More commentary, A-Girl (I fear this project you have bravely undertaken may be tricker than the Middle-East "Peace Process"):
Some of us have been here for years. Some of our disputes go back a long way. I'm aware of one freeper on the creationist side who has a history of posting erronious material and then never admitting it and never correcting his positions. Often, he will post the same declarations again, notwithstanding clear and unambiguous evidence that he is in error. There's no way to stop that, of course. But a response to such conduct is natural. It's not uncommon for his past transgressions to be mentioned -- often in a jocular way.
So my question: I don't mind forgetting about past unpleasantness, and past insults. Life is too short to dwell on such matters. But what do you think should be done with unadmitted factual errors? It goes to a person's credibility. We live on our track record here. We can't start each thread with a clean slate.
I think most factual errors can be dealt with as they come up. I tend to agree that we should deal with errors as they come instead of saying, "This is just as stupid as the time you said xyz." I have the urge to do this, but it just isn't productive.
I make an exception, however when someone repeats an error. In such a case I think it is reasonable to call attention to a continuing history of making that same error. But the exposure of this history should be factual, and be backed up by examples, rather than just a blanket claim of stupidity.
As I have just posted, I think there is sometimes a need to bring back old predictions in the light of new evidence. This has nothing to do with errors; it is just how science works. Make a prediction; live with the data.
I find your statement of this to be incredulous, considering what you have attempted to do to me, without any remorse or admission on your part.
You are incredibly, maybe totally, one sided.