So_crates

You remind me of the guy who walks up to another guy in a bar, slaps him in the face, and then calls for peace.

Read the above two posts and think how they work against each other. Smart mouths rarely cool things off. And then you wonder why there's mudslinging? He asked a straight question, is it so hard to give a straight answer?

Isn't it strange that everytime someone reminds you that its your ego working, not PLAF, not the holy ghost, you resort to calling it churchlady stuff. Remind me again what you said about attacking the messenger, what's up message to strong for you? As you would say: context In this case the context is if you didn't get your way you'd lose interest.

Like I said God himself couldn't convince you of the error. After all, if there's an error your whole God-breathe theory is kapuit. With me it's kapuit. Remember, your the one with the assertations: That PLAF is God-breathe. That "Parallel" used in PLAF is not an error. Its your job to convince me. You haven't. And who made how it was communicated to you the standard? You have two Buckeyes telling you they've never heard "parallel" used in the way you claim. Aren't we full of ourselves? What makes you think I care whether or not I keep your interest?

You still haven't finished the paralell error.

I'm glad you know what goes on in my mind and everyone elses. This may suprise you, but I didn't understand it until Skyrider or Waysider told me it was "balanced". That's why the error sticks out so graphicly in my mind.

I did but I was one of those grads that didn't say anything. I hoped it be explained later.

A vocabulary two Buckeyes have never heard used in that manner? Sure. Would God use words in an unconventional fashion? I don't need to know your answer. Tell God.

No, YOU made the error by claiming it wasn't an error. It's not language. You've heard two Buckeyes tell you they've never heard it used like that. Yet you insist it was. Dude, God himself could come down from heaven and tell you it was an error and you still wouldn't be convinced.

So your saying God made the error?

You would. There's nothing poetic about it. It's an error he said from go and stayed in despite all those proofreaders whose goals were perfection.

So the error of saying paralell remains. What happened to God has a reason to everything he says where he says it..

Or don't stretch the language too far, because it'll snap back like a rubber band You want to torture the language a little more?

As of 1979, the error was still in it. Check out the link and the attribution at the bottom http://www.picturesofsilver.com/abundantly/abundantly01-03.php Perhaps you should check your PLAF books Then you can show me where it was corrected.

I was born and raised in Cleveland and I can assure you I've never heard anyone use "parallel" for "balanced."

And perceptions may or may not be true, right? Meatloaf said if life is a highway, the soul is but a car

You mean the more obvious and adversarial you percieve the percieved set-up question, don't you?

A less understandable mistake in PLAF, that no one has mentioned and I'm not sure is on the error thread is: Needs and wants paralell If needs and wants were paralell then they would never meet, like two paralell lines. I think it was Waysider or Skyrider that told me it should actually be: Needs and wants balanced

The same criteria anybody uses: It states thing simply and it works in the real world. Here's the nature of my problem: I walk onto a car dealership and I'm looking at a '72 Pinto. I've owned a '72 Pinto, so I know about them. The salesman comes and starts telling me about how great a '72 Pinto is. I relate may experiences and he tries to tell me, "Well, that was that specific '72 Pinto, you know nothing about Pintos, because you've never drove this Pinto." The salesman insists on going over his talking points (What was it you said happens when someone insists something from you, Mike?) So, I ask him what a '72 Pinto has done for him personally. He hems and haws and insists on getting back to his talking points. Every time I inquire into the condition of the car, the salesman accuses me of asking loaded questions or wanting to pounce. Finally, he says, "When they're hit from the back end, the have a tendancy to explode." I challange him on that point. When he can't get around it, he starts saying we should start the sale all over. Now, what do you think the odds are that anyone's going to buy that car from that salesman?

I meant all too familiar in the negative sense: The game playing. The refusal to give straight answers The promises The statement: The only way to know if its true is to do it

First off, I don't have a "hard hitting style" I calls 'em as I sees 'em. Second of all, you seem to forget, we've danced to this song before. The answer questions with a question. The I know the truth better than you do. The I can judge you but you can't judge me. The don't do as I do, do as I say. Anybody who's dealt with PLAF and has been in The Way for any period of time finds these last 24 pages all too familiar. And now that you've painted yourself into a corner your crying, "Mulligan."

Of course you want to drop it. Like errors in PLAF and the fact Saint Vic couldn't recieve revelation, you can't defend it so let's sweep it under the rug.

**Please, quit blaming it on the shock value of your message. It about as shocking as finding out water is wet or fall follows summer. **Yah, stop playing head games.

It's not as tangled as you claim. "Soup is soup, apple butter is apple butter" and deception is deception.

So since you can't defend your claim that God decieved us, you want to change the subject.