Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Ernst Primer wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andy: Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to
> > > > > > engage
> > > > > > in intellectually honest discourse,
> > > > >
> > > > > GOD is the truth which should be the goal of any intellectually honest
> > > > > discourse.
> > > >
> > > > That's nice. Again, my point stands.
> > >
> > > Not if you understand what goal means.
> >
> > Actually, ironically, my point stands **because** you're unable to
> > reliably demonstrate comprehension of what intellectually honest
> > discourse means.
>
> In your opinion.
>
> > > > > > why don't you simply explain the
> > > > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > > > > are two different things."
> > > > >
> > > > > Those who have reading comprehension do not need evidence to comprehend
> > > > > the differences in the meanings of different words.
> > > >
> > > > Now you're simply being redundant, and just restating your original
> > > > assertion.
> > >
> > > Actually, I was answering your question:
> >
> > Yes, and I already explained why your answer is inadequate. See my
> > comment immediately above.
>
> Sorry you do not like my answer.

Sorrow doesn't get you where you need to be.

>
> > > "Why don't you simply explain the evidentiary basis for your assertion
> > > 'science and the scientific method are two different things.' ?"
> > >
> > > > Mutatis mutandis, those who have communication skills
> > > > explain the basis for their positions when they differ with others.
> > >
> > > Actually, those who have communication skills still have the free will
> > > to choose to **not** explain something especially when their audience
> > > lacks the ability to comprehend.
> >
> > And, mutatis mutandis, those who do **not** have the communication
> > skills often ascribe the results of their deficiencies in communication
> > to the lack of comprehension in the other.
>
> Something may be true and yet be unrelated to a discourse.

The above statement provides a good example.

>
> > > > > > To clarify to you, I actually comprehended the above quoted
> > > > > > sentence,
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you do not need an explanation of it.
> > > >
> > > > For the third time, the issue is not about the comprehensibility of
> > > > the sentence, nor did I ask you to aid me in comprehending your
> > > > writing.
> > > >
> > > > However, for the third time now, I consider it quite fair to ask you
> > > > to provide evidence for your assertion, since I and most others do not
> > > > tend to believe people, merely because they say so. Also, simply
> > > > because the word "science" and "scientific method" are two different
> > > > words has no bearing on whether they refer to the same thing (which I
> > > > assert they do) or two different things (which you assert). Neither is
> > > > the evidentiary basis for your assertion "self-explanatory."
> > >
> > > Perhaps this will help you... if not you perhaps others:
> > >
> > > Science is to scientific method as
> > >
> > > (1) Art is to artistic licence
> > > (2) Genetics is to genetic testing
> > > (3) Law is to lawyering
> > > (4) Biology is to bioengineering
> > > (5) Chemistry is to chemical engineering
> > > (6) Mathematics is to mathematical modelling
> > > (7) Medicine is to medical care
> >
> > Andrew!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > I'm so proud of you!!!!!!!
>
> All praises belong to my heavenly Father, Whom I love with all my
> heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)
>
> > YOU DID IT!!!!!!! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> > :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
>
> That would be my choice to follow my LORD's guidance about both the
> content and the timing.

You have the choice to do whatever you like and provide the
rationale of your choosing for it. Likewise, I have the choice to
comment on it however I like.

>
> > > > > > but you
> > > > > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > > > > assertion, which is what I was asking you when I asked you to
> > > > > > "clarify."
> > > > >
> > > > > Comprehension requires no clarification.
> > > >
> > > > See above.
> > >
> > > Please do.
> >
> > I appreciate what you wrote above
>
> You are welcome :-)
>
> > (although I still disagree with
> > you).
>
> (Your choice :-)
>
> > I'm much more interested in why it required the metaphorical
> > equivalent of tooth-pulling to get you to type out the equivalent of an
> > additional short paragraph; why you resisted it so mightily.
>
> The timing is His.

God spoke to you and told you to resist answering a simple question
for that long?

> GOD's timing is impeccable.

By definition. However, as a man, yours isn't.

