that's exactly my point. but the argument was hypothetical...by mennonite (no login)
basically (correct me greenman) greenman was saying that the rules of the jehovah's witnesses bar him from disagreeing with them.
i went on to imply that such a rule made it impossible to individuly verify "read: confirm" scripture in the first place.
but we weren't talking about something he did.
we were talking about something he can't do, that he *seems* to imply he can do... but he can't openly disagree with them.
again, he is agreeing with them (michael is agreeing with what he's taught) every bit of the way. that wasn't what we were taking issue with. it was hypothetical, hte idea him going against what they say the bible says.
and i think someone was saying that he's "in trouble" for implying that there are no real restrictions, even though there are, but i was actually saying that in a twisted sort of way, michael is right... he's sort of unrestricted there to himself, but to us he isn't free there.
and the only purpose of all that debate was simply the purpose of any debate... to try and eek out an understanding, more an understanding of our side of it, but also some common ground was found. the part about him going against what he's taught was a "what if" kind of thing and certainly nothing anyone was accusing him of doing. yep. i think we're mostly on the same page here, but it can get confusing.
Newbies usually go to www.qbasic.com and click on
The QBasic Forum
Forum regulars have their own ways, which include The QBasic Community Forums