You can parse this thing with semantics lingo and arguments all you want, but it boils down to you saying this: “I will admit it when I’m wrong”.
Are you related to this guy?:
Who wouldn’t say “I will admit it when I’m wrong.”?
Your long winded mental gymnastics (which is probably what qix was referring to when he said “yogi level contortions”) have carried us around the barn, only to drop us off at: “I will admit it when I’m wrong.”
Seriously, the distillation of your explanation?: The simple sentence above.
(Speaking of long winded, I’m frequently a bag of hot air myself.)
Now on your comments about “internalizing” . . . Copernicus/Galileo, for example, could have been characterized as internalizing their views on a heliocentric solar system.
The Pope certainly looked on them as internalizing their views.
But later it was recognized that they just had the courage of their convictions.
Sticking to your guns can sometimes be seen as internalizing.
Dave, to me, has the courage of his convictions. To you, he’s internalizing.
You proved . . . nothing. Your arguments are unconvincing.
So you are saying that PD will not admit it when he’s wrong. I disagree, and here’s an example why:
We just flat out disagree on that one.
Now I can’t speak for PD . . . he’s perfectly capable of speaking for himself, but your position on him internalizing is unconvincing.
The “members of this forum” are predominantly conservative, and you are not. They are unconvinced by your arguments (and so also am I), and you perceive that as internalizing. We are conservative . . . what do you expect?
It’s as if you are saying, “Geeezz, my arguments are convincing . . . they must be internalizing.”
Perhaps YOU are the one who is internalizing.
My tribe thinks you are internalizing, and your tribe thinks my tribe is internalizing.
Your tribe speaks Romulan, and my tribe speaks Klingon.
Change gears . . .
Regarding Franken: I would characterize him as an amateur perv, as opposed to an intermediate or advanced perv. But a perv is a perv.