[VadeRetro]

You tapdance like Fred Astaire (figuratively speaking of course) ... Look at him dance! So it is fraudulent to ask you to explain your own statement (did you study at the John Kerry school of debate?) ... Look at him dance! So it is fraudulent to ask you to explain your own statement [It's certainly fraudulent to still be ignoring my multiple explanations--VR] (did you study at the John Kerry school of debate?) ... Stop acting like a moron. Nobody but you has made a comment like that... [Unless you count Cash-the-Undead, who made exactly that argument--VR] I would not be rubbing your nose in it like this if you had refrained from the insults.

I consider the glove thrown.

You're saying it's me playing dumb. I'm saying it's you. Hey! Let's go to the videotape!

Your entry onto this thread. Loud and fraudulent. "You obviously have us mistaken for creationists" was part of the response.

To RWP's post 47, you attempted this obfuscatory tap-dance and got throughly roasted for it in the replies.

In dealing with those replies, your brazening act with RWP went on at greater length than I care to reproduce. What you tried with gdani was interesting, though. No acknowledgement, you just clammed up in preparation for the next phase: amnesia.

"So RightWingNilla, you think you are the spokes-model for all of science." Not necessary to his statement and not claimed by him. Do you know any other tricks?

ThinkPlease notes that all of the supposed controversies are from chapters in Icons of Evolution. Confronted with facts, you obfuscate.

That earned you a "Don't be obtuse."

Here's a delightful bit of intentional misconstruction! (Ichneumon must have been very busy to have let you slide by with this.) Post 170.

(Quoting SJ Gould)
Yes. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory...

Ah yes, the blood oath. First ban all opposing data, burn all books containing opposing data, and then require all to swear an oath to the theory.

Gould is proposing bookburning? You can point to where he does that, I suppose?

I could go on, but I'll stop with your 163 and quote from the last reply to you:

The disingenuousness of that line has already been addressed, multiple times, including by myself.

Again, I must suggest that you bother to actually read the thread before you jump in. Either that, or work on your reading comprehension, and/or stop playing these rhetorical games you seem to enjoy so much. You're not fooling anyone, and your attempts at being "clever" are more annoying than amusing.

No, that wasn't me. I do not figure in any of the above. If the situation is symmetrical, you should just as easily be able to show me playing Twist-and-Shout and getting called on it. I await with interest.

[VadeRetro]

Might as well mention 226.

[Last Visible Dog]

Your entry onto this thread. Loud and fraudulent. "You obviously have us mistaken for creationists" was part of the response.

I made no such comment. What, are you turning to lying now?

[Last Visible Dog]

To RWP's post 47, you attempted this obfuscatory tap-dance and got throughly roasted for it in the replies.

You are delusional or you don't know what the word obfuscatory means. My statement was very much to the point.

BTW: how give a rat-behind about your personal opinion of a debate?

[Last Visible Dog]

In dealing with those replies, your brazening act with RWP went on at greater length than I care to reproduce. What you tried with gdani was interesting, though. No acknowledgement, you just clammed up in preparation for the next phase: amnesia.

Oh so now you claim it is brazen to quote from the article that is the topic of this debate - what a bizarre statement - in the same vein you did say earlier you think it is fraudulent to ask to you support your own statement.

BTW: who gives a rat's-behind about your personal opinion of this debate? You are pissed I nailed your butt to the wall.

[Last Visible Dog]

"So RightWingNilla, you think you are the spokes-model for all of science." Not necessary to his statement and not claimed by him. Do you know any other tricks?

RighWingNilla made this comment: "Scientists do not debate the validity of evolution" - he was trying to speak for all scientists. No tricks.

VadeRetro, you are losing it big time.

[Last Visible Dog]

ThinkPlease notes that all of the supposed controversies are from chapters in Icons of Evolution. Confronted with facts, you obfuscate.

Now you are lying again. In that message ThinkPlease FIRST admits I am correct.

VadeRetro, you are making a fool out of yourself.

[Last Visible Dog]

Gould is proposing bookburning? You can point to where he does that, I suppose?

Now you are lying again. Did I claim Gould was doing anything - no!

[Last Visible Dog]

I could go on, but I'll stop with your 163 and quote from the last reply to you:

I am sure you can.

You made an illogical silly statement and you are trying to cover it up by attacking me. Very childish. The lying makes you look really bad.