Well yeah, considering you were no doubt sending tear-jerking e-mails to your one last ray of hope, yeah, real objective input from your lifegaurd there Amazing, sorry but the jig is up on that one dude. I have had to put her in the same "objective" category as your ex-wife and your daughter.
Oh, the assumptions!
You can believe whatever you want, Julie. There were no "tear-jerking" e-mails from Amazing.
What is the point of all this, anyway? Let's suppose that Amazing is the most arrogant, egotistical, condescending person to ever walk the face of the earth. Does his character affect the validity of the information and arguments he presents on this discussion board?
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong." Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Well Ginny then I guess you and I spent countless hours (at what cost we know!) at the pointless excercise of arguing ad hominems.
As to my assumptions re: e-mails, that was intended to be more tongue in cheek but I'd wager Amazing was quite the victim there with you as he was here publicly. I mean if you don't have the personal fortitude to argue your case publicly I hardly doubt you'd waste it on one on one.
Unless perhaps I am mistaken and he presented you with some unassailable logic in those mails. Just like the amount of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know (or likely care IMO).
Well Ginny then I guess you and I spent countless hours (at what cost we know!) at the pointless excercise of arguing ad hominems.
I guess that will teach me to care, eh?
As to my assumptions re: e-mails, that was intended to be more tongue in cheek but I'd wager Amazing was quite the victim there with you as he was here publicly. I mean if you don't have the personal fortitude to argue your case publicly I hardly doubt you'd waste it on one on one.
Believe what you want to believe, Julie. Nothing I write seems to make a difference anyway.
Gee, all my favorite posters in one thread...arguing with each other.
I have no intention of getting involved in this discussion other than to address two things, one to Julie, and one to everyone else:
TO EVERYONE ELSE: Julie knows more about JW life than some long-time JWs. I'm constantly forgetting that she was never one herself. There is no way her opinions would have changed about things had she been a JW for twenty years. Sometimes I think she was anyway.
TO JULIE: I've been there, my friend. There is something about online arguments that lends itself to this sort of thread. Perhaps the easy access to precise words, while simultaneously allowing for misunderstood words with the emotional context removed. In any case, certain types of discussions are no-win situations. I tried for years to figure out a way to solve these types of threads. I never could find it, and finally decided to just steer clear of them. I suggest this course of action for you in the future. Friendly advice from a friend. You can't please everyone, and sometimes there will be people who will take a disliking to you without any rational reason. There is no way to avoid this completely, so the best course is to accept this truism and move on in life.
I have decided in my fragile wisdom that Ginny and Julie need music, it is the only universal language. People should give up speaking and writing altogether and sing. Check your mail.
Follow the link, yours truly on acoustic geetar, a work in progress. Hope that you enjoy it.
