I don't understand why you are carrying on with this when I wrote a conciliatory response to Russ. I don't agree with some of what he said but there's no point in arguing with him about it and I wanted to move on, which is what I thought we'd done.

I'm also not offended by Abishag's words as such; what irritates me is the method by she's responded to me (or not). She chooses to type these words here from ICR or whatever source it is. I think she should at least be willing to discuss them, that's what forums are for. If she is unable to then she shouldn't be posting them. In most other forums it is against the rules to paste or type big blocks of text from third parties; you'd be expected to state your case in your own words, with short quotes from other sources to back you up. I find it frustrating that that is not the case here but so be it. I can always respond to the words she's types without expecting her to say anything herself, thought it seems a silly situation.

Now that you've brought this back up, though, I think some things need to be made clear. Abishag said, in response to my questions about her post:



How else am I supposed to interpret this? Apparently I don't understand the Bible because I receiveth not the spirit of God, because I will be condemned on judgement day, and I'm not fit to be spoken to by her until I have, erm, met Jesus or been born again or somesuch thing. How else am I supposed to interpret this, if not "holier than thou"? No one else here has used this excuse for not talking to non-fundamentalists. I did ask her if this was what she meant by those words but she did not respond.

She also said:



I'm not offended by being told I don't have an open mind by her, but what she's trying to do is have digs at me in order to avoid any actual discussion of the topic at hand. The evasion is what I don't like. Remember?

Don't worry, if this carries on much longer I'll leave again, no doubt to the delight of all.