Tracer Tong wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:Apparently you do as your idiosyncratic definition is different from the common usages/definitions.
Apparently I don't, as my definition is not idiosyncratic at all.
You can mindlessly repeat this as many times as you want, it doesn't make it true.
You need to actually demonstrate this.
Tracer Tong wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:The only claim they can be reasonably infered to have made is that they have studied the bible.
Which Agrippinia has done.
Nah: surely this wouldn't be the
only claim it could reasonably be inferred they had made,
You've just now admitted there isn't just one correct interpetation.
Meaning your own is no more valid than that of others.
Tracer Tong wrote: if it could reasonably be inferred at all.
Then why don't you start presenting some arguments or better yet evidence to support your interpetation, like aban and I've done, instead of repeating the same unsupported assertions?
Tracer Tong wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:Facts do not magically disappear if you do not 'grant' them.
Of course not. Who suggested otherwise?
You do. I pointed out, with evidence, that scholar isn't an recognised title, either academically or legally.
You then responded with 'if I grant that' as if it was some hypothetical you could reject.
Tracer Tong wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:So you assert, but fail to demonstrate.
Much as you asserted, and failed to demonstrate, the contrary.
This is just pathetic Tracer Tong.
I provided you with evidence that it isn't official title.
Before that, aban already provided you with evidence from the dictionary that the definitions of scholar, do not include 'has academic qualifications'.
All you've done is repeatedly and blindly asserted you're right and everyone else is wrong.
When your repeated lack of substantiation is pointed out, you respond with 'I know what you are, but what am i?'
Really? Do you really believe this will hide your failure to actually support your position with sound arguments?
Tracer Tong wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:Another blind assertion, provided without any substantiation, even after evidence to the contrary has already been provided by aban.
Much as your prior assertion was blind and unsubstantiated. Aban's remarks have already been dealt with already.
Blind counterfactual assertions do not refute the evidence aban provided with regards to the common definitions/usages of the word scholar.
Tracer Tong wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:Oh look, blind accusations about the emotional state of your interlocutors. The true hallmark of a rational person, especially after making multiple unsupported assertions.
Quote me where I've expressed in any way that I am no calm or retract this dishonest ad-hom.
If your suggestion is that you're perfectly calm and yet
still playing rhetorical games, I fear I was earlier too charitable.
Doubling down on your initial baseless ad-hom I see.
Fine I'll let the mods deal with this. Meanwhile anyone can see you cannot actually address the argument instead of the imagined emotional state of your interlocutors.
And it isn't 'playing a rethorical game' when someone makes personal accuastions based on idiosyncratic definitions.
My name is not Tom.
Tracer Tong wrote: you and I can go back and forth like this for as long as you (or the moderating staff) like. But when you are ready to really engage in conversation, I'm all ears.
If I had not encountered this sort of posting before, I'd almost be surprised at someone being so oblivious to the fact that our entire conversation is present in this thread. Including your repeated failure to actually support your position with anything beyond assertions, whereas I have actually provided arguments as well as evidence to support said arguments.
Go ahead, pretend this did not happen all you want, but it won't magically erase the facts.
Unless you are trying for suicide by mod though, I suggest you cease the baseless, personalised remarks.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."