[Mamzelle]

re: Not in a scientific context it won't.)))

This is not a scientific context, and there're precious few scientists involved in this online discussion forum--what scientists I have known are not bossy, obsessive internet nags carrying water for a sneaky, cowardly overlord.

You can carp and squawk and be condescending, but you're still the equal of any other freeper and can't force others to bow to terms that you'd like to set. No white coat halos for evos.

[b_sharp]

In case you missed my point.

The anti-evolutionists on this forum use a broad dictionary definition of 'theory' 'evolution' and a number of other terms that normally have narrow meaning in the sciences. They use these definitions simply as a means to make a point in the debate about science. See the connection? We are discussing science, therefore the terms used need to be used in their scientific contexts and with their scientific meaning. Any other use is at best uninformed and at worst dishonest.

I am not being bossy, nor an obsessive Internet hag by insisting that the antievolutionists at least pretend to honesty in the debate. If they insist on playing semantic games then it is no longer a debate but a free for all BS session.

[b_sharp]

"toadying to the GM?

I just noticed your tagline. Quite stupid.

Sorry, but as you are well aware, the role of sycophant has already been taken.