For those missing the context of this thrilling discussion between
Jim and I, Jim wrote the following to me in e-mail after I pointed out
that he (Jim) had taken a quote out of context:

He directed a similar accusation of hypocrisy, again based on a lack of
response to an article by Robert Weiss, toward Stephen.

I pointed out that I did, in fact, agree that both Robert Weiss and
Jim Meritt took quotes out of context.  Hence, I find it difficult to
understand why Jim thinks I am a hypocrite.  Needless to say, I don't
have time to reply to *every* article on t.r.m. that takes a quote
out of context.  

I asked Jim the following:

Jim replied by saying 

But today we find four articles from Jim, one of which has the subject
"Silence is concurrence":  


Which is, of course, a complete red herring.  Taking quotes out of
context isn't a crime.  I don't have time to read every article on
t.r.m., and I'm certainly under no obligation to reply to them all.

Does "silence is concurrence" imply that Jim thinks that because I
didn't respond to Weiss' articles I must condone Weiss' taking quotes
out of context?  Jim doesn't want to give a direct answer to this
question; read what he has written and decide for yourself.


But back to the context of my conversation with Jim.  Jim's next 
gambit was to claim that he was using inductive logic when he
concluded that I was being a hypocrite.  I challenged him to provide
the details of that logic that led him to an incorrect conclusion.
Today we find another obscure article (posting it twice didn't help
make it more clear, Jim), titled "Inductive Logic":


More red herrings.  Could Jim mean that he has read an uncountably large
number of my articles?  Could Jim mean that because I "axed" his articles,
but not Weiss' articles, he wants to conclude inductively ...
Well, I can't see where he is going with this.

But I can help him with his induction.  I've written roughly 80
articles since January.  The vast majority of them are discussions with
Frank DeCenso and other inerrantists, where I take the position that
they are making bad arguments.  Some are discussions with Jim Meritt
where I take the position that he is making bad arguments (a straw man
argument earlier, and taking quotes out of context more recently.)

Think hard about this Jim.  See the pattern?  Think harder.  Run it
through your induction engine and see what pops out.  