Your compilation of the evidence omits to mention that I and Aric remember posting direct links to RWP's CV page to ALS. You are oddly credulous that only evos and not ALS could read RWP's CV page, and that he slandered RWP as an impostor from June 8 to yesterday as a result of that inability to notice or read links plainly visible to everyone else.
Alternate reality is key to creo reasoning. Why do creos like to preface their posts with "The elephant in the room that nobody's talking about is ... [DNA, complexity, transitionals, frozen mammoths]?" Nobody can ignore an elephant like a creo. Nobody at all.
Comment: The only way this can be resolved is if RWP accepts the apology. Since he refuses to do, nothing further should be said from the ALS camp. At the point of apology, the weight is transferred IMHO.
There's natural stupidity and there's cultivated stupidity. A highly cultivated response!
Comment: This is religious discrimination and is wrong in every respect (1st Amendment and others). It is the offense which is called “Christian bashing” and will surely continue to incite flame wars.
Insisting on real science in science class and correcting the bad science of people who promulgate it is not "Christian bashing." Criticizing ALS, although he says he is a Christian, is not Christian-bashing in the widely-recognized sense. The bashing of militant creationists in general is not Christian-bashing, even if we ignore the existence of Muslim and Hindu creationists. There are just too many people who think they are Christians who don't attack evolution.
If criticizing ALS in particular is to be accepted as Christian-bashing, then I repeat that he gives Christian-bashing a good name. Such brazen dishonesty should make anyone recoil with horror at being a Christian if he is the unassailable example.
In keeping with the preceding, let's look at where you arrive farther along:
An offer is on the table from the ALS side to stop all flames if the evos will stop bashing Christians (see above complaint.) That is the best solution.
Omitting names, I will post a sample of freepmail opinions on this matter:
Correspondent 1:You can probably guess that I'm in full agreement with the preceding opinions. This ain't gonna play in Peoria, A-G. You're wearing too many funny blinders, and it's a shame. You'll never get them off. You don't want them off. We can only guess the color of the sky on your planet. You're not dealing with half of what's out there in plain sight.
any opposition to a literal interpretation of Genesis is "Christian bashing." Any opposition to "creation science" is "Christian bashing." Any advocacy of evolution is "Christian bashing." Any evolution-oriented thread at all is posted solely for the purpose of "Christian bashing." That's the deal. That's what ALS wants you to accept in exchange for his truce. Just give up your mind to him and all will be well.Correspondent 2:
Under no conditions will I agree to to allowing the anti-science crowd, [names snipped to spare the easily offended] ... etc. to dictate my comments on scientific matters.
Comment: The “who” in the issue is not the point, at least to me, the fact that anybody would actually want a thread pulled is.
Bizzare, the things you miss! If I hadn't been studying the phenomenon for four years now, it would be spooky. I didn't hit "Abuse" to get the thread pulled. I'm rather disgusted that such is all Jim Rob seems willing to do anymore.
The post I flagged has been reproduced by its proud poster here, in the last boxed quote. In the past, hitting "Abuse" on such a post would get the post pulled, and probably the poster. Such would have been a good idea in this case.
The "Abuse" button is now all but useless on crevo threads, unless you actually do intend to disappear the thread and nothing more. That was not known back on the night of June 8th. That's when we started to find out, and it's been bad news.
Comment: We must correct our own mistakes openly. And we should also let a website know if the information they carry is in error and if they refuse to make the correction, to cease relying on that website as a source. Additionally, it is always helpful to check the sources and look for confirmations from other, unrelated and credible websites.
Finally, something totally right! OK, I still use TalkOrigins even though one study cited in one of their articles has been undermined by a later study. I keep hoping they'll update the page in question. Anyone should be able to see the importance of staying square with the known facts. But there wouldn't be this discussion if everyone did.
Comment: There have been many accusations of “liar” coming from both sides. I believe it is time to close the door on all past accusations –– and resolve from this point forward not to call someone a liar unless you have clear proof of the intent to deceive. Most especially, it would be important to not bring forward past accusations.
No one's holding their breath at this point expecting you to notice that ALS's mocking, japing dance spews falsehoods by the hour if not the minute.
I see...if the Christian is meek, acquiescent, and obsequious, THAT sort of Christian is acceptable. But the Christian who is uppity, i.e. assertive, outspoken, probing, and challenging, SHOULD BE bashed. Somehow that doesn't sound ethically equitable...