Search results for query: *

Uh, you missed something. I said, "I admit that I did not need to describe your analogy as terrible. I admit that I could simply have said: "Your analogy is delusive for positing a business email as if it were a love letter", and I could have gone on from there, and my points would be the same."...

In fact, I called it terrible. But I also indicated how you can recognize a deficiency which you had not noticed previously. Hence, it was no dodge. I admit that I did not need to describe your analogy as terrible. I admit that I could simply have said: "Your analogy is delusive for positing a...

Yet another ambiguous statement on your part. If you understood the relationships between possibility, actuality, understanding, and expression, and if you used awareness of those relationships when expressing yourself, you would not so often resort to ambiguity - except on purpose, when...

Huh? I did not pivot. I pointed out that, when you attribute a position to me without even being bothered with any need for justification, you are not being intellectually honest. I pointed out that, when you realize that you have erroneously attributed a position to me but are unwilling to...

So, it is for the sake of intellectual honesty that you attribute a position to me without caring to justify your attribution or, in the alternative, without caring to acknowledge an error on your part?

Prove it.

All irrelevant. You said "your claim as to the absolute authority" which as a reference means you attribute that claim to me, and there is no such claim. You are wrong. Adding more words does not make you less wrong. Adding more words is merely a distraction from what is/was the issue.

There is no such claim.

You acknowledge that there are actual emotive factors. You acknowledge that actual emotive factors can significantly affect actual expression. You do not factor in actual emotive factors, because (you erroneously assume that) they are insulated from "intersubjectively checkable evidence." You...

When you “discipline” claims “by restricting” them such that they do not take account of author subjectivity, you ignore all emotive possibility, and you ignore the person of the author.

A purposefully ignorant method guarantees a decisively ignorant result.

That is a lie. You admit that you ignore the person of the author. Ignoring effects ignorance. You are purposely ignorant, and your “argument” is rife with ignorance, and your “argument” depends on your purposeful ignorance.

You have once again proven my point. You have NOT taken any emotive possibility into account. What you admit to having done is ignore any and all emotive possibilities since the author intent is treated as irrelevant. What you have done is arbitrarily dismiss the person of the author. By...

You have never taken account of the emotive, and, in particular, you never considered whether it is possible that there is an emotive possibility which fully accounts for the interpretation put forth as the polemic possibility. You have not investigated whether the polemic possibility is...

You are wrong yet again. What you call "tone" is functional, observable, and operative and is what gives rise to reasonably positing the emotive possibility as well as the emotive full-account-possibility. You are wrong yet again. YOU HAVE NEVER ESTABLISHED ACTUALITY. You have provided a...

Yet another misrepresentation by you. What I actually say is that for so long as an emotive full-account-possibility is viable, polemical actuality cannot be logically established even if the polemic is actual. Given how many times you misrepresent me, it is reasonable to ask whether you are...

If you are familiar with emotion and, thereby, the emotive, if you have experienced the emotive as the prime generator for the manner of an expression, then you have all you need with regards to an emotive full-account-possibility. If you have no experience with such an emotive, let me know...

False. I say that in the presence of the emotive, since the emotive - via observation and experience - is known as a possibility which can envelope/subsume asymmetrically the polemic, or, to put it another way, since the emotive can asymmetrically fully account for what is otherwise interpreted...

You are wrong. If the emotive is present - and it most definitely is and has most definitely has been established as present and actual in Paul's letter, then because the emotive can envelop the polemic, it is possible (it is a possibility) that the emotive fully accounts for the words referred...

Your above cited bizarre remark was in response to me saying that "your polemic is a possibility so long as the emotive possibility is not established as fully accounting for the manner of expression which you refer to as polemic." Notice that "your polemic is a possibility" before I even get...