mean to offend anyone.
If that comment is really bothering you that much, would you like me to go back and edit it out?? If you do, I will.
I am also willing in the interest of keeping everyone happy and things fair to agree with you for both of us to refrain from posting here. Would you agree to that??
Y
Yxboom
Guest
I feel like this is true WWE style battle royale, bravo Knight!
Great scripting.
The two contendors are duking it inside and outside the ring.....out in the grandstands can I pat Dee Dee or Jerry's back
Is there a 20 countout or is this falls anywhere count?
Great scripting.
The two contendors are duking it inside and outside the ring.....out in the grandstands can I pat Dee Dee or Jerry's back
Is there a 20 countout or is this falls anywhere count?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dee Dee,
I will agree with you that we both cease from making comments on this thread.
In His grace,--Jerry
I will agree with you that we both cease from making comments on this thread.
In His grace,--Jerry
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Shuchks!!!
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Jerry:
Agreed. And I do apologize if I got out of line here and just don't see it. Sometimes that is what friends are for (i.e. to point such things out). But.... don't expect this "kinder - gentler" Dee Dee to show up the Battle!!!! since now that will be the only outlet for my agressions Signing off.......
Agreed. And I do apologize if I got out of line here and just don't see it. Sometimes that is what friends are for (i.e. to point such things out). But.... don't expect this "kinder - gentler" Dee Dee to show up the Battle!!!!
since now that will be the only outlet for my agressions Signing off.......- Status