==I take exception to your characterization of this stand as “backing away” multiple times from a debate.
Your exception is duly noted. I will once again try to get the wheels of progress turning on the AIDS debate. And if you are still game to engage where we left off on the “codes upon codes” debate, in addition to whatever I might have to say on the matter, I would be happy to look for a Creation/ID scientist to engage you on that topic as well.
Olive Branch: For some reason, the bitter taste emanating from the tail-end of our previous exchanges “many moons ago” still lingers. I actually enjoyed our banter when our paths first crossed. But all that changed when the DC crowd jumped in. We both became different people when that happened. That’s the way I see it anyway.
I was left with a rather favorable impression of our past exchanges, which made your coming onto this thread both barrels blazing in my direction a bit curious to me. I guess that particular exchange did end with me taking exception to you wanting to see Scientists frog marched off to prison and you taking exception to my characterization of the AIDS deniers being granola eating anti-corporate coffee enema having Luddites.
But what is that little disagreement between FRiends?
Anyway I tend to remember our previous exchanges which were more civil and dealt with the Science of ERV’s and pseudogenes; rather than what I would characterize as the “wild eyed conspiracy theories” about HIV Scientists being in collusion with drug companies to make people sick taking “unnecessary” anti-retroviral medications and the need to “frog march” Scientists off to prison.
Hopefully we can keep this more of the latter and less of the former; however I am not encouraged that the last one who agreed to “debate” your “Pedigreed” Scientist is no longer on speaking terms with you by decree of the Moderators.