In Reply to: Enjoyed your arguments, disliked your tone posted by Oldtimer on February 27, 2006 at 14:40:47:
Oldtimer:
You accurqately qoted me as saying the following:
"I have studied them; I do not merely claim to have done. Have you actually done so, or are you merely reiterating someone else's actually educated question? "
Ancaru's original post began with a claim to having invested a lot of time doing HONEST study on a subject--Yes, I challenged that, and strenuously--I wanted her (I take gender from researching the name "Ancaru") to prove her assertion, not just make unprovable sweeping statements. At stake was what I perceived to be the understanding of other readers and posters on the very important subject being addressed, and on her part, completely dishonestly, which I KNOW to be true based on my own 31+ years of research on the subject--I ojnly encourage a Berean approach to seeif what I was saying was true. Ancaru made her presentation in a manner illustrating that she thought her unprovable opinion should just be accepted without challenge.
For that motive, I do NOT apologize; I DO apologize for the tone--I could have phrased that much better.
I have noticed, however, that there exists on the part of those attacking historical Biblical Christianity, even hereon the Journeys board, an insistence by some on a double behavioral standard: a supposed "Christian" presentation must be "PERFECT"; only the ATTACKER of orhtodox Christian beliefs can vent their spleen with impunity, and without remorse.
I do better with personal attacks than with what I perceive to be attacks on the truth.
Yes, I DO have a problem controlling my temper, occasionaly, with dishonest presentations about historic, especially Biblical, subjects, as well as other pseudo-intellectual fraud.
The person presenting outlandish statements WITHOUT being able to back them up SHOULD be prepared to be called on them; and I definitely did that in an imperfect manner. How's YOUR score on that? Shall I research all of your posts, and give a public answer for you?
My imperfections do not weaken the argument I was presenting itself, they just give the "tragically offended" a way out of ANSWERING THE QUESTION about what they are falsely alleging. Think about it.
"Either differentiate here, or admit either ignorance, or pseudo-scholar fraud; please. "
Asked and answered. Sorry about the tone--"please re-focus on the question and answer it" would be my immediate response following my apology.
"Seriously—will you bother answering this, or predictably beg off? "
There had been a sequence of exchanges between myself and Ancaru, and she HAD pulled the old "dodgeroo". She DID "beg off", before; why SHOULDN'T I call her on it?
What unfair tactics do YOU support, when YOU are in a disagreement with someone, and what are YOUR criteria?
You're right. I DO respond a bit agressively to pseudo-scholarly fraud--it began with following a nasty little old man named Berg...but that's another story! ;-)
With all due (imperfect) respect to all,
OT2 (OldtimerToo