The Debate that never was!

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:04 am

The Debate that never was!

http://tartantalk.yuku.com/topic/436/master/1/

Post by **_Steve** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:18 am

Meaning????

Post by **_TK** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:23 am

i have to admit that the meaning is lost on me, too. presumably the non-calvinist didnt show.

this is the first i heard james white. he sounds like Tom Arnold. not that there's anything wrong with that.

TK

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:52 am

So whats your entire point Mark?

Post by **__id_1887** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:32 pm

Come on Mark. It is 3:30 am in Sydney. Wake up you slacker.

Post by **__id_1512** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:44 pm

i have to admit that the meaning is lost on me, too. presumably the non-calvinist didnt show.

Yeah, that's what it sounds like to me, too. If so, it's an odd assumption to make without knowing behind-the-scenes details. You could as easily assume the Calvinist didn't show. This kind of thing can fall through because one side chickens out, or one side makes unreasonable demands, or both have reasonable but conflicting ideas about the way it should go, or for no particular reason at all.

For myself, it doesn't seem particularly odd that the debate hasn't happened yet (assuming it's still in the works). It can take time to set something like that up, work out the details, figure out a time that works for all parties, etc. Especially between two men with active ministries. And maybe the idea just fell by the wayside for both men due to higher-priority concerns; maybe the preparations stalled, but will continue.

I do hope it's still on the table.

Post by **_TK** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:33 pm

Jugulum wrote:

If so, it's an odd assumption to make without knowing behind-the-scenes details. You could as easily assume the Calvinist didn't show.

come now; mark would not have posted this if Mr White was the no-show.

TK

Post by **__id_1512** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:23 pm

TK wrote:
If so, it's an odd assumption to make without knowing behind-the-scenes details. You could as easily assume the Calvinist didn't show.
come now; mark would not have posted this if Mr White was the no-show.

TK

He wouldn't have posted it if that was his understanding of what has happened, no. My point was, we don't know that Steve didn't show, or that James didn't show. As far as I can tell, we just know that there hasn't been a debate yet. I don't see why anyone should start talking about anyone being a no-show.

I really have no clue what's going on with the debate. And if Mark was just going by the fact that there hasn't been a debate yet...then I don't see why he should assume that Steve didn't show.

But that might not have been Mark's meaning. Maybe he was just lamenting the fact that it hasn't happened yet. So, I'll just wait for Mark to explain his post.

Post by **_Derek** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:44 pm

I think Mark was only talking about the Caner brothers thing there. At least that's what the link was about.

Post by **_TK** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:38 pm

i agree derek--

the implication of mark's post is, however, that if Steve "doesnt show" for this debate in the future, that he will get similar treatment. that doesnt sit well with me.

TK