BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[Clete]

Is this how you address a civil, logical, and polite observation to the point revising the number of words that will be assigned to Bob Enyart?

Actually my reading of the rules would add some 4000+ words to Dr. Lamerson's final post as well but I suppose you hadn't stopped long enough to think through my comments well enough to have figured that out.

I would suggest the you review James 3 about controlling the tongue and its application to our written communications.

And I would suggest that you stop and think about what you are saying before saying something stupid and running the risk of someone calling you on it.

As you said “ the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone.”

Which is what I also said in the original post when I explained the whole point of having brought the idea up in the first place...

Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.​

Bob Enyart, as you said used 800 + words. However, he could have referenced the rules which would have taken no more that a dozen or so words. Again, this was part of Bob Enyart’s choice to the debate to be verbose in the explanation of the rules.

In defense of Dr. Lamerson suggesting that Bob wasn't following some set of debate rules which the Dr. seemed to think we somehow universally known and excepted. If he hadn't done so and simply ignored such an accusation, you would no doubt be whining about how Bob broke the rules and has therefore lost the debate. It's ridiculous and asinine for you to be complaining about our "putting aside" the rules when Dr. Lamerson was holding these rules in abeyance in favor of a completely unrelated set of rules which he assumed everyone knew and intended to follow.

The moderator is the one who has the serious task to enforce the rules no matter how unpopular they my be the majority or minority of the group. Honesty and integrity must be the hallmark of his decision. If it not, it will have grave consequences.

Grave consequences? Like what? Like you crying foul and declaring victory?
As if that isn't going to happen anyway.

You did. Please review your words

Any unilateral slanted request to change even one iota of an agreement is “putting aside” said agreement. It is up to the participants along with the moderator to come to a consensus.

I know perfectly well what I said. How about if you read the whole post before leaping to idiotic conclusions and making yourself look like a fool by telling everyone else to stop and consider. I've quoted the last line of my post above but you probably skimmed over it again so I will quote it once more...

Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.​

Stop and Consider.

Hypocrite!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Oh really?

After Dr. Lamerson's eighth post had been published to the Web -- and before Mr. Enyart's eight, ninth, and tenth posts were due -- in the “Battle Talk Round 8” thread, in Post #44, you wrote: “ . . . That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded. Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not. . . .”

You know what those three little dots and the end of this quote make you?

A liar! That's right, a liar. Because what you intentionally left out goes completely against the assertion you are making. Let me, once again quote myself since you guys seem so fond of intentionally ignoring when someone specifically explains their point. I've highlighted the portion which you intentionally left out...

Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.​

In Post #45, Bob responded: “I wish!”

In Post #46, you said: “So do I.”

Both statements are completely true! I do wish that Bob has all the space in the world in which to post as much material as he likes. It's not as if Dr. Lamerson would respond to it, even if he could. But my wishing it were so, doesn't mean that it is or even that it should be but again, that wasn't the point of my post.

On the same topic, in the "Battle Talk Rounds 4 – 7" thread, you said to Leonard A: “Bob Enyart isn't as stupid as you might think. He's perfectly aware of the rules and how many more words he has to use. PROBABLY THE ONLY QUESTION IN HIS MIND IS WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN LEGITIMATELY RECLAIM THE 800+ WORDS HE USED REQUOTING THE RULES TO DR. LAMERSON, WHICH I THINK IS A NO BRAINER but whether it is or not, the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone [emphasis mine]."

Based on those remarks on the topic, it appeared to me that you were scrambling to filch whatever extra words you could for Enyart to use in his final three posts.

Bob asked for those 800 words when he reposted the rules! Have you even read the debate? I'll bet that you haven't.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[M. K. Nawojski]

You know what those three little dots and the end of this quote make you?

A liar! That's right, a liar. Because what you intentionally left out goes completely against the assertion you are making. Let me, once again quote myself since you guys seem so fond of intentionally ignoring when someone specifically explains their point. I've highlighted the portion which you intentionally left out...

Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.​

Both statements are completely true! I do wish that Bob has all the space in the world in which to post as much material as he likes. It's not as if Dr. Lamerson would respond to it, even if he could. But my wishing it were so, doesn't mean that it is or even that it should be but again, that wasn't the point of my post.


Bob asked for those 800 words when he reposted the rules! Have you even read the debate? I'll bet that you haven't.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ah, Mr. Clete, if “bluster” were the mark of the man, you’d certainly be a magnificent specimen!

Tempted as I am to write off our exchange as “pointless,” I hesitate because -- in spite of all! -- your latest post has succeeded in widening my previously guarded smile into a broad grin . . . as well as providing a merry chuckle or two, to brighten my lackluster day.

Having received much diversion from your explanations and excuses, I have diligently sought some means of offering praise for the same . . . but find I cannot do so in good conscience . . . because, you see, I’m constrained by Proverbs 26:1: “As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool.”

And by Proverbs 27:22: “Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.”

And by Proverbs 29:20: “Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.”

And yes, though I blush to confess such frittering away of my time, I have read Battle Royale X -- word by word, line by line, post by post, first to last. Have you?

