Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ThomasNast
The astute reader will note that ThomasNast has butchered my sentences and taken them out of context when he has "quoted" me in post #240, in a way that misrepresents what I was actually saying. I have *restored* the full quotes in the following reply:

[If you're trying to imply that I *haven't* made a very significant amount of rational arguments on this thread, then you either haven't been paying attention, or I'll add you to the list of folks knowingly making false accusations. Which is it?]

I guess I should restate my position. There has been no name-calling on this thread. No one used the word "idiot".

If that's the bizarre position you want to take, go for it, but it doesn't answer my question. Why are you attempting to misrepresent the amount of my rational arguments on this thread?

[I stand by my analysis of just how confused someone would have to be to misinterpret Darwin's actual statement in the bizarre manner that TheCrusader did. Or maybe he was just knowingly lying -- it's so hard to tell with the anti-evolutionists' frequent falsehoods. Are they idiots or just liars? That is the eternal conundrum. If pointing out the degree of distortion which was being made is just "name-calling" in your book, then so be it.]

No one has been called an ignoramous, a--hole, liar or any other name.

If you insist.

Please do not claim that I was making a false accusation...

You were making a false accusation. You implied that a) I *started* the namecalling (sorry, it was the *creationists* who did that), and that b) I called names "as opposed to making rational arguments", as if I *didn't* make a significant amount of rational arguments on this thread.

Both of these implications are indeed false.

So I say again, if you're trying to imply that I *don't* make rational arguments on these threads, and often, then you either haven't been paying attention, or I'll add you to the list of folks knowingly making false accusations. So I ask *again*, and maybe you can answer it this time: Which is it?

I must've somehow misread those particular posts.

Yes, indeed you must've.

484 posted on 01/31/2006 8:12:38 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies ]


To: Ichneumon; All

Now this was not only entertaining but informative.

I love a good thread ;)


485 posted on 01/31/2006 8:23:04 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow (Oust the IslamoCommies here and abroad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson