Red Letter Christianity

Originally posted by Suzianne
[b]I know. Like I said, "...there is a bug in the code where tags in the 'Originally posted by...' box can bleed into new posts." Who said there was a conspiracy?

No bug, either. The software is working as intended. It doesn't make sure our b's and /b's are matched. The "bleedover" you speak of is a function of the html language used by webpages.
be right as rain in a few days. Well-spotted though. No one else did.[/b]

No bug, either. The software is working as intended. It doesn't make sure our b's and /b's are matched. The "bleedover" you speak of is a function of the html language used by webpages.

That's an interesting perspective. My perspective (which includes 25+ years in software development) tells me that it's a bug - and a seriously embarrassing one at that. No professional worth his salt would allow that type of "undocumented feature". I'll assume you're not a professional developer. If you are, you really need to step up your game.

Even if he did "ignore" the other points you made (which I am not sure he did), so what? He replied to what he wanted to reply to. That's his prerogative.

He certainly didn't address them and I called him on it which is my prerogative. He subsequently claimed that that he didn't "ignore" (his word) what I said.

"didn't address" / "ignore"; "to-may-toe" / "to-mah-toe"

I responded with the following:

The fact is that you clearly did not address most of the points of my earlier post. That you are trying to claim otherwise speaks to a lack of integrity on your part. This isn't the first time you've done this.

Not sure why you had a problem with that. His CLAIM that he didn't "ignore what [I] said" when he clearly had not addressed most of the points DOES speak to a lack of integrity on his part.

I appreciate the concern. It's nothing serious. Let's just say my concentration is elsewhere lately. I suspect I'll be right as rain in a few days. Well-spotted though. No one else did.

Glad to hear it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Not sure why you had a problem with that. His CLAIM that he didn't "ignore what [I] said" when he clearly had not addressed most of the points DOES speak to a lack of integrity on his part.

My "problem with that" is just that I think you're being "unnecessarily harsh" with him. That's all. I mean here you are, basically calling him a liar, when all he did was not address all your points in a post. If I was called a liar for every time I did that, I don't think I'd be posting here very much because I don't like dealing with unreasonable people. Swallow your pride a little bit and realize that people don't always have to react to you the way you want them to.

You're equating "didn't address" with "ignore". I don't "ignore" posts (or portions of posts) of people I'm engaged in conversation with, and I'm guessing he read your entire post, i.e. didn't "ignore" it. He may not have "addressed" some of the issues you raised, but he really doesn't have to if he doesn't want to.

He may have "not addressed most of the points" as you said, but that does not mean he did "ignore what [you] said". So his claim strikes me as valid, and so I don't see how you equate that with a lack of integrity, just as I don't see how "ignore" and "didn't address" are equal.

Originally posted by Suzianne
My "problem with that" is just that I think you're being "unnecessarily harsh" with him. That's all. I mean here you are, basically calling him a liar, when all he did was not address all your points in a post. If I was called a liar for every time I did that, I don't think I'd be posting here very much because I don't like dealing with unreasonable peop ...[text shortened]... I don't see how "ignore" and "didn't address" are equal.

I mean here you are, basically calling him a liar, when all he did was not address all your points in a post.

Actually, the reason that I am "basically calling him a liar" is NOT because he didn't address all my points. It's because he claimed that he did not "ignore" those points IN RESPONSE to me calling him out for not adressing all of my points. It was only AFTER he made that claim that I "basically [called] him a liar". Not sure why you don't understand this distinction.

Let's look at "ignore":
ig·nore /igˈnôr/
Verb

1.Refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally: "he ignored her question".
2.Fail to consider (something significant): "satellite broadcasting ignores national boundaries".

Note the example.

He "didn't address" her question.

He "ignored" her question.

It's close enough.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well-spotted though. No one else did.

I think you are wrong about this, by the way. Hope you're better soon.