It looks like I’m going to have to spell this out after all. I really resent having to take this much time, & I am appalled that there are adults w such a piddle poor grasp of logic that they can’t figure it out on their own. Nevertheless, here we go.
In a discussion, there are four general possibilities:
(1) you can agree w me & do so in an honest, minimally courteous way.
(1) you can agree w me & do so in a dishonest & discourteous way.
(3) you can disagree w me & do so in an honest, minimally courteous way.
(4) you can disagree w me & do so in a dishonest & discourteous—in some cases even obnoxious—way.
Why should I have to make such a basic point of logic in an adult setting? It’s ludicrous that some people can’t figure this out on their own. Maybe only evolutionists have this problem?
For the record, I encountered evolutionists who exhibited wholesale dishonesty & gratuitous obnoxiousness. This had nothing to do w whether they agreed w me or not. It had everything to do w dishonesty & obnoxiousness as stand-alone categories.
Sorry, but the only "wholesale dishonesty and gratutious obnoxiousness" I've seen on these threads came from Fantasywriter's personal attacks on FReepers who disagree.
I have named three of those posters: myself, Swing_Ladder and goodusername, and posted links to some of those attacks, for example, here.
The key and astonishing element is: through all of dozens of posts, no other topic seems to interest Fantasywriter.
So I say: Fantasywriter apparently has little interest in discussing the pros & cons of dinosaurs or evolution, but a passionate obsession with impeaching those who disagree.
Can these be anything other than Alinsky Rules? So we have to ask, why?