Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped
I am so sorry....I'm not trying to be obtuse but I'm just stuck. I just can't grasp what you are trying to say. Could you restate it, or slip-n-slide into it from farther away with the background of what is behind it? I feel dumb but I do want to understand your point.
It is included as part of the letter. Did I somehow make it seem like it wasn't? Help me out here!
|
Ok..... flying in for a ducky landing after circling the pond....... it may not be a perfect landing but I’ll try...
....in post 25 you indicated that the statement I quoted was not part of the content of the actual letter. In post 26 I argued that it was.... then you seemed to acknowledge it was but then said in the “letter itself” indicating Brother Lees statement was not part of the letter itself... throwing me off ...
Here is the point I am making......That the letter itself includes the statement about this being a matter of the ministry not the Lords recovery by Brother Lee. It is part of the letter itself since it is above the signatory of the letter. Therefore, I asked if your problem was that the letter itself is contradictory seeming to say two different things, that is, in the front part of the letter itself it says a matter of the Lord’s recovery... but in the latter part of the letter the statement by Brother Lee says not a matter of the Lords recovery.
The difference is meaningful.... if Brother Lees statement is not in the actual letter but only found elsewhere then the authors of the letter could have inadvertently or deliberately left out Brother Lees statement.... but if the authors included it in the body of the letter itself then Brother Lees statement must be taken as part of the definition of the letter since the authors took the time to include it juxtaposed next to their statement.
That is what I meant.... sorry I probably confused us.
Drake