dreolin
Rookie
- Nov 19, 2013
- 647
- 77
"Only a dishonest person would leave out the remainder of what follows after "Those who professed belief in a divine revelationChristians and Jews in particularwere given special consideration. They could either". "
Thus it is apodictic that 'dreolin' is a dishonest person as 'dreolin' *also* left out the remainder.
I offered an opinion and was under no obligation to provide the information that Mojo2 failed to provide in a what was definition, which was dishonest on his or her part. If anyone is being apodictic, it is Mojo2 for defining Jihad with that incomplete definition and presenting it as fact.
Nope, Mojo's post doesn't qualify for correct usage of that word. The only example of same was in the one post by 'dreolin' as noted.
Since I apparently need to explain further: 'dreolin' gave a definition of what a 'dishonest' person would do - and in that post *'dreolin' satisfied the definition which 'dreolin' had given (by omitting as noted)for 'a dishonest person'*.
What i gave was an opinion that required no definition. What Mojo2 gave was an impartial definition which was deliberately misleading and was dishonest, in my OPINION.
Shall we move on to "nit pickers" or "silliness" or will you allow me to just decline to discuss whether a boycott of Israel by non-Muslims is somehow an act of Jihad. You seem to have very little or no problem with "honest" statement.