Truth and Fact

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

RICK G
If Edie will respond to this post and tell us that she DIDN'T used the word
"truth" in a subjective or figurative way, signifying belief, but that she
was using it in abasolute way; then I will admit that I misread her post
and that you and Rick were right to make the observations she did. If not,
then I stand by what I said in my previous posts. Fair enough?

SHUMAKER
Well, no, not quite. I can't speak for Till, but in my case what Edie had
said is irrelevant and thus the posting you misread was not hers but mine.
As I said, I wasn't disagreeing with what Edie said; I don't recall seeing
what she said. I was disagreeing with what Eric said. He responded to Till's
response to your remarks, in a posting that never mentioned Edie. Take
another look at what Eric wrote:


> ERIC

> This is the first time I have ever disagree with you, Till, but I guess

> it had to happen sometime. I think you missed the point of Gaudreau's

> post. He was saying that facts are objective and provable. Truths are

> subjective and are not. To you and I, the second truth is true and the

> first is not. To a Christian, the first is true and the second is not.

> While I have never thought of things quite like this before, I must say

> that it is reasonable.


I disagree with that view and said so. In response, you nit-picked me for
supposedly nit-picking Edie's remarks when I never mentioned and had nothing
to say about what she said, only the ideas Eric was agreeing with (and
attributed to you).

And no, my feathers aren't ruffled, though occasionally my beak gets a
little outa joint.

• Previous message: Truth and Fact
• Next message: Truth and Fact
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]