Do you understand the term argumentum ad nauseam? I ask only because that has been your entire method of responding to my comments, that is except for that one instance where you [url= http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=527&page=2&site=3]embarrassed yourself trying to be analytical.[/url] Are you yet relying on that pocket dictionary or yours?
What a waste.
Friend has readily admitted (and Friend, correct me if I am wrong- smirk) that the Society has problems. That it isn't perfect. But when it comes to the minutest detail he will call people to task if it isn't accurate or if in some way might distort facts.
Saying the Society has problems or that it’s less than perfect is an understatement.
When it comes to detail, that’s where true and false are usually resolved. Shrinking from discussing details often results in delusion.
For example, if some said that a hateful message was typed in 11 pt TimesNewRoman. Friend would likely focus on the fact that it wasn't Times New Roman it was Garamond font, therefore how much stock can be placed in the rest of your story when you can't even get that little detail right. The font type is really irrelevant but it was in fact inaccurately stated. How can you argue with that?? This is often the type of minutia that seems to concern Friend at times.
What you have represented here is that I employ the argument of irrelevant conclusion. I would very much like an example my doing so to be pointed out. As for nitpicking some point of insignificance, why don’t you let SolidSender explain the validity (or not) of using learned as past tense for learn. Since he is so analytical I am sure he won’t mind explaining why the point is worthy of criticism.
A good debate can be a valuable exercise and Friend does give one a workout. But I also realize that there are times when it is better to remain silent. Timing, and all that...
There is nothing like debate for deepening or correcting understanding and thinking ability. It is a pity that so few people are willing to learn the merits of good argument.