Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Correct.
>
> One reason to continue walking with LORD Jesus Christ, Who is **the**
> way, the truth, and the life.
>
> > > > > "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.
>
> As does the one below:
>
> "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."

The inability to notice a relationship does not make the relationship
nonexistant.

>
> > > > > > > > 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.
>
> Be my guest so that others like Gary G will not be able to say that
> they have no idea what it would be like to chat with me.

I already know full well what it's like to chat with you. The term
"Brer Chung" seems to fit.

>
> > > > > > > > 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?
>
> Those who walk with the LORD are tied to Him so that they become aware
> of His guidance.

I'm just suprised your LORD would find any use to having you resist
answering such a simple question so strenuously.

>
> > > GOD's timing is impeccable.
> >
> > By definition. However, as a man, yours isn't.
>
> Thankfully, it has been His timing and not mine :-)
>
> May Gary G appreciate His timing :-)

Receiving guidance is not the same as entirely relinquishing control
to an outside force, unless you're suggesting that guidance to you is
tantamount to a form of spiritual possession. You may be receiving
spiritual guidance from a force with impeccable timing, but your timing
is only as good as you are at following the God of Your Understanding's
guidance.

>
> > > 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.
>
> "Those with two minds have two faces."

Nice to hear.

>
> > >
> > > > 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.
>
> Correct. This is one reason why no matter how perfectly my LORD
> reshapes me, my need for Him remains.

You could say that.

>
> > > > > > 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. :-)
>
> What is documented are the works of the LORD.

As is USENET.

> Your judging them to be
> "bad" is meaningless to those who are able to discern the truth.

Do tell. Apparently this particular power of truth discernment you
proclaim for yourself renders much of what you hear meaningless, and
removes your capacity to choose right and wrong.

>
> > > > 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.
>
> Done.

Gracias.

>
> > >
> > > > 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?
>
> No. If I were, you would not be seeing this post which is reaching the
> Google servers through BellSouth wires.

My apologies. I did not run an IP trace.

>
> > I
> > apologize if I got my facts wrong.
>
> It would be my choice to forgive you.

Such is the nature of apologies.

>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Concepts are by definition limited.

I meant to say, overly 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.
>
> and the very nature of the truth which is infinitely larger that any
> language constructed to describe it.

Exactly. Language is imperfect, as are those who wield it.

>
> > > > I've been (mildly) bothered by the process of how
> > > > you interact with others, however.
> > >
> > > Your choice.
> >
> > As always.
>
> Such is the free will that GOD has given you, me, and others.

Except when it comes to your capacity to choose disregard the truth
- didn't you say that capacity no longer exists?

>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.

As it is mine despite your contrary proclamations.

>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> The LORD continues to guide me in all that I say, do, or write.

You should work harder on following his guidance more precisely.