> The LORD is the source
> of all my strength. All praises belong to LORD Jesus Christ, Whom I
> love with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)
>
> > > > > > If you insist in ducking out, I would submit this is a symptom of
> > > > > > the larger problem with your behavior on these NGs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Problems do not have symptoms.
> > > >
> > > > I found this under the first Google entry listed for the search term
> > > > "definition of the word symptom"
> > > > (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/symptom). From the very first
> > > > definition entry:
> > > >
> > > > "anything that accompanies X and is regarded as an indication of X's
> > > > existence"
> > >
> > > Again, problems do not have symptoms. People have symptoms.
> >
> > You're no longer arguing with me, but with Princeton University. Just
> > so happens I agree with their definition of the word "symptom" (hence
> > my manner of word usage), and I disagree with yours.
>
> You will have to make up your mind.

Done and done.

>
> > Language is imperfect, and truth is sometimes "in between the lines."
>
> All creations of man are imperfect for it is written that we all fall
> short of GOD's glory.

That includes you.

>
> > > > I may have been speaking figuratively, but quite literally, bad
> > > > things tend to accompany your interactions with people,
> > >
> > > In your opinion.
> >
> > Wrong again, that's a fact.
>
> Your belief.

Actually, it's documented. :-)

>
> > Wasn't your internet service yanked
> > specifically because of the nature of your interactions with people on
> > these very NGs?
>
> No.

Please set the record straight then.

>
> > Didn't it have something to do with you violating
> > official rules regarding interactions with others?
>
> Thankfully, my access to the Internet via BellSouth has never been
> interrupted.

So you were not found guilty of a term of service violation? I
apologize if I got my facts wrong.

>
> An agent of BellSouth had verbally requested that I remove the
> Christian content in my signature. My response was that I might
> consider it if he put his request in writing but he refused. Requests
> to meet with the BellSouth CEO, Duane Ackerman, about this matter were
> rejected. A complaint with the Better Business Bureau has been
> ignored. Mediation is pending and if that fails, this matter will go
> to court:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
>
> > > > which I assert
> > > > can be regarded in many cases as an indication of this problem's
> > > > existence.
> > >
> > > The untruthful are bothered by the truth.
> >
> > But just because someone is bothered doesn't necessarily logically
> > follow that a) truth is being spoken or that b) those that are bothered
> > by what is being spoken are untruthful. The other theory that would fit
> > the data is that you're frequently unable to engage in discourse with
> > people without violating basic written and unwritten rules of social
> > behavior.
>
> In truth, a signature is not part of any written discourse.

In truth, your concept of discourse and communication is limited.

>
> > > > The problem of course being your manner of relating with
> > > > others.
> > >
> > > It will forever remain my choice to stick with the truth. Sorry if
> > > that bothers you or others.
> >
> > Don't be defensive, I'm not bothered about the content of your
> > beliefs, actually.
>
> The truth is independent of my beliefs.

By definition.

>
> > I've been (mildly) bothered by the process of how
> > you interact with others, however.
>
> Your choice.

As always.

>
> > > > I'll concede that sometimes it may have something to do with
> > > > you being so outwardly Christian, but you're missing the boat if you
> > > > think that's the only reason.
> > >
> > > It remains my choice to not guess at what the LORD sees in the hearts
> > > of others.
> >
> > Probably a safe choice.
>
> Safety resides only with the LORD.

If you say so.

>
> > > > Christianity may have fixed you
> > > > spiritually, but it hasn't fixed you dispositionally.
> > >
> > > In your opinion.
> >
> > Not just mine.
>
> Only the LORD's judgment matters.

For most Christians, the LORD's judgement is the one that
**ultimately** matters.

>
> > > > Your faults are
> > > > still there, hiding (not well) behind your religiousity.
> > >
> > > It remains my choice to walk with the LORD despite all my faults which
> > > have never been hidden.
> >
> > Good. And I would never want to take that away from you.
>
> You do not have that power even if you have that want.

<snip>

That's fortunate then, because if I had the power I still would not
want to take that away from you.