"JS" wrote to me:
Attached is my response to part II. At this point, I'm not quite sure where we are headed. Perhaps we've reached the stalemate that the theologians of the Post-Tridentine Church did centuries ago. I'm content to either call it quits after this response, or if there are certain issues you would like to probe further we can continue.
I think the discussion is certainly exhausted. I felt that way already after your response to part I and even more so now. We're simply going round and round, and the subject never did interest me as much as it does you. That being the case, I have spent a ton more time than I usually would with a subject which is low on my list of priorities of things to write about. I can't justify any more, at least not at this point in time.
. . . I'll post this second reply of yours and let you have a very long last word. That's fine with me, because I think the competing theories on this matter are perfectly permissible and respectable. I'm delighted to take up space on my blog (and website for this last section) adding many more of your words because I have no problem with people learning more about the Thomist position on predestination. More power to them (and it).
Thanks for the interaction.
* * * * * *
This time I have posted JS's words on a website paper (because it's a lot easier to transfer: the last one took me about 90 minutes I think - maybe more - just to cut-and-paste).