Not By Works

[Macabeus]

And I, for one, am glad.



Which you now claim is fine.

I never said it wasn't. I said judging was bad, not fruit inspecting.

GB9 is the one who got upset because he thought I was fruit inspecting. He whined about it umpteen times. SO I decided to start fruit inspecting.

When I told people to stop inspecting my fruit, I was referring to their HYPOCRISY in castigating me for inspecting fruit and then doing the same thing themselves. Go back and read, Grande Inquisitor

 

[Budman]

I don't know. I'm not God and I don't know your heart.

Yet, I'm a "shark" right?

You mentioned false teachers. in reference to me saying something that applies to you, because it applies to everyone. Therefore you put yourself in the same category as them (the false teachers)

You really should read that over. Read it carefully, and you might see your contradiction.

 

[Macabeus]

you are constantly going on and on about fruit, still going on about something that doc said months ago, so, when I call you a judgemental fruit inspector who is obsessed with time it takes to bear fruit, that is why.

and, you told us to stop talking about you, and leave you alone, we did, and you came roaring back, attacking the ones you asked to leave you alone, who had.

me thinks you are just an attention hound barking at the moon.....

Actually, in the post you replied to, I was talking about DC lying about Argueless. Like I said, you don't read the posts you are replying to.

 

[Budman]

I never said it wasn't. I said judging was bad, not fruit inspecting.

When you inspect fruit, are you not judging that person's behavior?

Good gravy, man! You make this too easy! At least make it challenging!

 

[Budman]

When I told people to stop inspecting my fruit, I was referring to their HYPOCRISY in castigating me for inspecting fruit and then doing the same thing themselves

I never denied I inspect fruit. So, what's your actual beef, Mac?

 

[Macabeus]

Yet, I'm a "shark" right?





You really should read that over. Read it carefully, and you might see your contradiction.

Budman- What you said applies to everyone, therefore it applies to me.

Me- That is not fruit inspecting. You inspect fruit one at a time.

Budman- No, I can say that (various false religions) bear bad fruit.

Right there you conflated saying something that applies to everyone to something that applies to false teachers. So everyone is a false teacher in your opinion, including yourself.

 

[Macabeus]

When you inspect fruit, are you not judging that person's behavior?

Good gravy, man! You make this too easy! At least make it challenging!

Yep, I am inspecting fruit NOW, because I was accused of it and it is OK, even according to you.

But I wasn't inspecting fruit before. Before, you had to redefine fruit inspection to include general statements. Your arguement is likened to the story below, which is an analogy..

Jimmy needed a fruit inspector to inspect his apples. So he called Budman

Jimmy- I need someone to inspect my apples.

Budman- Ok, I charge 10 dollars a bushel. How many bushels do you have?

Jimmy- That sounds fair. I have ten bushels

Budman- OK. Every apple that has maggots on it is bad. That will be 100 dollars. Do you want to pay over the phone?

 

[Macabeus]

I never denied I inspect fruit. So, what's your actual beef, Mac?

You accused me of judging fruit earlier, BEFORE I was judging fruit, and could not bring up a legitimate post to validate your claim. Your earlier argument can be likened to the analogy below

Jimmy needed a fruit inspector to inspect his apples. So he called Budman

Jimmy- I need someone to inspect my apples.

Budman- Ok, I charge 10 dollars a bushel. How many bushels do you have?

Jimmy- That sounds fair. I have ten bushels

Budman- OK. Every apple that has maggots on it is bad. That will be 100 dollars. Do you want to pay over the phone?

I did not bold it because I am yelling. I just think you make a habit of missing the point.

 

[Budman]

Right there you conflated saying something that applies to everyone to something that applies to false teachers. So everyone is a false teacher in your opinion, including yourself.

Yet, is every one a false teacher?

Get it?

See your contradiction there?

Dude, I can only help you with your comprehension skills so much.

 

[Macabeus]

And I, for one, am glad.



Which you now claim is fine.

But he doesnt. He thinks it's bad. But he does it it on almost every post.

 

[Macabeus]

Yet, is every one a false teacher?

Get it?

See your contradiction there?

.

Yes and no. Yes, I see your contradiction of yourself. and no, I do not see a contradiction on my part. Just repeating your argument.

Jimmy needed a fruit inspector to inspect his apples. So he called Budman

Jimmy- I need someone to inspect my apples.

Budman- Ok, I charge 10 dollars a bushel. How many bushels do you have?

Jimmy- That sounds fair. I have ten bushels

Budman- OK. Every apple that has maggots on it is bad. That will be 100 dollars. Do you want to pay over the phone?

 

[Macabeus]

Yet, is every one a false teacher?

Get it?

