Twas neither. Less you have cameras in my lab and where observing my behavior, you'd actually not be able to know. Other than going off the written word, which is sometimes hard to portray emotion through.
Then you would have clearly seen the note in which I said the behavior is found on the individual level. Which, of course, means that I don't claim it to not exist; it's just not reflective of the whole.
You are bing insulting again.
I am not, I am merely asking that one exercise diligence. That's not an insult, it's a request. Had I been obtuse, or had used improper grammar or rhetoric I can understand mistakes. It's not a universal. However, that which is in question was unambiguously written down. It was in fact the second time in this thread alone you had misconstrued and misrepresented what I wrote. The first being when you claimed I was trying to equate Christianity with slavery. In fact, the second post you misconstrued was a clarification to the first one in which I was unequivocally stating that I was in no way blaming Christianity for slavery (
Arguing, as you just did, that the presence of Christianity = the presence of slavery is contradictory logic.
as reference). Thus seeing two "misconstruings" (which is a word I just made up) in as many posts, I naturally concluded that you were not clearly reading what I was writing.
You just accused me of deliberately misrepresenting your argument; being dishonest.
It seems hard that it was any other way, especially if (as you claim) you read every word I had written.
Please stop and consider the possibility that someone may simply misunderstand your point. I suggest that when you see someone in accurately reflect your argument, that you guide them to an accurate view and display a fair measure of tolerance before accusing them of deliberate misrepresentation.
I had considered it well. I am not without fault and oft have written things in a confusing manner. However, that was not one of those times. And considering the previous misunderstanding which I had to correct, following immediately with another misunderstanding seemed a bit suspect. As if you were rushing through what I said without reading so that you could argue against a point that in reality I hadn't made. If I write in a confusing manner and one misconstrues it; I go back to clarify my argument. If someone makes subsequent mistakes, the aggregate of the folly starts to look purposeful or at the very least very careless.
I suppose I should give you time and space to practice your communication skills before attempting to have this discussion with you further. You insults only shut down communications, which is when the punishable flame begins.
Wait...is that an insult. The thing you were just complaining about? Except that mine were requests to be more careful and quit misrepresenting what I say. Where as yours is more a direct attack. That's ok, I can dish and take. I'll just give you time and space to practice your reading skills before attempting to have this discussion with you further.
HAHA! You can't complain about that one, it was just as you dished out.