The Kernel (John Salvis) has not hidden the fact that he has a reading disability. Nor does he apologize for it. He actually expresses a sense of pride in learning how to overcome this limitation by learning how to learn in other ways - including learning to listen to the quiet and small voice within.
For some unexplained reason the most verbose Christian on this site has decided to pick on the Kernel's reading problem as if it was a self exposed sore that he can now rub raw.
The Kernel says this kind of insensitive rhetoric not only has no place on this site, it has no business coming from a self professed Christian.
Jeff, it is a demeaning insult to both James and The Kernel when you say:
"James, are you taking reading lessons from out most infamous non-reader. I said earlier that it had effectively given me a very solid testimony as a person who sticks to the truth under pressure. A reputation for honesty is hard to come by. There are a lot of people who aren't used to Christians walking the walk so I gained some credibility there too."
Jeff, all your link says is:
Along with the royal we, you will find its compliment in plural pronouns. These include our, ours, and us. When a monarch is spoken of in third person, however, he or she is usually not referred to as they, or them. The form “your majesty, is more common than our majesty, unless the speaker is representing more than one speaker.
You use of "The Royal Third Person", even when taken withing this obscure context is pretty meaning less to say the least. But Jeff you do this all the time. You say say things that don't make sense then when asked what you mean, you point to some obscure piece of information.
So tell us Jeff, what were you trying to say when you referred to, "the royal third person", rather than something that everyone would understand - like, "the royal we".
in all your blather you forgot to say I was right, which I was. Wiki has information on it to.
still you can't understand normal thinking.
Khem... you must be so proud that he is one of yours!
actually Cananda has a different kind of freedom. In Canada, flaky cults find a home cause your not allowed to criticize them. (except Islam can talk trash about anybody cause the people in government are afraid of them).
That might be true, but I live in Canada, not Cananda. And as for so-called freedom of religion in the U.S., I've got two words for you: David Koresh. And here's two more: Ruby Ridge.
Don't be such a naive doofus.
Sorry for the typo :-)
I'm not naive enough to think we're perfect. We're just the original in the modern era, and the standard for the world, that's all.
Neither of those were issues of religious freedom as much as their were issues of armed militia. Neither of them were handled well.