Bott '14

[MissBrattified]

n_david, you're missing the meaning behind PO's comments. I completely get her point. It doesn't matter in the sense that only JA knows how he understood what was preached. You can say something and one person will understand it one way and another person will react to it differently. JA obviously reacted negatively to what SG said, which prompted his comments.

In order to call him a liar, you have to know exactly what SG said, you have to know that JA was quoting directly and not paraphrasing in any way, and you have to pretty much be inside JA's head and know what he "heard" to begin with. It's nearly impossible to know those things without talking to JA and asking him, so why try to push this accusation?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I do refuse to attack him. I'm not going to cloud over his life's ministry with something he has already apologized for. And since he has apologized, why would I want to continue attacking him? That doesn't make sense to me.

Oh please, you acknowledging an error (one which many others have already) won't "cloud over his life's ministry." No more than my posts have caused his life to unravel.

And simply stating a man was wrong for his attack isn't attacking him. It's stating the obvious.

In fact, JA would probably say he doesn't "give a flip" what you or I say. (There's another video posted on YouTube, from this year's BOTT, of him calling someone a "fool" and saying he doesn't "give a flip.")

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Oh good grief. You're arguing semantics. Please. It's the same difference.

The intent is the same.

You want it to be semantics. Do I care what SG said? Sure, I'd like to hear it. I never said I didn't personally care what he said. Why would I say that?

Do I think it matters as to what JA responded to? No. Why do I think that? Because I don't think JA would change his feelings on what he heard.

Stop twisting things to suit your argument, David.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Oh please, you acknowledging an error (one which many others have already) won't "cloud over his life's ministry." No more than my posts have caused his life to unravel.

And simply stating a man was wrong for his attack isn't attacking him. It's stating the obvious.

In fact, JA would probably say he doesn't "give a flip" what you or I say. (There's another video posted on YouTube, from this year's BOTT, of him calling someone a "fool" and saying he doesn't "give a flip.")

And you have no ill feelings toward JA? I'm starting to wonder, David.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

n_david, you're missing the meaning behind PO's comments. I completely get her point. It doesn't matter in the sense that only JA knows how he understood what was preached. You can say something and one person will understand it one way and another person will react to it differently. JA obviously reacted negatively to what SG said, which prompted his comments.

In order to call him a liar, you have to know exactly what SG said, you have to know that JA was quoting directly and not paraphrasing in any way, and you have to pretty much be inside JA's head and know what he "heard" to begin with. It's nearly impossible to know those things without talking to JA and asking him, so why try to push this accusation?

Well said!

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

First of allllllllll, you don't have SG's quote. Second of allllll, it appears that what was said, in front of everyone, means that JA didn't agree with the quote.

First of ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL, you're right. We've already said this a number of times.



Second of ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL, if JA didn't agree with the quote why call SG an idiot?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You are the one saying he is lying - PROVE IT or just be quiet, David.

Like you would care. I could post the video of SG's quote showing JA was wrong and you would still fall all over backwards trying to explain and spin it around.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You have misrepresented a lot of what I have said, twisting my words and cropping out my points of explanation. You seem to be accusing JA of what you have been doing here. And you are doing it to win an argument you have no evidence to win.

Then why would someone else post that you're "spinning like a top." See, I could possibly understand if it was just me who thought you kept changing your stories and statements, but it's not.

So you can complain about how I cropped out your points of explanation, but facts are facts. You've spun yourself dizzy trying to explain everything, changing statements quicker than JA can say, "you're an idiot!"

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And you have no ill feelings toward JA? I'm starting to wonder, David.

Your point? I could've posted the video. Watched it this morning.

Wonder away.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Second of ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL, if JA didn't agree with the quote why call SG an idiot?

That is why I was thinking he was referring to the Maxwell quote and not the minister. And we have already been over this.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by n david

Your point? I could've posted the video. Watched it this morning.

Wonder away.

100% honesty is expected from someone calling someone else a liar. Js.

[n david]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

n_david, you're missing the meaning behind PO's comments. I completely get her point. It doesn't matter in the sense that only JA knows how he understood what was preached. You can say something and one person will understand it one way and another person will react to it differently. JA obviously reacted negatively to what SG said, which prompted his comments.

It does matter if SG didn't say what JA claims he said. Is it that hard to comprehend this? If JA claims SG said X and SG was nowhere near X, but instead was talking about A, B, and C...that matters.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

In order to call him a liar, you have to know exactly what SG said, you have to know that JA was quoting directly and not paraphrasing in any way, and you have to pretty much be inside JA's head and know what he "heard" to begin with. It's nearly impossible to know those things without talking to JA and asking him, so why try to push this accusation?

You're right, which is why after I wrote "misrepresented...lied" I clarified to be if SG never said what JA said he did.

Fine, I'll play politically correct. If, and I know PO hates "if;" regardless, if SG said nothing anywhere close to what JA said he did, then JA simply misrepresented SG's comments.

Here's the definition and related words:

to give a false or misleading representation

Synonyms
bend, color, cook, distort, falsify, fudge, misinterpret, misrelate, garble, misstate, pervert, slant, twist, warp

Related Words
misdescribe, misspeak, mistranslate; belie, camouflage, disguise, dissemble, gloss (over), mask, veil, whitewash; bowdlerize, censor; complicate, confound, confuse, mistake, mix (up); mystify, obscure; equivocate, fib, lie, palter, prevaricate

Just ignore the "fib" and "lie" under related words. We're pretending they're not there.

Misrepresented is what I originally said. I shouldn't claim that he lied.

Better?