Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[Final-Fan]

I think it may be rewarding to examine the complete history (or “evolution”, if you will) of this section that has come to be known as “Gibberish”.  I feel it reflects the miscommunication/misunderstanding that has CRIPPLED this debate. 

ME:  “Would it be too much to ask you to take a look at my previous posts (relevant to that point) and take a stab at what you think I did mean (or might have meant)?”

NOTE:  So, here I am clearly asking you whether you are capable of making some kind of intelligent guess at the meaning of my previous posts.*  I also meant to imply by this question that, if the answer was that you could make such a guess, I wanted you to do so. 

*(The purpose of this query, IIRC, was that I felt I had been explaining myself over and over again, with you always saying you didn’t understand what I was saying, and I wanted some ballpark idea of what you THOUGHT I was trying to say, so as to have some insight into how I might be able to start steering you towards understanding what I was ACTUALLY trying to say.  And if you simply could not come up with one, after all this discussion, I felt that it might be better to just walk away rather than talk to uncomprehending ears (without laying any blame).)

YOU:  “I did. I still don’t know what you mean. I’d say it comes off as “gibberish” but I would wonder if I’d be accused of being insulting.”

NOTE:  As you can see, you claim “I did”, but the rest of your answer appears (to me) to imply that you in fact had NO idea what I might have meant (since you were tempted to call it gibberish), which contradicts your initial claim. 

ME:  “One.  I dislike sly sarcasm, at least when it pretends to be innocent.  I find it hard to believe that was subliminal. 
“Two.  If the question is made irrelevant by the above post, please take (Three.) as advice for future reference.
“Three.  You didn't answer the question.  Is it "yes"?  Was it indeed too much to ask?  If so, fine.  If not, take your best damn guess, not just keep on saying LOL WUT.”

NOTE:  This is a very straightforward, albeit harsh, redirection towards the actual question I asked about whether you can formulate any sort of guess as to what I meant by the words I was putting into the post in question.  I did not feel you had conclusively and coherently answered that question.  I stand by that evaluation. 

YOU:  “When I said “I did” that was a “no that’s not too much to ask”. I read them again. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t think I could “take a guess” and be serious about it since I read it as something rather confused. It doesn’t make sense to me and if you’re using the words the way I understand them and explained them, it can’t make sense.
   “Please clarify. (Although this request is now being repeated above I believe). (Getting lost now)”

NOTE:  Here you claim that the following is NOT too much to ask of you:  for you to BOTH look at the post in question AND take a guess about what I meant by the words in my post.  Then you immediately follow this up by claiming the following is INDEED too much to ask of you (in the sense that you are incapable of complying):  for you to take a guess about what I meant by the words in my post. 
     Please tell me how you did not contradict yourself in that post. 

ME: [having reposted some of the above material] “Now, it seems to me that BY YOUR OWN TESTIMONY you have fulfilled the first part of that request (rereading stuff), but failed to fulfill the second part (“taking a stab [AKA guess] at what you think I did mean”), and in fact do not feel able to do it at all.  So it perplexes me that you deny that “it was too much to ask”, since you yourself appear to have said that it was indeed too much to ask.  You did notice the “AND”, right?  (The reasonableness of the request is not a factor in this equation.  That is why I said “If so, fine”:  because it might have been too much to ask.)” 

NOTE:  This post contains essentially the same point as the above Note. 

YOU:  “My own testimony was that I fulfilled the first request to read/look at the posts again and made the attempt to understand them like the second request seemed to clearly ask for. If you were requesting I come back with a result, an interpretation of your writing I felt confident in, I surely admit I failed.
   “The thing is I clearly indicated what I did, how I must have understood your requests, and my inability to find a meaning for what you said. It perplexes me how you could not understand this and go into this tirade of trying to prove that I was implying at the same time, in the same little space that I had fulfilled a request to find a meaning in what you said.
   “It’s as if you’re trying to produce the words “I failed” from me whether or not you understood how I took your requests, by taking the affirmation “I did” to refer to something different from “trying to understand what you meant” as the proceeding explanation also made plain, and whether or not it’s relevant to the progression of the subject.
   “Meanwhile my request for more clarity/explanation, something actually relevant to the argument, seems to have fallen by the wayside.

NOTE:  No note (see Response). 

RESPONSE:  

 

The reason I got so upset is that you kept saying “No” (neither A nor B are too much to ask) when you apparently meant “Yes” (B is too much to ask).  It bothered me greatly that you give me an answer that is diametrically opposed to your true answer (i.e. your meaning).  THIS BOTHERS ME when the entire debate was very complex and technical in places and much could be unhinged by you saying the exact opposite of what you actually were trying to communicate.  

It’s not some desperate urge to claim victory over you however I can possibly get it; it’s deep, deep frustration that you are not telling me your position correctly, and then insisting that I am the misguided one when I point out that you have contradicted yourself. 

And while the original post that this was all referring to may well be relevant to the discussion (although without going back and looking I suspect that we’ve passed it by or supplanted it with later discussion), I think the “Gibberish” discussion itself is very telling. 

I regret, in a way, resurrecting this thread only to suggest that we walk away.  But, aside from discussing “Gibberish”, that is frankly what I recommend, because clear communication is fundamental to any debate and that is precisely what our months-long discussion most desperately lacked. 

P.S.  I do not intend that last remark to assign any blame; though I have my own opinion on that subject and I'm sure you do too, can making a zombie of a zombie of a zombie thread really be a good idea?