DCP makes this board

[_wenglund]

Why do you say that? Do you think apologetic arguments are so fragile, they would not survive in an open forum? That they need protection? Do you think God is too fragile for modern life?

You clearly missed the point of my analogy. (Hint: fragility had absolutly nothing to do with my point. How you came up with "fragile" from "steely...strategic and logical", is anyone's guess.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

How you came up with "fragile" from "steely...strategic and logical", is anyone's guess.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Observing apologetic arguments led me to that conclusion.

So... are you going to answer my question?

[_wenglund]

If you are right about the emotive fog coming from both sides (to a point I would agree, though I don't think it close in terms of proportional distribution), that makes my point all the more salient. The foggy crags and battlegrounds of discussion boards such as this, are no place for apologetics.

What that tells me, Wade, is that "apologetics" is only useful to you if you can sway the sheep back to the fold. But when faced with much stronger criticism, you want to evacuate the place and give it up as a lost cause.

If this is really your attitude, then you are not interested in serious debate, only swaying people back to your beliefs.

Amazingly, you got the point of my analogy exactly backwards.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Ray A]

Amazingly, you got the point of my analogy exactly backwards.

Please explain.

[_wenglund]

How you came up with "fragile" from "steely...strategic and logical", is anyone's guess.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Observing apologetic arguments led me to that conclusion.

I see. In other words, you mistakenly read your own conclusions into what I said--which explains your mangled interpretation. So much for your powers of observation.

So... are you going to answer my question?

Your question is based on a presupposition that I believe to be false, and thus can't reasonably be answered as asked.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Ray A]

Amazingly, you got the point of my analogy exactly backwards.

So let me get this, Wade, I got you wrong, harmony got you wrong, and Runtu got you wrong. So we are deficient in understanding?

[_Runtu]

So let me get this, Wade, I got you wrong, harmony got you wrong, and Runtu got you wrong. So we are deficient in understanding?

For the record, I don't believe I have ever gotten Wade's point correctly. :)

[_wenglund]

Amazingly, you got the point of my analogy exactly backwards.

Please explain.

"Fog" does not equal "stronger criticism". Rather, it equals the opposite.

There are other points of confusion that I could point out, but this should suffice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Amazingly, you got the point of my analogy exactly backwards.

So let me get this, Wade, I got you wrong, harmony got you wrong, and Runtu got you wrong. So we are deficient in understanding?

Finally, you got it right. [Thumbs Up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Ray A]

"Fog" does not equal "stronger criticism". Rather, it equals the opposite.

There are other points of confusion that I could point out, but this should suffice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

"Fog"? Of course you'd see it all as "fog". Just like FARMS sees ALL criticisms as "fog".