Hi John, enjoyed reading your post, but see below.
"John H." <johnh at faraway.> wrote in message
news:3ffabdb8 at dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Perhaps I misunderstood you, you were
> going after KP Collins. Let me assure you,
> he is completely immune to criticism, he will
> always stand on what he posts, and I can't
> recall an instance where he has demonstrated
> a change of position, an evolution of his
> thinking. He does tend to be rather annoying
> in that regard so perhaps you were falling prey
> to the same frustration that I have previously
> experienced with him. My advice is don't bother,
> Ken will never change. Ironically he is an excellent
> example of the point I am making here. As you
> are a psychiatrist, please advise on the same.
> Ken displays 3 distinct characteristics:
I write a lot because I'm trying to find something
that will elicit a response.
When something doesn't achieve that end, I try
Me thinks the problem is actually 'hypographia' :-]
> delusions of grandeur
I just did the work, John.
And what's in the work is Significant.
I write with respect to Jesus, Forthrightly, because
I know, first-hand, what giving-all, but being 'denied'
As I'm 'outraged' by what's happened to me, I'm
'outraged' by what happened to Jesus.
And, damn, John, it's 'just' Truth.
Why not challenge me with respect to the particulars
I've discussed, if your view is that it's anything other
And, as I've explained in the past, I invoke 'standing
on what I've posted' with respect to situations in which
someone 'asks' a question that'd require me to reiterate
too much of what I've already discussed.
I'm writing for folks who've been reading all along, and
I just can't reiterate everything that's been discussed
whenever someone asks me to. Besides, the fundamentals
are all adequately stated in AoK, which I send out, gratis.
So, I stand on what I've posted.
[Only kidding :-]
ken [k. p. collins]