Qaran

Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
It is amusing to see you get all upset over the inconsequential. Ignorant is a state of not knowing. It too, is neutral and the etymology is based on the Latin ignoro which simply means 'I don't know'.
But that is not entirely what you said, now, was it?

You said people get insulted out of ignorance.

So, you are offering evidence and leaving it up to me to find it?

And around we go again. You missed the part where it stated 'in use since'.
Yes, it was used in samuel rogers' diary. That's what 'in use since' means.

I don't have to as I'm not the one having so much trouble with this.
You're the one calling everyone a liar instead of yourself.

The 'Chi-Rho' is the subject in this sentence, not 'Xian' or 'Xtian'. Your poor comprehension is astounding!
Precisely! The correct abbreviation is xp, not x -- which is what I've been telling you all along. Just because the early christians used xp doesn't mean x is an appropriate abbreviation right now, does it?

duh?

Convenient.

Utter nonsense. Your comprhension is appalling.
So you say.

The 'Chi-Rho' is the subject of the sentence, not 'Xian' or 'Xtian'. How can you be this dense? The early Christians used the 'Chi-Rho' ~ do you get this now?
According to you, xian is in common usage because of the chi-rho. I don't know why you're having so much trouble with what you yourself said.

It was merely an aside as we were learning Latin until Vatican II. I thought that might be interesting.
Yes, I am aware of this.

Only if you are ignorant of the etymology.
But you already posted the etymology -- that x is a derogation 'within certain contexts'. And the context of your post leads any sensible individual to conclude that it is a derogation.

But I haven't scanned an published my papers on this forum, therefore I have not employed the term on this forum. Do you read or comprehension, or simply to be an ass?

D'uh?
Sigh.

Are you even aware of the lies you're posting here? You admitted in this forum that you use the term to footnote your papers. Therefore you have not only used the term in this forum, you are trying to legitimize its common usage in this forum.

Who exactly is the ass around here, I wonder?

Goal post shift noted. 'Ignorant' simply means 'a state of not knowing'.
According to you, being offended = ignorance. Anyone with rudimentary logic would know that is false. No ancient history required.

duh?

How about your fabrications and straw man arguments?
I have said nothing that is not based on facts and logic.

Yes, but as I've stated repeatedly and which you continually choose to ignore, the link started 'in use since that time' [para.].
So, the link has no bearing as to common usage -- only that it was used since that time. Since you were trying to prove common usage, what the hell was the link for?

duh?

Oh dear. There's that comprehension problem of yours again.

Irrelevant, as it is not a pejorative
But you already admitted it is a pejorative in certain contexts.

it is simply an abbreviation and I do not understand your problem with it.
Yes, an abbreviation that christians don't use to refer to themselves.

I believe I've already posted material in support of the neutral claim and it is the choice of the reader to take offence and not an implication of the term. How many times will we go over the same thing?
That was the point of the link I provided -- to educate you on the nature of derogation.

Derogation has expressive autonomy -- meaning it is independent of the speaker's attitude. That you did not intend to use the derogation as such does not diminish its effect. Neither is common usage. After all, part of the derogatory effects of words come from its common usage.

Understand?

'Sometimes' and 'Seem' being the key words here.
It is not derogatory because of appropriation -- that christians use the word to refer to themselves. But christians don't use it to refer to themselves -- at least not formally.

Do keep up.

And again, the 'Chi-Rho' is the subject of that passage, not 'Xian' or 'Xtian'. How hard is this? It was later abbreviated by scholars to simply 'X'. They could have used the abbreviation PXian, but they didn't.
Which scholars abbreviated the chi-rho to simply x? Samuel rogers in in his diary?

duh?
 
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
That doesn't answer my question.

D'uh?
Of course it does.

Of course its origins lie in the 'Chi-Rho'. How ridiculous to claim otherwise.
Sorry, but as far as you can prove, its origin lies in samuel rogers' diary.

Now you're just making up stories.
Nonsense. I am only replying to what you claim here.

Yes, but I don't employ the term 'Xian', so no-one has taken offence Mr. Straw Man.
But you just admitted to using the term as footnote to your scholarly paper.

But I don't employ the term on this site in conversation. Are you really going to flog this straw man again?
But you just admitted to me, on this site in conversation, that you use the term as footnote to your scholarly paper.

Indeed, round and round and round with your stupid and shifting accusations and claims.

Some honesty in debate on your part would be a welcome change.
Yes, it would be a welcome change.

When you briefly flicked through 'Philosophy For Dummies', did you miss the section on Logic?

