LifeOnaPlate wrote:
As I initially stated, "Could you provide an actual example? (and preferably one that is not tied up in my attempts to show your inconsistency by demanding apologies while offering none yourself?) I would be interested to analyze my past online behavior in that regard. I await your examples."
Implicitly the bolded portion points out my being aware of requesting "apologies" from you in the past.
The only thing my example failed to fulfill was the "preferably" qualifier that you added in your parenthetical. The fact remains: you angrily and hysterically demanded an apology.
(None, even then, were "angry," however, If I recall correctly.)
You don't recall correctly.
Again, the reason for the bolded caveat as that many of my former posts were calculated to point out what I saw as inconsistencies in others by demonstrated the inconsistency myself. I hoped in doing so the other person would be self-reflective and recognize any flaws or hypocrisy, etc. Over time I realized this method was entirely ineffective.
Good for you for finally realizing this, LoaP. You know, this approach is known as "mirroring" and it was pioneered long ago by Wade Englund. So, I guess you have now earned the proud distinction of being a student of Wade's, and of following in his footsteps. Will you now take over the reins at the CSSAD?
LoaP wrote:In no way am I arguing in behalf of Mormonism in the above posts.
Of course you're not. You are selective in the way you apply philosophical concepts, mainly because you are intellectually dishonest. If you weren't a hypocrite, you would apply the notion of intellectual solipsism to Mormonism as well. But, you don't / won't / can't. Whooosh! There goes your credibility.