Not sure about that, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I have and will seek to express, explain, and defend my views and beliefs with reason and conviction<<

Not the conviction part, obviously. No-one who reads your posts could accuse you of lacking in the conviction department.

But your attitude towards "reason" has, in my view, been perpetually suspect.

We keep returning to the same issue, which was comprehensively examined in the thread "How to fix the broken scientific system". Your concept of "reason" consists principally of employing a unique set of unsupportable basic premises, and returning to them without a single blush when they are demonstrated to be threadbare.

In that thread we described it as "using different measuring sticks", which illustrates, in a tidy little package, your reasoning process.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11455#197049

The other constant is, of course, that whenever you find your logic so embarrassingly hollow that to say any more would be a form of argumentative self-immolation, you suggest that you are being subjected to personal attacks.

>>...you've demonstrated how slurs and slander are your preferred lines of attack<<

It is not "slurs and slander" to point out that your rationalization of the implausible is nothing more than a series of verbal conjuring tricks.

>>I don't care for having my personal integrity attacked simply for arriving at that place where the viewpoints differ. For that is the moment when constructive discussion ends<<

Constructive discussion ends, not with attacks on your personal integrity, but with the impossibility of engaging with someone who refuses to acknowledge logic or evidence, but simply continues to press on using their own set of rules.

So I for one look forward to your fulfilling your commitment to "...express, explain, and defend my views and beliefs with reason...".

Please, don't hold back.

Pericles,
Calling me names such as 'dishonest' is a personal slur. Is it not?

On that thread, your whole post previous to my last post was making reference to my character rather than the issue at hand. 

I value my character, even if you don't. 

If you would want to talk about the issue at hand, that's fine. Then I would be open to participate. But if you want to denegrate me, you can do that by yourself, and I can find more constructive uses of my time.

I came back to this thread after several weeks to see what all the fuss was about. Certainly not about Women in the Church, in fact it seems the women in the Church are doing a good job on this thread. So rests my case.

Not very convincing, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Calling me names such as 'dishonest' is a personal slur. Is it not? On that thread, your whole post previous to my last post was making reference to my character rather than the issue at hand.<<

Here's that post in its entirety.

>>That might be overstating the case a little, Dan S de Merengue. "Rusty, I think by now we all see the strength of your major argument against the creationist viewpoint. 'Creationists are dishonest'" I have no doubt that some creationists are entirely sincere in their beliefs. However, it has also been known for some of them to argue in a fashion that teeters on the brink of dishonesty and, occasionally, to topple over the edge. You yourself are not exempt from this accusation, by the way. Your dogged insistence that you are "comparing different theories using the same measuring stick", when that measuring stick of yours is demonstrably bent, is just one example.<<

The summary of your "measuring stick" proposition, despite having been discredited at every turn, was the key point here. To avoid addressing the issues by merely continuing to assert that your position is the correct one is, in my book, a form of dishonesty.

Given the length of the thread, given the number and nature of the back-and-forth between us on that thread, and given your insistence that black was, indeed a pristine and blinding shade of white, it was impossible not to conclude that you had "teetered on the brink of dishonesty, and in fact toppled over the edge".

I drew this to your attention, in my ninth-out-of-ten post, having exhausted all possible alternatives that might explain your dogged adherence to a failed argument.

Do you have a better explanation?

Philo, I agree. 
Up until last year, the church I attend had a particular lady pastor for 15 years. Women have always been positively affirmed in my experience of church.

Pericles,  
That you fail to understand my position, or that we might be at crossed wires is not sufficient reason to call me names. 

Re-examining or tightening the defintions may help, perhaps point out my lack of logic, but I don't see how name calling helps in clarifying a position.

There are times when I find your logic hard to fathom, but when have I called you dishonest?

People interested in dialogue usually want to afford the other person the benefit of the doubt.  

“Pericles,
That you fail to understand my position, or that we might be at crossed wires is not sufficient reason to call me names.

Re-examining or tightening the defintions may help, perhaps point out my lack of logic, but I don't see how name calling helps in clarifying a position.

There are times when I find your logic hard to fathom, but when have I called you dishonest?

People interested in dialogue usually want to afford the other person the benefit of the doubt. ”

Pericles he has a point. Of course I’m biased by the mind reading of my mind where I’m told I am trying to do something that I’m not. One such allegation even argued that because something appeared to be an honest mistake that was proof positive how devious I was being. I have personal knowledge that those allegations of dishonesty aren’t true so I know that jumping to that conclusion is not guaranteed to attain truth. But I am pretty confident that the facts speak for themselves irrespective of my bias.

Anyway it is a change that you aren’t hunting down Boazy and have turned your attention elsewhere. Boazy must be pleased. Or does the increased thread limit allow you to do that contemporaneously?

AJ

Unless something blows up in the real world I should be able to pick up where I left off tomorrow and ascertain exactly what it is that I need to give up about and properly understand what it is I read that will prevent me from ever returning. Or am I speaking too soon? Will I not return after reading it? We'll find out tomorrow.