That's funny coming from someone with a degree in ancient history to another with a degree in engineering.

Keep dreaming.

My usage of the term in question and people complaining about it. I don't use it on this site in exchanges,
But you did use it on this site in exchanges. More than that, you want us to believe that it is in common usage fit for footnote in a scholarly paper.

so you invented the objections in the plural.
I have read people object to the word in other threads in this forum. I didn't invent these objections.

I would have thought that would be easy enough to follow.
My thought exactly. And yet, you're objections meander hopelessly to the irrelevant.
 
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
But I haven't published papers on this site Mr. Straw Man,
Irrelevant.

Besides, posting your paper on this site is meaningless, as far as publication of a scholarly paper is concerned.

duh?

so I haven't employed the term in exchanges, as you so dishonestly suggested, so no-one has taken offence, nor has anyone voiced any objections to me personally (apart from you and you appear to be quite irrational). Your goal post shifting is rather obvious.
But you have used the term in your exchanges with me to somehow prove that it's use is valid even within a scholarly context.

What the hell are you lying about now?
 
Dec 2014
13,346
10,794
NWOHQ
But that is not entirely what you said, now, was it?

You said people get insulted out of ignorance



So, you are offering evidence and leaving it up to me to find it?



Yes, it was used in samuel rogers' diary. That's what 'in use since' means.



You're the one calling everyone a liar instead of yourself.



Precisely! The correct abbreviation is xp, not x -- which is what I've been telling you all along. Just because the early christians used xp doesn't mean x is an appropriate abbreviation right now, does it?

duh?



Convenient.



So you say.



According to you, xian is in common usage because of the chi-rho. I don't know why you're having so much trouble with what you yourself said.



Yes, I am aware of this.



But you already posted the etymology -- that x is a derogation 'within certain contexts'. And the context of your post leads any sensible individual to conclude that it is a derogation.



Sigh.

Are you even aware of the lies you're posting here? You admitted in this forum that you use the term to footnote your papers. Therefore you have not only used the term in this forum, you are trying to legitimize its common usage in this forum.

Who exactly is the ass around here, I wonder?



According to you, being offended = ignorance. Anyone with rudimentary logic would know that is false. No ancient history required.

duh?



I have said nothing that is not based on facts and logic.



So, the link has no bearing as to common usage -- only that it was used since that time. Since you were trying to prove common usage, what the hell was the link for?

duh?



But you already admitted it is a pejorative in certain contexts.



Yes, an abbreviation that christians don't use to refer to themselves.



That was the point of the link I provided -- to educate you on the nature of derogation.

Derogation has expressive autonomy -- meaning it is independent of the speaker's attitude. That you did not intend to use the derogation as such does not diminish its effect. Neither is common usage. After all, part of the derogatory effects of words come from its common usage.

Understand?



It is not derogatory because of appropriation -- that christians use the word to refer to themselves. But christians don't use it to refer to themselves -- at least not formally.

Do keep up.



Which scholars abbreviated the chi-rho to simply x? Samuel rogers in in his diary?

duh?

Not this silliness again. Seriously, you are quite erratic and I can't be bothered with your irrational nonsense any longer. You'd argue black was white and confuse the issue with all the warm & cool greys.

Are you simply trolling, or do you have some issues? I ask this in all honesty.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
Dec 2014
13,346
10,794
NWOHQ
Irrelevant.

Besides, posting your paper on this site is meaningless, as far as publication of a scholarly paper is concerned.

duh?



But you have used the term in your exchanges with me to somehow prove that it's use is valid even within a scholarly context.

What the hell are you lying about now?
I have indulged your erroneous interpretations, your straw man arguments, your poor comprehension, your irrational conclusions, your illogical assumptions and your blatant dishonesty long enough. You are now just trolling me, aren't you?
 
Last edited:
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
Dec 2014
13,346
10,794
NWOHQ
Of course it does.



Sorry, but as far as you can prove, its origin lies in samuel rogers' diary.



Nonsense. I am only replying to what you claim here.



But you just admitted to using the term as footnote to your scholarly paper.




But you just admitted to me, on this site in conversation, that you use the term as footnote to your scholarly paper.



Yes, it would be a welcome change.

And more irrational noise from someone who cannot grasp the simplest of concepts. Seriously, there is something wrong with you in the way you deliberately misinterpret and distort simple sentences. Just go away, as indulging your irrational responses has become quite tedious and I truly question your motives and mental state.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Ian Jeffrey