G
GKC
Guest
Yeah, but I’d always win. I’d only count my vote.
But you’re welcome, for whatever I added.
GKC
- Status
But you’re welcome, for whatever I added.
GKC
M
mgrfin
Guest
What? Two church historians with possible PhD’s against a business major. I think I deserve some handicapping. My Catholicism must count for something. All that infallibility on my side
BTW, I never waffle. It is a debating ploy.
peace
G
geraldffff
Guest
The sad thing about some so called historians is the modern day revisions they foist on those who don’t have the energy or inclination to investigate. Some times if you do not know all the facts intuition tells you when a straw man is being presented. What the Roman Catholic Church teaches rings true that is why I am attracted to it. There are some things it teaches that are hard to accept but life is not always easy. That you also for adding to my knowledge. If you vote for yourself that makes you the winner. 2 against one.What? Two church historians with possible PhD’s against a business major. I think I deserve some handicapping. My Catholicism must count for something. All that infallibility on my side
BTW, I never waffle. It is a debating ploy.
peace
M
mgrfin
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
I demand a recount, an examination of the hanging chads, and a list of the waffles. If there’s a waffle in any of my posts, I’ll eat it.
GKC
G
geraldffff
Guest
sorry. perhaps waffle was not the exact term but I assure you straw man is more to the point. I’m to lazy to go through the whole thread again and find your straw men but I assure you mgrfin arguments were closer to the reality I have come to know. Here is an example of evidence that I am not the only person who thought you may be waffling. Originally Posted by mgrfin View Post
Sometimes he is; sometimes he is not.
mgrfin was a strait shooter, he/she called it like he/she sees it you apparently did not I’m going to discontinue this worn out thread now it was fun thanks.
G
GKC
Guest
Ok. I read them again. Not a waffle in the house. I conclude that English is (at least) a second laguage for you. Or we differ widely on the meaning of “waffle”. To waffle (you have a different diefinition?) is to change one’s position, under pressure, saying now one thing, now another, depending on circumstances. Like (for example) saying that Anglicans don’t accept the Real Presence, in the same sense RCs do, then (after an unacknowledged correction) saying that some Anglicans do, some don’t. Or saying that Anglicans are bound by the Articles, and (after being chided) saying that some do affirm them, some don’t. You know…waffling - changing your assertion. Find one of those in your list.
If I had to rely on a diet of the “waffles” you suggest, I’d
starve. From first to last, my posts (those that contain anything of substance) consistently maintain the consistent points: Anglicans are variable, one cannot generalize about them, and apparently you know little of the genus. I might have made a small difference there, but it’s hard to tell.
You sure are hard to talk to. Reminds me most of a KJV-only dispensationalist I once encountered.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
mfrgin agrees with you, yep. But that quote’s not evidence of waffling. It’s an erroneous assumption. mfrgin was saying that sometimes I was an Episcopalian, sometimes not (which might be waffling. He was merely wrong, in fact. I’m not and never have been an Episcopalian. Hence, no waffle.
You’re welcome, anyway. Though I doubt your reality of Anglicanism, which is what I was discussing, comes very near the truth.
GKC
M
mercygate
Guest
Everybody here knows I’m drop-dead Catholic. But since the discussion was never about whether the Catholic position is correct, but about the history of the situation, GKC gets my vote for maintaining his position with stability, substance, and respect for the other players. (More than I can say for myself.)
C
Contarini
Guest
This is just plain ridiculous. GKC is almost only person I know on the Internet who has never waffled once in any post of his I’ve read. His posts are thoroughly consistent. As usual, you can’t be bothered actually trying to understand what non-Catholics are saying, and yet you want to be able to make dogmatic pronouncements about what they mean. You need to make up your mind (talk about waffling): are we so completely beneath your notice that you don’t need to try to understand us? Fine. Go read the Summa Theologiae or something and leave us alone. But if you want to talk about (say) Anglicanism, you need to be able to make elementary distinctions such as those between an Episcopalian and a Continuing Anglican. Otherwise nothing you say will command the respect of those (whether Catholic, Anglican, or Zoroastrian) who know anything about the subject (assuming there are any Zoroastrians who know anything about Anglicanism
).Edwin
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
Aw, come on. Did I (sic) you when you spelled Duchesne incorrectly? Typos are typos, in posts, mine or yours.
GKC
M
mgrfin
Guest
My, my! What is it about history professors not having a sense of humor?This is just plain ridiculous. GKC is almost only person I know on the Internet who has never waffled once in any post of his I’ve read. His posts are thoroughly consistent. As usual, you can’t be bothered actually trying to understand what non-Catholics are saying, and yet you want to be able to make dogmatic pronouncements about what they mean. You need to make up your mind (talk about waffling): are we so completely beneath your notice that you don’t need to try to understand us? Fine. Go read the Summa Theologiae or something and leave us alone. But if you want to talk about (say) Anglicanism, you need to be able to make elementary distinctions such as those between an Episcopalian and a Continuing Anglican. Otherwise nothing you say will command the respect of those (whether Catholic, Anglican, or Zoroastrian) who know anything about the subject (assuming there are any Zoroastrians who know anything about Anglicanism
Edwin
It’s a joke, Edwin. I’m trying to lighten you up, GKG.
Take it in the spirit in which it was presented.
peace
G
GKC
Guest
And thank you.This is just plain ridiculous. GKC is almost only person I know on the Internet who has never waffled once in any post of his I’ve read. His posts are thoroughly consistent. As usual, you can’t be bothered actually trying to understand what non-Catholics are saying, and yet you want to be able to make dogmatic pronouncements about what they mean. You need to make up your mind (talk about waffling): are we so completely beneath your notice that you don’t need to try to understand us? Fine. Go read the Summa Theologiae or something and leave us alone. But if you want to talk about (say) Anglicanism, you need to be able to make elementary distinctions such as those between an Episcopalian and a Continuing Anglican. Otherwise nothing you say will command the respect of those (whether Catholic, Anglican, or Zoroastrian) who know anything about the subject (assuming there are any Zoroastrians who know anything about Anglicanism
Edwin
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Heavens. I thought you were serious. It was surreal.
Were you doing that throughout thr whole exchange?
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Oh.
Reminds me of an exchange I had on a board I can’t recall. The topic devolved into whether a Roman Catholic could write science fiction (don’t ask). I got involved with (apparently) an odd woman who maintained that it was impossible for a faithful RC to do so. I ran my list of great SF writers who were RC, and specific works. Was met by surreal responses. Plowed on, anyway.
Never guessed it was a put-on, until the author revealed it.
But, all the same, the author knew little of science fiction.
What a minute. Won’t this cause distress to geraldffff?
GKC
- Status