An interesting development and a partial confession of sorts.
My reaction/response/feeling about and toward this entire bizarro scenario is not the same as it was less than 24 hours ago. (As a matter of honesty, I have kinda flipped, completely, and have done so in a rather short amount of time)
Hmmmmmmm??????
This is a quite rare thing for me. (Weird, really)
Truth be told, my flipping has been due (in very large part) to several posts that I have read, considered, and digested from members on this board.
Is it even possible to flip........completely...........and stand corrected?
Ceeboo wrote:An interesting development and a partial confession of sorts.
My reaction/response/feeling about and toward this entire bizarro scenario is not the same as it was less than 24 hours ago. (As a matter of honesty, I have kinda flipped, completely, and have done so in a rather short amount of time)
Hmmmmmmm??????
This is a quite rare thing for me. (Weird, really)
Truth be told, my flipping has been due (in very large part) to several posts that I have read, considered, and digested from members on this board.
Is it even possible to flip........completely...........and stand corrected?
I think I did.
Peace, Ceeboo
On certain occasions, I have had the experience of changing my mind as a result of being exposed to new evidence and reasoned argument based on it.
I know that this kind of flip-flopping just goes to show that I am not a regular guy, and if only I knew how I'd grow a pair and try to show some more guts in future. But I just can't seem to resist once those sweet little syllogisms start to sing their siren song ...
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Ceeboo wrote:An interesting development and a partial confession of sorts.
My reaction/response/feeling about and toward this entire bizarro scenario is not the same as it was less than 24 hours ago. (As a matter of honesty, I have kinda flipped, completely, and have done so in a rather short amount of time)
Hmmmmmmm??????
This is a quite rare thing for me. (Weird, really)
Truth be told, my flipping has been due (in very large part) to several posts that I have read, considered, and digested from members on this board.
Is it even possible to flip........completely...........and stand corrected?
I think I did.
Peace, Ceeboo
A burning in the bosom?
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
Ceeboo wrote:An interesting development and a partial confession of sorts.
My reaction/response/feeling about and toward this entire bizarro scenario is not the same as it was less than 24 hours ago. (As a matter of honesty, I have kinda flipped, completely, and have done so in a rather short amount of time)
Hmmmmmmm??????
This is a quite rare thing for me. (Weird, really)
Truth be told, my flipping has been due (in very large part) to several posts that I have read, considered, and digested from members on this board.
Is it even possible to flip........completely...........and stand corrected?
I think I did.
Peace, Ceeboo
Much to your credit that upon hearing further facts, and further analysis of the situation, you are willing to adjust your position accordingly. But like Kishkumen, I am not sure what your position was, or what your new one is.
Sorry I'm late. So, DCP has named someone who he believes to be his malevolent stalker. Bu he got it wrong. Therefore defaming an innocent person.
This is a valid point. Everyone seems to agree that accusing the wrong person of being Scratch is essentially defamatory. Even Scratch's claque agree to that.
So what does that say about Scratch? That his utter vileness is simply taken as read?
Sorry I'm late. So, DCP has named someone who he believes to be his malevolent stalker. Bu he got it wrong. Therefore defaming an innocent person.
This is a valid point. Everyone seems to agree that accusing the wrong person of being Scratch is essentially defamatory. Even Scratch's claque agree to that.
So what does that say about Scratch? That his utter vileness is simply taken as read?
Regards, Pahoran
DCP has repeatedly asserted that Scratch is a malicious, mentally deranged person. So when DCP named someone as Scratch, he was certainly making a deliberately defamatory remark.
Whether or not posters agree with DCP's defamatory description of Scratch is quite besides the point. Of course it was entirely predictable that you would attempt this bit of sophistry.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I have typed....then deleted......then typed....then deleted a few responses to your questions of me (Sorry, this personal stuff just makes me really uncomfortable)
Sorry I'm late. So, DCP has named someone who he believes to be his malevolent stalker. Bu he got it wrong. Therefore defaming an innocent person.
This is a valid point. Everyone seems to agree that accusing the wrong person of being Scratch is essentially defamatory. Even Scratch's claque agree to that.
So what does that say about Scratch? That his utter vileness is simply taken as read?
Regards, Pahoran
It says nothing about Scratch. Of Pahoran, Liz, and Dan Peterson, it says volumes - "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story", so they say...
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
