Guest
A Friend
it drinking stop cant - Cola Coke
I apologize if I somehow caused you to perceive me as attacking anyone but the fact does remain that 1) This thread has nothing to do with coffee, 2) I never mentioned coffee in my post, 3) the Temple serves patrons Diet Caffeine-free Coca-Cola, which is what is being discussed in this thread.
It can only be concluded that my phrase was taken out of context to imply to something which it did not. I never once mentioned coffee nor did I by the choice of my words imply a general scope to my post, in fact my post was quite specifically speaking of soda.
QUOTE |
"Maybe it is because I am a convert to the Church and see things in a different perspective, but even before joining the Church I chose not to drink any soda that had caffiene in it by choice, preferring Sprite or other decaffienated drinks over those with caffiene. " |
Here I set the terminology for my post in regards to decaffienated drinks being soda, and I did so several times.
QUOTE |
"For example, if I noticed that I was spending on average $20.00 a month on soda I would probably consider it a problem, but I have a tendency myself to drink a soda or other drink at least once a week and do so knowing that it has caffiene in it." |
QUOTE |
"I believe the reason the General Authorities have advised against the use of drinks with caffiene in them is because the Lord has inspired them to speak out against any substance which is addictive in nature. " |
Here I speak of the General Authorities speaking out against drinks with caffiene in them because they were addictive in nature, then I preceed to make the following comment making it clear that when I was speaking of these drinks that I was not speaking of the 'Word of Wisdom.'
QUOTE |
"I do not believe this is a violation of the word of Wisdom, nor do I feel that it should be considered a violation. " |
Now if I was referring to coffee in my post there would be no way that I could 'not consider it to be a violation of the Word of Wisdom' My post is implicit, I should not be forced to clarify every statement with the exception to my post. I could do the same with your post by saying the following but it would be inappropriate to do so.
I could have said caffiene-free soda, but that includes decaffienated soda drinks or merely is a different usage of words. Soda drinks which are decaffienated are different then decaffienated or caffiene-free coffee. In fact when we use the words Diet Sprite, Coke, Pepsi, etc we in actuality mean suger-free Sprite, suger free Coke, and sugar free Pepsi. I could just as easily suger-free coke and you would have no other reason but to conclude that I am referring to Diet Coke.
Obviously decaffienated drinks (by your defination those that originally had caffiene in them and then had the caffiene extracted) are caffiene-free, would it be any more clearer if I had said caffiene-free drinks, obviously not because this is obviously coffee. Yet if you believe that decaffienated merely means such an extraction then your intrepretation of my post is clearly in error because it would be obvious that I was referring to only coffee and tea and not soda therefore it would not have been necessary to ask me:
QUOTE |
"What do you mean exactly by decaffienated drinks? (decaf coffee?)" |
Because by your intrepretation I had to mean 'decaf coffee' and not soda since soda doesn't originally have caffiene in it but has it added.
In fact, my whole post would be in error and confusing but it was not, once I used the term soda when referring to decaffienated drinks it would have become obvious to you that I was not using your definition of the word and that I was referring only to decaffinated drinks. It is fallacious to divide my meaning, or to re-intrepret my meaning to imply something it does not. The mere fact that I not once made mention of coffee, but instead made it all to clear that I was referring to soda made it inappropriate for you to ask the question and it was rude to do so.
You refer to my post to you as being rude, I am not the one who attacked you; if in fact if my answer to your question could be considered rude then your question itself is far more of an attack then mine response. I think you need to reassess what you believe to be rude, because surely no one is being rude by responding to a post. If you mean by rude that I am in error then that might make sense but that is not what rude means and certainly is not what harsh means. What you really mean by my being rude is that 'I disagreed with you' In today's society, it is rude for someone to disagree with another person and that is all I did. I merely disagreed with you, and that made you angry and you used such words as rude and harsh to describe my disagreement. I never once attacked you like you did me, so please if anyone should be upset about someone being rude then it is I who should be upset at you, but I don't play that game and am not upset since it is a waste of my time to be upset.
I surely hope you don't go around calling investigators 'rude or harsh' because they have a different understanding of the Bible or of the Gospel. In my opinion you have a chip on your shoulder and anyone disagreeing with you is rude and harsh. Of course I am blunt and I don't deny that, I am not going to use nice words merely to appease you, of course I could have worded my post nicely and wasted everyone's time because no matter what you would have disagreed with me anyways no matter how I worded it. Just like I disagree with your post no matter how blunt you were in calling me rude and harsh.
Please take the time to consider what you are really upset about, is it the way I said what I did, or is it what I said. The answer is all to clear to me that it was what I said and not how I said it.
P.S. Please don't use semantics with investigators, there understanding of the words salvation might be different then yours but that doesn't mean they are wrong and please attempt to understand what they mean by their use of certain words before attacking them and calling them rude and harsh. It accomplishes nothing to play semantics. However you look at it, my statement is in direct relation to this board. Decaffienated (since you don't like this word being used in this manner I will clarify by using caffiene-free to suit you. Now I am probably going to be asked by someone if I mean caffiene-free coffee) soda is sold in the Temple. That is what this board is about, and that is what I said no matter how you look at it. I suggest you stay away from those interested in the gospel if you are going to have that one upmanship attitude with them too.