MK

 

[Clete]

Ah, Mr. Clete, if “bluster” were the mark of the man, you’d certainly be a magnificent specimen!

Tempted as I am to write off our exchange as “pointless,” I hesitate because -- in spite of all! -- your latest post has succeeded in widening my previously guarded smile into a broad grin . . . as well as providing a merry chuckle or two, to brighten my lackluster day.

Having received much diversion from your explanations and excuses, I have diligently sought some means of offering praise for the same . . . but find I cannot do so in good conscience . . . because, you see, I’m constrained by Proverbs 26:1: “As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool.”

And by Proverbs 27:22: “Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.”

And by Proverbs 29:20: “Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.”

And yes, though I blush to confess such frittering away of my time, I have read Battle Royale X -- word by word, line by line, post by post, first to last. Have you?

MK

Indeed I have, some of it more than once. But if you're attitude is so pious and full of wisdom answer this one simple question...

Why, when you quoted me, did you intentionally leave out the part where I specifically expressed the point I was trying to make?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[M. K. Nawojski]

Indeed I have, some of it more than once. But if you're attitude is so pious and full of wisdom answer this one simple question...

Why, when you quoted me, did you intentionally leave out the part where I specifically expressed the point I was trying to make?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Let me ask you a question, Clete. Is it likely, in an open forum such as this:

1. Where rules are in place to ensure that dialogues proceed with straightforwardness and honesty (e.g., the user can’t post something and then go back and modify the post . . . if the individual has something further to say, he/she must simply post additional information and/or explanation)

2. Where electronic safeguards are established to ensure that -- regardless of any given individual’s personal penchant for dishonesty -- the rules will be obeyed

3. Where occasions for he-said/she-said types of argument are precluded by the fact that all commentary is in written form (i.e., no word-of-mouth input)

4. Where everything YOU have had to say on this subject (except the one uncontested post in the BR X Rounds 4-7 thread) is in this thread, BR X Rounds 8-10, which currently has a range of five pages and is exhaustively and quite easily accessible to any interested person

5. Where, in all my responses, I gave the specific numbers of any of your posts which I referenced

6. Where, in any and all of my responses where parts of your posts were excluded, I called attention to the fact by correctly providing ellipsis points

Is it likely, I ask -- in these circumstances -- that I was hoping to successfully alter one or more of your posts, pretend the text of the altered post contained all of your thoughts on the subject, and then provide an answer to that post, in the hope I could make a point of some kind?

Getting a little paranoid, are we?

MK

 

[Clete]

Is it likely, I ask -- in these circumstances -- that I was hoping to successfully alter one or more of your posts, pretend the text of the altered post contained all of your thoughts on the subject, and then provide an answer to that post, in the hope I could make a point of some kind?

Likely or not, this is exactly what you did. It's not the first time people have forgoten that what people say is right there in black and white for all to read.

The fact is that you did indeed intentionally leave that portion of my post out and then proceeded to make an argument that I had actually been making a point which was in direct opposition to the point which I specifically stated in the portion which you deleted. And I would just like a direct answer to my question, please. Why did you do that?


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[M. K. Nawojski]

Likely or not, this is exactly what you did. It's not the first time people have forgoten that what people say is right there in black and white for all to read.

The fact is that you did indeed intentionally leave that portion of my post out and then proceeded to make an argument that I had actually been making a point which was in direct opposition to the point which I specifically stated in the portion which you deleted. And I would just like a direct answer to my question, please. Why did you do that?


Resting in Him,
Clete

It’s clear that unfounded and unreasonable accusations -- along with an attitude of bluster and bluff -- are quite effective in gaining your ends, in your little world. God help any people who are under your authority!

Happily, your world and your rules do not impact me.

In a public forum, you have called me a “liar,” and have accused me of acting out of deceitful and dishonest motives, in an attempt to delude and defraud members and guests of “Theologyonline.com.” In Post #65, I provided a detailed listing of reasons why I (or any other sensible person) would not have used the methods you allege. I now state for the record that your charges concerning me (including any and all impugned motives and/or purposes) are false, and I recommend the following verses to your attention:

Proverbs 13:16: “Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.”

Proverbs 12:16: “A fool’s wrath is presently known: but a prudent man covereth shame.”

Proverbs 14:16: “A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.”

Other than that, I have no more words to waste on you.

MK
http://twilight-tales.com

 

[Clete]

It’s clear that unfounded and unreasonable accusations -- along with an attitude of bluster and bluff -- are quite effective in gaining your ends, in your little world. God help any people who are under your authority!

Happily, your world and your rules do not impact me.

In a public forum, you have called me a “liar,” and have accused me of acting out of deceitful and dishonest motives, in an attempt to delude and defraud members and guests of “Theologyonline.com.” In Post #65, I provided a detailed listing of reasons why I (or any other sensible person) would not have used the methods you allege. I now state for the record that your charges concerning me (including any and all impugned motives and/or purposes) are false, and I recommend the following verses to your attention:

Proverbs 13:16: “Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.”

Proverbs 12:16: “A fool’s wrath is presently known: but a prudent man covereth shame.”

Proverbs 14:16: “A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.”

Other than that, I have no more words to waste on you.

