[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Zeek,

In at least one point in your reply, you ask where it was ai thought you had said what I was talking about.

Everything about my posts are not specific to the person they are responding to.

Where I directly quote you and then I am probably speaking directly about what you said for as long as I am talking directly to that point.

I find the first three sentences of your reply unintelligible. I have no idea what the first one means. There seems to be more than a typo there. The second one is confusing. Who is responding to what? Why respond to someone with something not specific to him? The third is not even a complete sentence. Then you go on and ask me not to look at the logic of your sentences but rather to respond to your long posts as a whole. If your premises are false or self-contradictory, ambiguous or vague, the truth value of your conclusions can't be determined no matter how long you make your posts.

I won't bother to analyze any more of your statements since you explicitly asked me not to. Suffice it to say the rest of your post is just so much equivocation. Righteousness is inward then it's outward, it's a source then it's obedience to a code, you have the "power" but you are not fully obedient anyway. I will be charitable and assume that you are not intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue. Nevertheless, your argument is too diffuse to be persuasive. It might help if you kept your posts short and to the point. Piling on words doesn't necessarily make an argument clear or coherent.