I am not playing that part at all. I find it utterly laughable that someone would even suggest it. There is no malicious intent, and I have no serious problem. You say it is useless to engage me, and yet you keep coming back. Perhaps it is you with a serious problem. Your “calling me out” is foolish. It is transparently personal and off topic. Why not just stop?

You brought yourself into it, not me. So don’t play the victim. If you don’t want to be “in it” (whatever that means) then feel free not to comment. As you know, I try to give the respect of a response to those who respond to me and I always try to do it respectfully and truthfully.

I am not a “Poor Poor Persecuted Innocent.”

You say that and then proceed to play the part. There is either malicious intent behind what you do here, or you have a serious problem, or both. Engaging you beyond a certain level is useless because it seems to feed a need you have to manipulate and dominate, a game I’m not going to play. I will, however, call you out for trying if it seems appropriate.

As I said, you are welcome to make the statement, but leave me out of it.

As you know, I didn’t shift the blame at all. I put it squarely where it belongs.

Tell me this: Why do you and David seem so obsessed with me? Isn’t that odd to you?

I am not a “Poor Poor Persecuted Innocent.” It makes me laugh to see (what I presume) are two grown men who have this obsession with a person they disagree with and consistently have no reasonable response or interaction aside from personal attacks. Notice how you have contributed nothing to this discussion other than a silly and obviously wrong personal attack. At least David tried to engage on the issue before resorting to a personal attack.

Get over yourself. If you don’t like me, I am fine with that. But why not just leave me alone?

Remember, nothing here was addressed to you. You didn’t leave yourself out of it. You, as in the past, seem obsessed with me and unable to simply walk away. But you know that I don’t misrepresent anyone and have readily corrected and apologized when I have misunderstood.

Once again you are trying to take this down a rabbit hole and I won’t be a part of it.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Good lord, Headless Unicorn Guy is right, you do accuse others of your own offenses. I mean, damn, how spot on. Truly, you could be president in these perverse times of up is down and down is up.

Regardless of what value you put on those particular “honors,” by convention, they should both be listed as honorary, i.e. Hon. Litt.D. or Hon. D.D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_honorary_degrees

You are welcome to make the statement, but leave me out of it.

I agree with most of that. But that doesn’t make it necessary, nor does it make it misleading. A “D.D.” by definition is honorary. And most people outside of academia don’t care. You can tell by the great number of conversations that are going on elsewhere. They don’t know the difference between a PhD, an MD, a DO, an EdD, or anything else. And they don’t really care.

However, I still wonder why you misrepresented me, and why you are willing to let it go unchanged and unaddressed. Is it really no big deal to you? You are pretty hot on the ethics bandwagon against people, and I agree with almost all of it. But this seems a gap to me. If ethics are all that big of a deal to you, then it seems the most fundamental of ethics in conversation is to represent the other person as they would represent themselves.

Well, yes, really. Honorary doctorates are not worthless. They are given to honor people. There is no academic misrepresentation. It isn’t academic at all.

And “avoiding the appearance of evil” in Scripture has nothing to do with appearance, but with actuality. It doesn’t take a doctorate to know that.

Once again you are trying to take this down a rabbit hole and I won’t be a part of it.