Replies

As if Darwinists wish to rationally discuss things.

We do. Check out my next post in this thread, for example -- or most of the ones you played games with earlier in this thread. Unfortunately, creationists devolve into red herrings, side issues, childish insults (e.g. ALS), and cutesy cartoons (e.g. Dataman *and* ALS) in an attempt to drive away lurkers who might actually learn something if the topic had stayed on track. It's a childish tactic, but unfortunately it works rather well.

I still have an evolved cubic function circuit that has been left abandoned after being touted as the patent-killer circuit of the millenium.

This is, of course, a remarkably dishonest description of that discussion. But then, I have come to expect such of you, which is why I waste little time on you anymore.

The final straw was when you developed a one-note runaround based on your own self-contradictory statements about whether transistors could or could not be considered as back-to-back diodes, which was your successful attempt to drag the discussion so far away from the original article under discussion that the original points fell by the wayside. Red herrings and trollish diversions and taunts are your personal speciality.

And every time someone tried to pin you down on a specific meaning of your transistor/diode statements, you jumped to another. I finally gave up on you entirely when I presented substantial documenation of the point you called me a "liar" over, *and* presented you with a clear, specific question which would help bring that subtopic back to a point where we could agree or disagree on basic principles in order to establish common ground and/or determine where we differ. You chose to ignore the question (as I predicted you would) and responded with simply a nitpick about one of the dozen-plus sources I cited, a general semantic obfuscation of the discussion which had preceded, and a cheap dismissal ("Blather on, you are not getting anywhere.")

Your glaring avoidance of answering a clear, simple question made your evasiveness obvious to all, and I felt that you had torpedoed your "I want to discuss things honestly, really I do" pretense so thoroughly and obviously that I need waste no more time on dealing with your dancing -- everyone has seen it for what it is.

At that point you made quite clear that you were more interested in dodging and playing word games than you were in *any* kind of head-on tackling of the subjects being discussed.

That question again:

Let's cut to the chase and see how fast you try to shift topics again, lest you be nailed down for a change. Is the following an accurate representation of a semiconductor diode, yes or no:
After we've settled *that* question we can move on to the next.

That's as clear an invitation to "rationally discuss things" as could be made. It was directed specifically to you. And yet, despite your pretenses to wish to do so, you RAN AWAY from the invitation, AS I PREDICTED YOU WOULD when I said we would "see how fast you try to shift topics again lest you be nailed down for a change".

You could have proven me wrong by simply dealing with the question head-on. Instead, you ran away and played your semantic red-herring game again.

You're a fraud. You're *not* interested in direct discussion. Game, set, and match.

And no, I'm no longer interested in a belated answer from you. You blew your chance. Even if you now try to salvage your own self-destruction by dealing with it at this late date, you'd just duck the *next* step in the transistor/diode walkthrough I had prepared for you.

So go back to flinging empty insults like you have over the past several hundred posts, now that no one's taking you seriously and even trying to engage you in discussion anymore. You dug the hole where you're relegated to a dishonest dodger, now lie in it.

Your renewal of the red herring will still not succeed. It is clear that you are out and out lying in the following statement The final straw was when you developed a one-note runaround based on your own self-contradictory statements about whether transistors could or could not be considered as back-to-back diodes,

I was perfectly clear ---I know circuit design shortcuts. I know that you can use a transistor as a diode in a pinch. After all, it "consists" of back-to-back diodes in a sense. You see I was the one that brought up the back-to-back. Now to create a red herring this is how you responded Trollish Behavior #9: Not only "in a sense", Troll, but in actuality. Stop squirming, Troll. I called you on that characterization and you haggled on for a while until you stated this A transistor is "back-to-back diodes" in the sense of its internal construction at the semi-conductor level. . What a hypocrite.

Now I continue to refuse to follow your red herring and you continue to wave them. It won't work. My point has been proven on the transistor. Now are you still going to build that circuit to get real data? Or are you going to continue to rant on? In any case, I have at least given indication that I look at things since I have described somewhat of the capabilities of one of the evolved circuits(the one we have some information on). What the heck have you done except call names and obfuscate?

attempt to drive away lurkers who might actually learn something if the topic had stayed on track. It's a childish tactic, but unfortunately it works rather well.

They have learned something. Unfortunately it doesn't reflect well on your holy theory. If you evos think the tactics are childish, quit using them. I find it intensely queer how most on your side moan about your own practices. ALS claims it's projection and it may well be. Perhaps you are influenced by the political party that has made an art out projecting their own crimes on the opposition.