See your contradiction there?

Dude, I can only help you with your comprehension skills so much.

You were dishones in your original definition of bearing fruit.

It can be likened to the analogy below.

Jimmy needed a fruit inspector to inspect his apples. So he called Budman

Jimmy- I need someone to inspect my apples.

Budman- Ok, I charge 10 dollars a bushel. How many bushels do you have?

Jimmy- That sounds fair. I have ten bushels

Budman- OK. Every apple that has maggots on it is bad. That will be 100 dollars. Do you want to pay over the phone?

 

[Macabeus]

I never denied I inspect fruit. So, what's your actual beef, Mac?

Your faulty definition of fruit inspection. You claimed that making a statement that applies to everyone is fruit inspecting. your faulty definition can be likened to the analogy below

Jimmy needed a fruit inspector to inspect his apples. So he called Budman

Jimmy- I need someone to inspect my apples.

Budman- Ok, I charge 10 dollars a bushel. How many bushels do you have?

Jimmy- That sounds fair. I have ten bushels

Budman- OK. Every apple that has maggots on it is bad. That will be 100 dollars. Do you want to pay over the phone?

 

[Budman]

Yep, I am inspecting fruit NOW, because I was accused of it and it is OK, even according to you.

But I wasn't inspecting fruit before. Before, you had to redefine fruit inspection to include general statements. Your arguement is likened to the story below, which is an analogy..

Jimmy needed a fruit inspector to inspect his apples. So he called Budman

Jimmy- I need someone to inspect my apples.

Budman- Ok, I charge 10 dollars a bushel. How many bushels do you have?

Jimmy- That sounds fair. I have ten bushels

Budman- OK. Every apple that has maggots on it is bad. That will be 100 dollars. Do you want to pay over the phone?

Here's how your apples analogy is a false one.

When you said "everyone" it literally means "every person". A person is an individual, so the statement applies to them.

What you said actually plays out like this:

Me: How are the apples?

You: Every one has worms.

Me: Does that apply to all of them?

You: Yes.

When I asked you if your statement applied to individuals, you said it applied to everyone.

YOU included all. Every single person.

Have the integrity to admit you made a simple grammatical error, and move on.

 

[gb9]

Yep, I am inspecting fruit NOW, because I was accused of it and it is OK, even according to you.

But I wasn't inspecting fruit before. Before, you had to redefine fruit inspection to include general statements. Your arguement is likened to the story below, which is an analogy..

Jimmy needed a fruit inspector to inspect his apples. So he called Budman

Jimmy- I need someone to inspect my apples.

Budman- Ok, I charge 10 dollars a bushel. How many bushels do you have?

Jimmy- That sounds fair. I have ten bushels

Budman- OK. Every apple that has maggots on it is bad. That will be 100 dollars. Do you want to pay over the phone?

you have not stared doing anything " now".

you are just doing what you have been doing for months, that is why I and others call you out.

 

[Macabeus]

Here's how your apples analogy is a false one.

When you said "everyone" it literally means "every person". A person is an individual, so the statement applies to them.

What you said actually plays out like this:

Me: How are the apples?

You: Every one has worms.

Me: Does that apply to all of them?

You: Yes.

When I asked you if your statement applied to individuals, you said it applied to everyone.

YOU included all. Every single person.

Have the integrity to admit you made a simple grammatical error, and move on.

When did you ask "how are the apples" and when did I say "you all have worms", prior to the post where you first brought up your faulty definition of fruit inspection? It doesnt exist. It is a fabrication of your overactive imagination.

 

[Budman]

You claimed that making a statement that applies to everyone is fruit inspecting.

False. You kept claiming your general statement didn't apply to individuals. Even after I asked you specifically, and you said yes. Then denied that the definition of everyone means "every person".

 

[Macabeus]

you have not stared doing anything " now".

you are just doing what you have been doing for months, that is why I and others call you out.

Yet when I asked for a post number verifying that I was fruit inspecting, NOone could present anything, except for Bud's "you made a statement that applies to everyone, therefore it applies to me, therefore you are fruit inspecting.

NO one to this day has produced a post number of a post where I was fruit inspecting when you guys started accusing me of it. SO I figured, OK, I'm getting accused of it, and Jesus said "you will know them by their fruits", so I decided to live up to your accusations.

 

[Budman]

When did you ask "how are the apples" and when did I say "you all have worms", prior to the post where you first brought up your faulty definition of fruit inspection? It doesnt exist. It is a fabrication of

See my last post above.

 

[Macabeus]

False. You kept claiming your general statement didn't apply to individuals. Even after I asked you specifically, and you said yes. Then denied that the definition of everyone means "every person".

Post number please.