jadeitedrake0,
Lets keep this a "discussion board" and not a "judicial board".
I find this admonition not slightly ironic, coming on the heels of a public rebuke for
intending to express certain thoughts which:
a)
I have not intended to express and which,
b)
I have not, in fact, expressed!.
Your formulation of the intent, content and style of my (as-yet non-existent) responses to jmp's (as-yet non-existent) responses, itself seems rather
pre-judicial, given that the bulk of your formulation of my thought does not even come close to what I hoped to expess to jmp, contingent upon a response from him.
Here's something to consider, culled from two unrelated, recent discussions:
With all due respect, I believe that (XXX) deserves an honest anwser to his initial question, so let me be the first to attempt to do that w/ out errr... hitting him over the head w/ various heavy objects.
Notwithstanding the fact that the quoted statement is itself
judicial--a judgment having been passed on previous posters to that thread--the same principle might apply here!
Not to be politically correct or anything... but keep in mind, guys and galls, that when you are involved in a dispute, you are arguing against an idea and not a person.
The fact is,
all discussion involves
judgment, since it has pleased our Lord to fashion us in his image, an essential aspect of which entails our
words inevitably expressing our
heart. Therefore it is impossible to discuss mere
ideas without, to varying degrees, having that discussion impact the very
lives of those participating in it. While unwarranted
ad hominem remarks are unprofitable in public discourse, requests for
clarification of position are most certainly not personal attacks.
