Bott '14

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I was confused at this and then looked back and realized that I made a typo and meant to type minister and not Maxwell. I realized it was a typo when I finished reading the paragraph that ended - "Mainly, because I don't know why he would say he wished he could get a minister to agree with him."

Well of course, it was a typo! You were right at the beginning, "I was confused." You were changing so much you couldn't remember what you meant.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm disappointed David, that you would resort to grabbing clips in order to make them appear out of context. Kind of reminds me of a CNN journalist.

They weren't out of context. I'm not the only one who sees the spinning you were doing. I can go back and post the full quotes, it doesn't change anything. You said one thing, then said something else, then changed back again.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I said more than what you posted. You conveniently left out my point. "It won't matter what it says. JA already allowed us to know the impression he received from the text given. That isn't going to change. He responded to what he heard."

The point is that JA heard what he heard and that is what he responded to. We all have "takeaways" from things we hear, arguments, music, news reports, etc. This isn't anything different, IMO.

Here's the error with this...You said:

We aren't going to get to the bottom of it unless we hear, and I don't mean a transcript, of the minister's words JA is referring to.

After that I mentioned I tried ordering the DVDs, to which your reply was:

Yes, please order the DVDs. It won't matter what it says.

Now, you complain that I selectively edited the quote; however, the full quote is even worse, IMO.

Yes, please order the DVDs. It won't matter what it says. JA already allowed us to know the impression he received from the text given. That isn't going to change. He responded to what he heard.

Are you saying that it doesn't matter what SG really said; that just because JA claimed something (even if the DVD proves different) that's all you need? Like I commented after this, facts be damned. How absurd to say, "it doesn't matter what it (SG's DVD message) says" because JA gave us the "impression" he received.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I am not going to play your game here. You are trying to set up JA as a liar and I refuse to play this with you.

Not at all. It's a very basic question. One I both learned as a child and now teach my child. You're just afraid SG's quote may well prove that JA was not correct in his accusation. Very telling, and very disappointing that you would refuse to call a lie a lie just because it's a minister doing it.