Holy Sunday Photos
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Nikon Coolpix L20 10 Megapixels Digital Camera
Next: Going Behind The Grid At 700mm With The Old Wimberly II
From: Jeff R. on 12 Apr 2010 06:50 "Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:82g8rrF7naU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Jeff R. <contact(a)this.ng> wrote: > >> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >> news:AP621zA$NdwLFAX8(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > >>> Who defines the word "marriage" ? > >> Well, your precious OED (actually, my 1930 two-vol. Shorter OED) >> specifically stipulates: >> "..the ceremony in which two persons are made husband and wife..." >> Note the singular "wife". > >> The OED couldn't be wrong, could it? > > The only OED with claims to being definitive is the full size > one. Note too that you's made the classic mistake of not reading the > instructions. Your OED doesn't "stipulate" what you quote. It gives it > as one of the possible meanings. > > -- > Chris Malcolm What's the appropriate smiley to indicate sarcasm? -- Jeff R. ;-p
From: tony cooper on 12 Apr 2010 07:21 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:36:06 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >In message <hmk4s55ia7h2g3182a3p06q4rl081mpo42(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>On 11 Apr 2010 22:34:46 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >>>It's pretty obvious that lying by your church and child molestation >>>done by your priests doesn't bother you. >> >>If it's obvious, then find one statement that I have made that is in >>any way supportive or defensive of the acts of the priests who have >>committed molestation or the hierarchy of the church who have ignored >>or covered-up these transgressions. Just one. >> >>That "your church" charge is a bit difficult to argue with. I haven't >>been a practicing Catholic for 30 or 40 years, but was once. It isn't >>really "my" church, but it's not like club where you turn in a letter >>of resignation and your ID card. You just stop believing and stop >>going. They don't release you. >> >>My wife still attends mass, > >SO your family supports a church that has supported and protected a >child abuser... and you STILL equivocate. Equivocation is avoiding the making of a specific statement or the use of vague or ambiguous language or to be evasive. What is vague or ambiguous about stating that my wife attends mass and my children attended Catholic schools? What is vague, ambiguous, or evasive about *anything* I've said. Pete takes offense when I correct your misuse of words, but you've used "equivocate" a dozen times in the past few days. It's obvious that you don't know what the word means. You brag about having a copy of the OED. Look up the word. I'll give you an example of "equivocate" used properly: "Chris makes claims of certain facts, but when asked to present some documentation or source data he equivocates and says that he provided this years ago and can't be bothered to look it up again." >>Yes, I sent my children to Catholic schools, but that was a choice > >Still supporting the Church that supports pedophiles... this time by >sacrificing your children... (but I expect you can equivocate your way >out of this too) > >>based on the comparative academic conditions of those schools and the >>public schools in this district. Find any list of how schools rate by >>state and you will find that Florida public schools are down near the >>bottom. The Catholic schools and the other private schools provide a >>better education. > >Along with child abuse. I have not heard of any reports of child abuse in the Florida Catholic schools or specifically the grade and high schools my children attended. Evidently, you have since you've said so above. Where do you get this? Don't equivocate, now. This is a direct question. You are expected to respond with some specific report of child abuse in a Florida Catholic school. > >>But, if you feel I'm somehow supportive of the church on the issue of >>abuse and/or cover-ups, then show me where I've indicated that. I'll >>be glad to retract or re-state anything I've said that would give you >>this impression. > >Your wife attends and your children go to their schools My children are in their 40s. They've been out of school for years. As to the "support" my wife provides, do you mean financial support or moral support? My wife puts money in the collection plate. I don't know how much, but whatever amount it is is up to her just as her going to mass is. What she does is not something I control or would want to control. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 12 Apr 2010 07:34 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:05:33 +0100, Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >> When Chris writes things, as he just did, like "Sounds about right. >> Question is should we lock up all Catholic clergy on principal?" it is >> all but impossible for me to overlook it. How does a person get >> through years of schooling without knowing the difference between >> "principal" and "principle"? > >How can you not know the answer? I guess it's because you are swift to >criticize instead of being a good listener. I read Chris's posts carefully and respond carefully. Chris now implies that he is dyslexic. To the best of my knowledge, dyslexia does not prevent someone from understanding the meaning of words. When Chris repeatedly uses "equivocate" incorrectly, I can't see how that can be excused by claiming to be dyslexic. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 12 Apr 2010 07:58 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:05:33 +0100, Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >Those who have been on the receiving end of abuse will feel belittled >when the discussion turns to spelling and grammar. Abuse is vile, an >outrage, and terribly damaging. In comparison, spelling and grammar are >totally insignificant. You postings invalidate the abused, which is >atrocious. That is why I asked you to stop. It is not insignificant when you write something that can be misleading because you have not used the right word. There are readers here who do understand the meaning of words. When those people read that someone has been "equivocating", they take that to mean the person has been evasive in their responses. Would you say my responses in this thread have been evasive? Ambiguous? Vague? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Pete on 12 Apr 2010 08:09
On 2010-04-12 12:58:10 +0100, tony cooper said: > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:05:33 +0100, Pete > <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > >> Those who have been on the receiving end of abuse will feel belittled >> when the discussion turns to spelling and grammar. Abuse is vile, an >> outrage, and terribly damaging. In comparison, spelling and grammar are >> totally insignificant. You postings invalidate the abused, which is >> atrocious. That is why I asked you to stop. > > It is not insignificant when you write something that can be > misleading because you have not used the right word. There are > readers here who do understand the meaning of words. When those > people read that someone has been "equivocating", they take that to > mean the person has been evasive in their responses. > > Would you say my responses in this thread have been evasive? > Ambiguous? Vague? Excessive. -- Pete |