Oh, but one more quick note that I think Rowan will appreciate, you'll notice that James quoted this:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of HIS name."
Oops. 
Nice catch, Chris.
I saw this guy's false accusation and was initially inclined to challenge him on it, but then I worried that I might be tempted into a fleshly reaction (and say something that
would have been snarky), so I decided to sleep on it. By the time I logged back into the forum, I had a good idea of what I wanted to say in response, but you and Ellie had everything well covered, and I didn't see the need to add anything else. But thank you guys for all that you said. I certainly hadn't intended anything snarky. All I was aiming to do was engage in a discussion in good faith. And I was open to the possibility that his claim about "Hitherto is the end of the matter" referring to the end times might have something in it, even though I considered it unlikely. So that's why I worded that question as I did - nothing more to it than that. And as Ellie pointed out, the reason his own similar question was snarky was because it constituted snide mockery. I wasn't mocking him - disagreeing, certainly, but not mocking - but he was mocking me (and I guess mocking Ellie a bit as well).
A few quick additional thoughts: as I think Chris alluded to in an earlier post, this gentleman (who possibly took his user name from the 11th President of the United States) clearly came here with an agenda. That agenda was to push his "beast is a system" doctrine. So he gave a cursory introduction and then got on with what he was really setting out to do. He was on some sort of bandwagon with it. And he wanted us to jump on the bandwagon with him. When we wouldn't do that, he got angry, because his pride had been wounded. Hence all his angry false accusations. One other observation is that when he accused me of snark, he also threatened to leave. However, it is clear from his subsequent actions that this threat was a pure bluff. He had no intention of leaving (and indeed didn't until he was banned). It was just a guilt-trip tactic. I have seen such a tactic used many times before. Usually the person doing it is trying to force an apology or control you some other way. The best way to counter such a tactic is call their bluff - or in this case, give such a person what they want.
