(May 16, 2012 at 8:50 am)Drich Wrote:(May 16, 2012 at 8:20 am)Epimethean Wrote: You showed zero good evidence that there ever was a distinction that was not demotic or which resisted syncretism. You did nothing to argue other than an appeal to your own cult's ethos, and when you were directed to look at even the concordances you use, you went as flat as an old soda. Here, you are doing the same. The best thing I can say for you, is that you prove christians have no understanding of language, but love to pretend that language exists because of them.
Address anything you like. You never prove a point aside from your own inability to prove a point.
..and you've shown zero ability to comprehend and address the content of my actual post. You had to twist the definition being discussed in order to troll up an excuse for your current rant. If you want to be taken seriously remain on topic. If you have a problem with a previous thread address it in that thread rather than try and hijack someone else's work.
I did address it, and you did nothing. Here, I am addressing your wont for talking language when you have little grasp of it.
But, of course, proceed, by all means. You are a christian, and that gives you carte blanche to speak from ignorance. Hell, it's your whole damned cachet.
Trying to update my sig ...