Hey, don't dish it out if you can't take it.
I have no problem with taking it Amy. Bring it on.
Even after we ended our 'discussion' you continued to come to my blog and read what I had posted, leaving your comments which I did not read,
And you refused to publish them. Fine. I quit commenting. As I mentioned below I haven't even thought about you for over a month.
until I happened on a link through a search engine to your Candland blog, and found that you were using this page not just to list your comments to Candy (which was your defense when I said it was wrong to set up a site just to tear someone else apart)
Oh please Amy, show me one placed where I have "torn" anyone apart. I simply disagree with Catholic bashing. End of story. I have in fact frequently praised Candy's homemaking and homeschooling ideas. Those were what brought me to her blog in the first place. So let's drop the accusations of attacking character. It never was about that and it still isn't.
but also to me.
Yea well since we "met" through Candy's and my original comments to you were about her blog it seemed fitting. It's not like it was a big secret.
So there were all those comments I had deleted, along with another post on your catholic year page aimed at a woman where you blaringly use the tactics you accuse her of in the very same sentence!
I wouldn't even attempt to try and diagram that sentence Amy. I get that you're ticked that I didn't let my comments to you sink into oblivion but chose to document them here.
Your attempt to back-peddle is amusing, though. Maybe you need better definitions of these terms.
Oh hardly. Your attempt at applying logical fallacies, was highly amusing. I enjoyed it immensely.
And now you want me to leave you alone.
Well it's your choice obviously. But it you continue to write about me I have no qualms about answering on this blog. I can even add your picture above if you wish.
Isn't that what Candy has been asking you to do for how long?
Come to think of it, I don't think she ever has. But if you were a tad bit more observant Amy, you would have noticed that I haven't posted about her at all for the past ten days and I will continue to do so unless someone decides to stir the pot.
Wasn't that the message I was conveying when I ended the discussion, saying I wanted nothing to do with your blog, and refused to read your comments?
LOL! and yet you spent quite a bit of time digging through the blog to make add to your rant! You refused to read them- and then you steeped yourself in them!!
Did I hit a nerve? Why the sudden change?
I was just surprised to see that you were holding a grudge for so long! WOW!
3 comments:
I don't think there is any hope of getting you to listen to reason. In one post, you list your comments about what I have said even though were were not engaged in a discussion of them. Then you tell me to stay away from your blog because you don't like that I have called you out on your debate tactics, then you print here to 'bring it on'. Make up your mind.
I have never seen you write anything complimentary about Candy. I have seen rants about people wanting to read her homemaking tips while ignoring the Catholic bashing, but that is in no way a compliment.
And what have you done but bash fundamentalists? Attacking sola scriptura as illogical is the same as saying that Marian obsession is purely mystical in basis. If you were to take a debate class, you would learn that logical fallacy cannot always be applied to theological arguments because they are of a faith base, and faith is not considered proof by the world.
You just do not know how to make an argument without getting mean, and it takes away any possibility of appearing to be soundly based. Good luck on your quest to rule the world!
I don't think there is any hope of getting you to listen to reason.
Try it. Say something reasonable.
In one post, you list your comments about what I have said even though were were not engaged in a discussion of them. Then you tell me to stay away from your blog because you don't like that I have called you out on your debate tactics, then you print here to 'bring it on'. Make up your mind.
Fair enough. Let me be clear. If you are not going to allow my comments to be printed on your blog, if you aren't inclined to even read them, they I would prefer that you not to be dragged back as the key topic at all. On the other hand, if you insist on digging it all up again, expect a response here.
How's that?
I have never seen you write anything complimentary about Candy.
Of course you wouldn't have seen anything complimentary or othewise from Candy because she simply wouldn't put up anything that disagree with her, even if it had an iota of agreement on other issues. Had I documented some of those earlier posts, you would have evidence. I always said that I came to her blog because of her homeschooling and home management binder info. I never ever had a problem with that.
I have seen rants about people wanting to read her homemaking tips while ignoring the Catholic bashing, but that is in no way a compliment.
Those weren't intended to be complimentary.
And what have you done but bash fundamentalists? Attacking sola scriptura as illogical is the same as saying that Marian obsession is purely mystical in basis.
Actually I wouldn't consider the statement, "Marian obsession is purely mystical in basis" as necessarily a bash. I would be much more interested in understanding why the writer wrote that and what the writer thought before I would ever consider it "bashing."
. If you were to take a debate class, you would learn that logical fallacy cannot always be applied to theological arguments because they are of a faith base, and faith is not considered proof by the world.
And I would totally agree with that, although I think a case could be made in presenting theology in a logical and forthcoming manner.
I would further submit that we are not talking about a theological discussion, but rather apologetics. Apologetics is best if it avoids logical fallacies in my opinion.
You just do not know how to make an argument without getting mean, and it takes away any possibility of appearing to be soundly based.
That's your opinion. I still maintain that you were the one that became adversarial in this relationship.
Good luck on your quest to rule the world!
sigh...
I guess the same caveat holds Amy. Leave it alone or count on seeing here. Your choice.
Hello. I've never commented here. Amy seems to NEED to have the last word. As a christian, this is against Christ's teaching. She usually ends here statements with a one-two punch. I have no judgement on your faith. I have, however, become sure that when someone uses as many words to define something they are so sure about....one has to wonder about their surety. I too, have had nice things deleted from Candy's blog after disagreeing with some things she has said prior. Amy may not know her as long nor as well as some others. I can and will say that I have never seen you be mean through any way you have blogged; just brought your frustrations since having a blog lets one do that. As for the woman going "back and forth" with you now; reading up on a meek and quiet spirit would be helpful. There is strength in quiet. That quiet sometimes gets misunderstood for weakness is not something the one possessing can defend. The quiet of God's whisper to the heart. The quiet of time spent before Him THANKING Him for everyone in our path and asking Him to bless them. In weakness is He made strong. When one KNOWS the truth they are speaking; they don't need to keep explaining. Somewhere....someone needs to walk away from the 'circus' Amy is bringing on.
Post a Comment