In my view you have clearly misunderstood Purpledawn.
quote: is purpledawn expressing her agreement with the aforementioned way of construing the passage.
Read in context (Message 27) - where the following line clearly indicates disagreement, it seems pretty clear to me that Purpledawn was not agreeing. In fact Purpledawn seems to be saying saying that your "narrow" way to construe it was the "appropriate" way to construe it.
Your other "agreement" is also negated by the context. Purpledawn is saying there that "worshipping Mammon" does NOT refer to actually worshipping a false God, it is a metaphor, not the reality. Do you really see the following sentence as indicating agreement that money is a "False God" ?
I still disagree that it makes money a false god. As you said, no one is worshiping anything, therefore money can't be a false god.
All Purpledawn was agreeing with was your description of "worshipping Mammon" - with the additional claim that it argued AGAINST your position.
quote: What following line indicates "disagreement"? Please be specific.
I was specific. The line immediately following the one you quoted, in the post we are discussing. I even provided a link back to the post for convenience.
But since that apparently isn't enough for you, here is the line you quoted and the following line:
I think it is an appropriate way to construe it.
There are plenty of teachings concerning spiritual concerns without turning money into a false god.
As you see the following statement clearly expresses disagreement with the idea that money should be considered a "false God". Thus it seems clear that Purpledawn agrees with the "narrow" construal of the idea of a "false God", excluding money.
quote: Why did PurpleDawn quote so much material if she intended to respond directly and only to the first line?
Your assumption is in error - Purpledawn did respond to the rest of it in the following line. I don't see any problem with keeping the quote together - that's a matter of style (it is, after all simply a short paragraph). I do see a problem with ignoring the second part of the response as you continue to do,
quote: Why would she respond to a rhetorical question?
The only question is the one at the start of your material, and it doesn't look rhetorical to me:
But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days?
quote: Your interpretation makes no sense; it's clearly a logical backbend meant to side with PD.
Wow it's like arguing with a creationist. No, Crash it makes perfect sense to consider the whole of Purpledawn's response, I'm not taking sides. You're just obviously wrong. And can't admit it. As will become even more clear as we go on.
quote: Agreed, but she's already assented to the fact that it's "appropriate" to construe the prohibition on worshiping false gods metaphorically, her claims to having been "misunderstood" notwithstanding. So, there's no way that could be a disagreement with me.
It seems pretty clear that you were arguing for more than a metaphorical reading, and that is what the dispute is about. e.g the second sentence here:
In that sense money - personified in Christian mythology as "Mammon" - very much is a false god. I just don't see how that can be denied except for very narrow interpretations of "god". And you wouldn't be trying to define or limit God from your narrow human perspective, now would you?
(Of course, the final sentence makes no sense anyway. Defining the word "god" is not attempting to delimit the capabilities of the monotheistic God in any way...)
quote: I've never claimed that PD agrees that money is a false god; my claim is that logically she must agree on the basis of already having agreed that the modern interpretation of the prohibition of false gods is "an appropriate way to construe it", as she's on the record as having stated.
There is no record of Purpledawn as having stated such a thing. Your misinterpretation is an error, not a fact.
quote: But, of course, rather than submit to a logical argument she can't refute, PD has invented this "misinterpretation" story days after the fact. She had ample time to correct whatever misunderstanding supposedly happened, when it happened. Why wait until she was caught out in a contradiction?
Here you are simply misrepresenting the facts of the conversation.
Your response Message 28 does not address that part of Purpledawn's post at all.
You apparently refer to your misinterpretation implicitly in Message 30 - but not specifying even which of Purpledawn's posts you were referring to, only to be corrected by Purpledawn in the next post Message 31 made less than 3 hours later.
The first explicit reference - and therefore the first opportunity for Purpledawn to provide an explicit correction - appears in your reply to that - Message 39, made 3 days later. The next post to the thread, made less than 9 hours later Message 40 provides the correction.
Thus, in reality Purpledawn waited only 9 hours to provide a correction, not days. And on a forum like this, a 9 hour delay is far from unreasonable.
quote: That's the proof that there's no misunderstanding here. There's no reason in this case to privilege PD's statements about whether there's a misunderstanding here.
Since your "proof" apparently assumes that Purpledawn should have obtained your interpretation directly from your mind rather than waiting for you to post it, I think you have a bit of a problem there.
"ABE" is "Added By Edit" and is used to mark additions to the text made since the message was posted. It is polite to do this for any significant additions since someone may already be composing a reply to the original message.
Links to messages in other threads uses the mid tag. The message id is the number in grey at the top left. Linking to your post would be: [mid=622869] Message 298
Apparently the question of whether the Flood (and only the Flood) is hyperbole is off-topic in the thread - even though the OP claims that it quite definitely is. It seems odd enough to single out one story alone as being off-limits, but odder still to rule that a claim in the OP cannot be discussed.
I think this must be the most bizarre ruling by an Admin that I've seen.
Chuck, the purpose of moderation is not to get rid of people you dislike nor to suppress facts that you want to be hidden.
In reality Moose made a post which simply insulted another member for no clear reason and then issued a full week's suspension also for no clear reason. That is very bad moderation. Maybe you think that it is good because it was one of your opponents who was suspended, but if the boot was on the other foot you would be complaining bitterly about the unfairness of it.
Buz was suspended from the science forum because he isn't even willing to admit that his "evidence" can be rejected when it turns out to be false. Because he produces long-drawn out threads where he keeps repeating the same indefensible assertions (you saw the recent thermodynamics thread, well that's just one example). Because he has a habit of making up his own "facts". He was suspended from PNT for a while because he twice abandoned a lengthy proposal rather than work it into an acceptable form. In both cases we have clear justification for the administrator action. Not so with Moose's suspension of Hooah.
If Hooah really was a serious problem poster the way to deal with it is not long suspensions delivered for no apparent reason at all. He should be dealt with in the same way that Buz was - explaining the problem, offering him the chance to work his way out of trouble. That would be fair. But that isn't what you want, is it?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD
quote: Buz is a creationist. I don't care what his standard of evidence is. He has creationist evidence. We are creationists, hence the debate. You know, the debate?
Clinging to refuted fabrications is not meaningful debate. Being a creationist does not give Buz special license to invent "evidence".
quote: This is wrong and it's a complete joke that Administration has banned a good creationist from commenting in the Science section.
Buz is a "good" creationist? His inability to debate rationally (including his refusal to do even basic fact-checking) is the problem. Are you saying that creationists need special allowances because none of them are capable of putting up a decent argument?
quote: All the fuss over Hooah being banned. So what if he didn't deserve it this time. How many other times DID he?
I doubt that he ever deserved a full week. Buzsaw posts a lot of crap that likely deserves a suspension, too but you don't see me calling for him to get a random suspension for a week.
quote: Buz should be back. Simple as that. If people don't like his arguments man up and debate it. Then give a summation. Don't ban the members.
By which you mean that his inability to follow the rules of the science forums should carry no penalty at all. Because he's a creationist.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD