So that means that none of what he's posted was posted. From your post 488 to this thread:
That, my dear, would be a fool's errand. For the "opposition" — doctrinaire Darwinists — evidently has no case. At least not one that they have systematically presented here. At least, not so far. It's just been piles and piles of "rant" and debating "'tricks" so far....
Or is the out that his posts weren't "systematic" enough?
Since that "blow-up," I tend not to read Ich anymore. This was a few years back, and so I have to conjure those experiences from memory. But to the best of my recollection, I can't say I understand what Ich actually thinks. Usually he would post a raft of links, and direct us to go do our homework. And then evidently, we were supposed to just magically "see the light!!!"
I just don't think that's a very useful debating technique. I want to hear from him, not from his "expert list."