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: >In t.r.m. Robert Weiss writes [a promise from Psalm 9:10] >Gee, since you wouldn't be at all hypocritical, you must be really >busy arguing against these out-of-context extracted translations!  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: >}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for >}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a >}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?  Jim replied by saying  >Did I either ask or assert that?  But today we find four articles from Jim, one of which has the subject "Silence is concurrence":    m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes: >Is it not the case that, in the eyes of the law, when someone is aware of >something and has the capability of taking action and does not, that individual >may be held responsible for that action?  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":  >Scenario: >A white goose waddles past the door >A white goose waddles past the door >A white goose waddles past the door >...( repeat an uncountably large number of times)... >A black goose waddles past the door.  An individual hits it with an axe. > >1. Given that the population of geese is uncountably large, and the size of the >   confidence interval for the decision is undetermined, under what conditions >   could a decision upon the behavior of the individual towards white geese >   be made? > >2. If ONLY black geese are observed to be axed, is it not a valid question  >   to be concerned with the different behavior between black and white geese?  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.