Re: Re: Huh?

On 07/25/12, Sibyl Smirl wrote:

On 7/24/12 4:27 PM, Malachi Kenney wrote:
>
> On Jul 24, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Sibyl Smirl wrote:
>
>> I believe I do understand it: I studied a lot about it,
>
> And yet you seem to have missed out on some fairly critical distinctions. Sibyl, I'm sorry, but your credibility on these matters -- or any matters -- has proven less than adequate. I find it well within the realm of possibility that you misinterpreted what you read, drawing incorrect conclusions, and dismissing important subtleties. Your adamance that you know what you're talking about is, frankly, clownish. Allow me to quote Cromwell when "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
>
> Further: you've given no evidence for me to believe that you explore anything with an eye to scholarship. You seem to "study" merely to tease out whatever obliging patterns reinforce your own pre-existing opinions. At this stage, you may be right, and I may be wrong, but conversation with you is useless. You are an unreliable interlocutor, and you display a childish fixation with your own satisfaction. Your statements are prima facie bullshit, and you have a record of following it up only with more insistent bullshit. If, one day, you turn out to be correct about something, that could be easily written off to random chance. If I ever find myself agreeing with you, I shall be forced to re-examine my sources and my opinion. You are a toxic creature, and your sense of self worth has no basis evidenced by your behavior.

I could give you the same advice. You have this preconception about me,
and find some way to take everything that I say to fit that preconception.

__

Jen says: He tried to give you the benefit of doubt. I know for a fact he did. You're the one who kept digging yourself in deeper.

At the time I was studying JW, I was trying to find out everything that
I could about it without actually joining. Everything.

---

Jen says: And that's the thing right there. You may think you know everything, but you soooo don't. They are a cult. They won't give you all the info they have unless you're one of them.

The thing about Michael was strictly a side issue that I should have
left out. I wish now that I had. My point was still valid, that
Valentine Michael Smith turned out to be some sort of incarnation of
Michael, perceived as such by a perceptive character rather early on,
who is a Biblical character. That was what she said she needed for it
to be a Christian myth.

---

Jen says: And I think it's just because someone here could call you out on it. You wouldn't expect anyone on a list like this to have any ties to Jehovah's Witnesses. I know I wouldn't. So you get some info from the Web site and maybe you really did some study with one. I have a hard time believing you. And then you go back and change what you say you meant by bringing it up in the first place.