I have been working on a translation from the English into the Nitpicky for 25 years.
UNITY. Please refresh my memory. I have been side tracted by my own levity.REALLY?!? the topic is UNITY??? Oh my goodness, all these 13 pages of posts in this thread… I thought it was about people liking to cite false information. How nutty of me to not know what my own topic is on!Yes the TOPIC.
All my love is in Jesus Christ. Obadiah.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” - Inigo Montoya
Um… which word?
Sarcasm and wild accusations are helpful how exactly?
You don’t see any difference between calling someone nitpicky and claiming that their posts are off-topic?Oh, woe is me, to be so confused. And even WORSE I used a word like “nitpicky” instead of telling you that you were off-topic as is usual in this thread.
So noted.
What makes you think that I do not know what the word ‘concede’ means?
Insisting that we change the topic of the thread is helpful how exactly? I did get sarctastic and I’m sorry.
I used the word “nitpicky” because you twisted my words to mean something they did not mean. You also twisted the thread to be what YOU want it to be. My ‘claim’ about off-topic is actually quite well founded. I began in the first post pointing out that this was not the topic of the thread.
Then it’s quite simple, the significance of BARRETT"S numbers is nothing. Yep nothing. When you publish research based on nothing… you get nothing usable as a result. The conversation was moving to the definition of "denomination’. A Catholic definition has been proposed. That definition has two major problems:
their definition has no bearing on what I think about anything.” If I change all the definition of English words before I type them here, you will NOT get my point. There has to be common ground if you expect the other side to get, or even care about your point.
I don’t see anything useful from Barrett’s book either.
Thank you.
Neither justification nor excuse for using the ad hominem “nitpicky.”
And we disagree with the delimitations placed on the topic. Discussion of the significance of the numbers flows naturally from considering the numbers. Having a point of view which diverges from your own is not the same as “twisting the thread.”
It’s a Catholic forum.
Ad populem fallacy.
The Catholic Church is not claiming to be a denomination.
Why not?
By using reason. For instance you claimed that ‘some unity’ had been achieved. I pointed out that ‘some unity’ is a contradiction in terms.
I believe this may be somewhat unwarranted and excessive.
Amen…
uch:A quote by quote breakdown:
The identification was in post #1. Syele and many others knew what I was referring to. Since you could not see my reference, I’d have been conceding the point had I not replied? No. The problem was you not seeing my reference (which I completely expected), not me failing to identify it. I did reply to clarify for you, because I could see that if I failed to reply, you would misinterpret that as concession.
Once again, you fail to see the poster’s intent in using the Twain reference. You imply that he is conceding the point. Hardly. I got the reference and I’m sure others did, too (rr1213: “Finally, you’ve not heard the quote from Twain before? I’m not accusing anyone of lying but simply pointing out that statistics are often manipulated and deceiving”)
No, she gave up on having the argument. She did NOT concede the point. While there are surely times when silence or giving up on a debate can be concession (it is highly situation-specific), there are plenty of other reasons someone might not reply:Syele;2073197:
So noted. You have conceded the point.Well Catholics have one definition, the rest of the world has another. I give up.
Syele, you’ve hit the nail on the head here. This isn’t a wall you can ever get through. I think it’s time you (and those who got your point) give up.
I concur. That is, I am willing to give up having the debate, not conceding the point. We are just going around in circles here :banghead: and not accomplishing anything further.Syele, you’ve hit the nail on the head here. This isn’t a wall you can ever get through. I think it’s time you (and those who got your point) give up.
Clarification note: that’s giving up on having the debate, not conceding the point!
From the 2001 World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson, Vol. 1, page. 27:denomination: any agency consisting of a number of congregations or churches voluntarily aligning themselves with it. As a statistical unit in this Encyclopedia, a "denomination’ always refers to one single country. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries.
Yes.