Same-sex Marriage.

[_wenglund]

This really is the crux of it, Wade. I don't think you are fooling anyone, except yourself, perhaps? Have you thought about that? I bet a lot of people would be willing to help you out, if you could step back and just be honest.

Runtu, has gone beyond the call of duty to help you out, but you keep sidestepping it all.

Of course, this is nothing new with you. It really is your MO. Kind of sad.

I appreciate the open and honest expression of your personal opinion--which appears to be shared by everyone but me.

And, In spite of all my attempts at stepping back, it is evident that, at least in the minds of some here, I just can't be honest, but will invariably sidestep it all, as is my MO.

In fact, some may even suggest that I am doing so now.

Be that as it may, your disclosure underscores the futility of me making any further attempt at reasoning with the good folks here on this topic. Clearly, reasoned discource is beyond my capacity.

Again, I do appreciate the interactions, and I have learned a lot.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Wade,

I am very sorry that you took my posts as personal attacks and accusations. I stand by my conclusions that the data you used do not support your claims, but that does not mean I think you're a bad person or that I'm angry or hurt by any of this. Somehow, in my attempt to deal solely with the data and not with the personalities, you have read things into my posts that I did not intend, and for that I am genuinely sorry.

[Gadianton]

No, you will not. Nobody who has interacted with you online would have any reason to believe you have any particular sense of self-awareness. But it's not just that. It's that your cherished beliefs are impervious to fact, even when your cherished beliefs are dependent on certain objective facts being true.

Make that especially when your cherished beliefs are dependent on certain objective facts being true.

Allude vs. Elude

How curious that without fail, every single time anyone deconstructs your b***s***, that person didn't understand what you were saying. In fact, this entire thread is one big exercise in you claiming after-the-fact that you have extreme difficulty in interacting with everyone---what with nobody ever being able to understand what your point is. So if you don't want people to wonder if you have an autism spectrum disorder, perhaps you should stop imputing it to yourself.

I see you have learned from your favorite church, Wade. Having been burned so consistently whenever a definitive position is taken, both your church and you are now preemptively unwilling to take a stand on anything beyond insisting that whatever it is you think, it is right.

What was the point of you citing this study, Wade? As you have indicated in this thread, you are the primary authority on what you think, so say explicitly what you were thinking when you referred to this study in a thread about the alleged negative unintended consequences of same-sex marriage.

I am making a concerted effort to find the positive in what others have to say. So, please, give me a minute to think of one for your post...


...oh, yes, it was very enlightening of you to educate me on the differences between allude vs elude. I have certainly been schooled in English on this thread. Nicely done!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_gramps]

No, you will not. Nobody who has interacted with you online would have any reason to believe you have any particular sense of self-awareness. But it's not just that. It's that your cherished beliefs are impervious to fact, even when your cherished beliefs are dependent on certain objective facts being true.

Make that especially when your cherished beliefs are dependent on certain objective facts being true.

Allude vs. Elude

How curious that without fail, every single time anyone deconstructs your b***s***, that person didn't understand what you were saying. In fact, this entire thread is one big exercise in you claiming after-the-fact that you have extreme difficulty in interacting with everyone---what with nobody ever being able to understand what your point is. So if you don't want people to wonder if you have an autism spectrum disorder, perhaps you should stop imputing it to yourself.

I see you have learned from your favorite church, Wade. Having been burned so consistently whenever a definitive position is taken, both your church and you are now preemptively unwilling to take a stand on anything beyond insisting that whatever it is you think, it is right.

What was the point of you citing this study, Wade? As you have indicated in this thread, you are the primary authority on what you think, so say explicitly what you were thinking when you referred to this study in a thread about the alleged negative unintended consequences of same-sex marriage.

I am making a concerted effort to find the positive in what other say. So, please, give me a minute to think of one for your post...


...oh, yes, it was very enlightening of you educate me on the differences between allude vs elude. I have certainly been schooled in English on this thread. Nicely done!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Schooled, yes, but did you learn anything?

[_Darth J]

Wade, now that you have been schooled in what "elude" means:

What was the point of you citing this study?

[Gadianton]

Wade,

I am very sorry that you took my posts as personal attacks and accusations. I stand by my conclusions that the data you used do not support your claims, but that does not mean I think you're a bad person or that I'm angry or hurt by any of this. Somehow, in my attempt to deal solely with the data and not with the personalities, you have read things into my posts that I did not intend, and for that I am genuinely sorry.

Again, there is no need to apologize, though it speaks well of you that you made the attempt.

Please know that not once did I assume that you thought that I was a bad person (though others clearly have) or that you were angry or hurt. At worst, I figured you were frustrated when you said, "Come on, Wade" and similar things. I didn't have much of a problem with that since I became frustrated at times in return.

And, I didn't assume that your accusations were personal--in the sense of attacking a person's character, though I stand by my perception that your accusations were about MY use of the data not supporting MY claims and MY lack of ability to analyze statistics, and thus the accusations clearly had to do with me--not that it is a big deal to me. It is just that if you couldn't see that you had accused ME of things, then I figure we must have quite different, and perhaps incompatible, ways of viewing certain things.

Also, I respect that you stand by your conclusions, and I accept that you likely won't be budged from them (at least not by me), nor would I expect you to give even an inch unless you found compelling reason to.

Since I evidently lack the capacity to affect (or is it effect?) even such a small movement in you, and this in spite of all my good-faith efforts to the contrary, wisdom demands, and other posters may also, that I let things stand as they are, with no hard feelings or regrets or reasons to apologize, but sincere appreciation for what I genuinely learned from you..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Schooled, yes, but did you learn anything?

Yes. among other things I learned that I mistakenly used the word "allude" when I should have used the word "elude." I apologize for not making that abundantly clear.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Chap]

... wisdom demands, and other posters may also, that I let things stand as they are, with no hard feelings or regrets or reasons to apologize, but sincere appreciation for what I genuinely learned from you..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think this may mean that he is going to stop. But probably not ...

[_wenglund]

Wade, now that you have been schooled in what "elude" means:

What was the point of you citing this study?

Gramps already explained the crux of it. (See his post above dated: Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:24 pm)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Darth J]

Wade, now that you have been schooled in what "elude" means:

What was the point of you citing this study?

Gramps already explained the crux of it. (See his post above dated: Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:24 pm)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade: you are the resident expert in what you think, remember?

What was the point of you citing this study?