MK
http://twilight-tales.com

It's not bluster; I'm simply asking a question that any reasonable person who was operating with the motives which you are claiming should easily be able to answer. How is that a difficult, deceptive, unfounded, unreasonable or blusterous thing to ask for? Just answer it, that's all. I don't care about the Bible verses you want to quote, I don't care about whether you like me, or whether you feel sorry for those in positions of authority under me. I simply would like a straight forward answer to a very simple question.

What was the purpose of leaving off the part where I specifically state my point when you were discussing what my point was? If it wasn't to be deceptive and make your own unfounded and unreasonable accusation then what was it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Sam has my vote so far for the simple fact I can understand his argument. He does a better job at keeping the reading level down to where a simple publicly schooled person like myself can understand.

Are you serious here or was this supposed to be sarcasm?

 

[Clete]

The substantive qualities of this debate take preeminence over that quantitate elements of this debate.

Of course! :doh:

Leave it to Knight to find the wisest interpretation of the rules. Excellent! :thumb:

Of course, you know that everyone on the settled view side will accuse you of playing favorites.

c’est la vie!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Of course, you know that everyone on the settled view side will accuse you of playing favorites.

I don't care what anyone says, I just want a debate focused on the issue at hand!

 

[Clete]

I don't care what anyone says, I just want a debate focused on the issue at hand!

Agreed. I would say that far too many words have been expended discussing the word count non-issue.

 

[defcon]

If it doesn't matter what the word count is -why even mention it in the rules?

 

[fool]

I find Bob's use of the term "straw dummy" to be inflamatory.
Grow up Bob.

 

[Clete]

If it doesn't matter what the word count is -why even mention it in the rules?

It matters but not more than the substance of the debate. If someone was being ridiculously verbose just for the sake of making a long post, or using excessively long posts as a tactic where an endless array of red herrings are presented, then the word count provision would be there to control that. But it's clear that it was never anyone's intention to worry about the word count more than the substance of the issues being debated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[defcon]

It matters but not more than the substance of the debate. If someone was being ridiculously verbose just for the sake of making a long post, using excessively long posts as a tactic where an endless array of red herrings are presented then the word count provision would be there to control that. But is clear that it was never anyone's intention to worry about the word count more than the substance of the issues being debated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

So then why didn't the rules state that as long as the topic was being addressed, there was no word limit? Sorry, but this is ethically questionable at best. Both sides should have been made aware of the disposal of the word limit earlier in the debate- not 1 post before the end. In fact, Knight even mentioned the 6,000 word limit after Round 3.

The 6,000 word limit is extremely tight in a debate of this complexity therefore we want to save as much space as possible for actual content.

This decision is highly questionable.....

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Bob Enyart said earlier:

But for all the true reversals and changes God exhibited in the Old Testament, the most harm results when Calvinist and Arminian Settled Viewers overlook God changing His course in the New Testament!

Bob then gives the following instances where he thinks that the predictions of the Lord Jesus did not come true:

Jesus repeatedly promised to return soon (giving the apostles the hope they displayed in Acts of His imminent return).
• “There are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
• “I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
“Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things [Second Coming prophecies] take place.”

However,even Bob admits that the promise of His coming was “conditional” on whether or not the nation of Israel would accept their King:

God explicitly declares that some of His promises are conditional, including that He would establish Israel’s kingdom if they obeyed their king, not otherwise! Thus Jesus did not return to establish that Kingdom.

If the setting up the the kingdom and the return of the Lord Jesus was conditional then why would the Lord Jesus be promising to return to set up His kingdom before Israel made a choice as to whether or not to accept the King?

The Lord would not be promising anything about His return without knowing whether or not Israel would accept the King.But despite this Bob is quick to assert that the Lord broke His promise.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Clete]

So then why didn't the rules state that as long as the topic was being addressed, there was no word limit? Sorry, but this is ethically questionable at best. Both sides should have been made aware of the disposal of the word limit earlier in the debate- not 1 post before the end. In fact, Knight even mentioned the 6,000 word limit after Round 3.

I think that the rule could have been stated more clearly but "ethically questionable at best"? Come on, now. It seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the rule was to keep people from getting out of control. If the intent had been to create a hard and fast word count limitation the word "recommended" would not have been put in there.

This decision is highly questionable.....

On what grounds? Because you don't like it, is that it?

 

[defcon]

I think that the rule could have been stated more clearly but "ethically questionable at best"? Come on, now. It seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the rule was to keep people from getting out of control. If the intent had been to create a hard and fast word count limitation the word "recommended" would not have been put in there.


On what grounds? Because you don't like it, is that it?

It taints the debate. Sam has been stating for a few posts that he was keeping track of the word limit, then all of the sudden it doesn't matter? Why not tell Sam, "Post as much as you want, this debate is fruitful and we're not worried about word limits. There is no need to keep track of Bob's word count anymore." This wasn't the case, and as I've shown, Knight even mentioned the "extremely tight" 6,000 word limit after the 3rd Round. You know this questionable. Let me ask you - Are you in favor of the ruling because you like it? :think:

 

[fool]

Rules are rules, unless you're a relativist, like Knight.