Who is God to you?

Sounds like that to me.

 

Actually, I much prefer talking to you. Having now been privy to this analysis, regardless of whether or not you simply quoted from another source, do you see the disparity between the statements?

 

Thank you very much. You are correct, my statement; "It says lower odds which would be a higher incidence." was a typo and I meant to say; "higher odds which would be a higher incidence."

 

Shrug. Then they made a typographical error. This happenz on tha intarwebz sometimez.

Edit: looked at the site. Yes, they made typographical errors.

 

As usual it seems you are more interested in personal attacks than conversation.

 

Yep, I should have read it more better before I posted it.

 

Not at all waterbrother. I challenge statements on the basis of too random a sampling for legitimate generalization, on the basis that they are inconsistent within themselves, or by definition are not true. The reason being, all of these things can distort our perceptions.

 

Upon hearing this, one of the younger monks stood, removed his sandals, put them on his head, and left the meditation hall...

 

Yep, this:

is an obvious case of your, "I challenge statements on the basis of too random a sampling for legitimate generalization, on the basis that they are inconsistent within themselves, or by definition are not true".

 

If Joshu had been there, the cat could have been spared.

 

Yes the statement you gave was inconsistent in itself. And yes I knew what was meant, but you didn't even realize there was a discrepancy until I pointed it out. At first you tried to defend the statement, then recanted when someone else pointed out the same inconsistency, then you were willing to look at it. The problem after all was with your source. Check your work.

 

Oh Sorry, I forgot you are always right but I find it interesting that along with your always "objective" analysis, you find it necessary to throw in personal digs as well.

Something that autumnbreeze did not feel it necessary to do.

 

I am very sorry, but you didn't read with attention the post you comment upon. I said the opposite.

Perhaps, my dear Water Brother, can be applied to everybody, and in every situation, and, alas, usually to no avail

 

Sorry for what you perceive as personal digs. I am not always right, I am still learning. There is always something more to learn. Maybe some day I will develop a more politically correct style that you can better appreciate. Like Autumnbreeze said, it was no big deal . When I pointed out the disparity, you could have said you didn't notice and that you had copied and pasted the information without editing for content, a simple mistake. I did not object to make you wrong, I objected because the information was disseminated improperly. There are two contributors in the dynamic between you a I, we are equal contributors to the conversation. My responses are shaped by yours, and vice versa.

 

So does that mean you feel that your original statement that anything that is restricted is not whole is no longer true?

Perhaps but some times perhaps is true.

 

Again, sorry that I perceived your saying; "you are confused", as a personal dig.

Also when it was pointed out that I was incorrect, that is exactly what I did, this is what I said:

And

perhaps in your eagerness to prove me "confused" you over looked them.

 

No I didn't overlook them, when I said you were confused it was before you had come to this point of recognition. I felt you must be confused because you attempted to reconcile what could not be reconciled, which were the inaccurate statements of your source. Again, I apologize for any lack of consideration.

 

Thanks

 

How come?

You could use dice as well then, as a way of getting to the truth

 

Consider going back and rereading his communication with a less defensive mind. He has some interesting points and it is fairly obvious you are misreading him.

Also, perhaps sometimes perhaps is true. Perhaps your reading comprehension needs work, and you only read what you want to read, and interpret whatever you read however best suits you. Perhaps this applies to your reading of the bible as well. Perhaps sometimes perhaps is true? Or only when you want it to be?

I think everyone does that to one extent or another, so don't feel too bad about it. The error comes when we take those limited and personally biased readings and use them as weapons against one another.