Book of Mormon Intro Modified

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

I don't understand the desire to try to fit my words into your desired interpretation when I'm right here providing the interpretation. To me, my meaning was glaringly obvious. If that's not the case, I apologize, but have since clarified it repeatedly.

When you have multiple persons whose business it is to find ambiguity and to discern it, then you obviously have not communicated it in a glaringly obvious manner. Creek and I by profession work to strain at meaning and to glean from them what is meant or could be meant. Nothing is as obvious as the writer believes.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's fantastical because it's not based on evidence. Hmm.

I have purported to state that Nephite journey is supported by empirical evidence. There isn't any, unless one wishes to point to an isolated pillar somewhere in the Arabian pennisula with a Nephite name on it.

Most traditions are not based on "evidence", but that doesn't automatically make them fantastical.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

Actually, it does make it fantastical. Speculating that it might have been possible for a small group of people to build a boat and cross the ocean given the right circumstances wouldn't be fantastical, assuming the evidence suggests that such a thing would have been possible, but a story created on such a premise would, in fact, be fantastical.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Actually, it does make it fantastical. Speculating that it might have been possible for a small group of people to build a boat and cross the ocean given the right circumstances wouldn't be fantastical, assuming the evidence suggests that such a thing would have been possible, but a story created on such a premise would, in fact, be fantastical.

You're going to argue a la Tex no matter what. You win, you're wrong but you win. Go back to science.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

When you have multiple persons whose business it is to find ambiguity and to discern it, then you obviously have not communicated it in a glaringly obvious manner. Creek and I by profession work to strain at meaning and to glean from them what is meant or could be meant. Nothing is as obvious as the writer believes.

Is it your job to discern what they actually mean or is it your job to try to twist people's words into meanings they never intended?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Is it your job to discern what they actually mean or is it your job to try to twist people's words into meanings they never intended?

Both. In this instance, it was to illustrate the lack of clarity with which you expressed yourself.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're going to argue a la Tex no matter what. You win, you're wrong but you win. Go back to science.

Do you have a secret crush on Tex? Why do you insist on bringing him up all the time? Are you disputing the definition of the word "fantastical" now? Trying to change the definition of the key word after it had become clear that you had lost the argument is exactly what you did last time we had a discussion.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Both. In this instance, it was to illustrate the lack of clarity with which you expressed yourself.

Forgive me if I expect a tiny bit of effort on your part to discern what I actually mean on an internet forum for crying out loud. Why is it that our debates always devolve into you deliberately misinterpreting what I say rather than trying to argue against my actual position? Is that more fun for you?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

Is it your job to discern what they actually mean or is it your job to try to twist people's words into meanings they never intended?

This is like talking to Humpoty Dumpty. "When I use a word, it means exaclty what I want it to; nothing more and nothing less." Just becasue it was ever so clear to you doens't mean it is ever so clear to others. In fact, that is one reason people have discussions. Rather than spend the time explaining why it is in your fantastical category (which you eventually do and I was diappointed to find that the reason is so mundane as your utter disbelief of mormonism), you spend the time accusing others of being stupid. This does not endear or enlighten.

(This leaves aside the fact that you may simply be wrong even if we do understand your menaing, although I suspect this is a possibility that you would not entertain).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Do you have a secret crush on Tex? Why do you insist on bringing him up all the time? Are you disputing the definition of the word "fantastical" now? Trying to change the definition of the key word after it had become clear that you had lost the argument is exactly what you did last time we had a discussion.

Tex is the quintessential poster who will argue in support of a fundamentalist idea no matter what and will never concede a point which is negative point against the Church.

You are his polar opposite but cut from the same cloth. Arguing with you is the same as arguing with Tex, you're both arrogant, full of yourselves and incapable of civil discussion.

First, I have never admitted the story is based on empirical evidence but the lack of empirical evidence doesn't make it fantastical, especially if it is plausible. That's my point. For argument's sake, I'll concede it might be true or might be untrue, but you're simply dead wrong if you believe as you believe as to the meaning of fantastical.

[creekster]

How about some of that evidence on the woven mats? Even if you think I am stupid, I would still appreciate the cites.