[Agamemnon]

Actually you are totally wrong. The family name Darwin goes back hundreds of years before Charles was born. So technically Pre-Darwin refers to any point before the 1500's by definition

You know perhaps you are an idiot by definition also, but that doesnt't have anything to do with the context of this discussion or thread --- at least not at the moment, though if you continue to post non-contextual inanities as you have just now, it very well could be a topic of further discussion later.

[Tench_Coxe]

I applaud your efforts, but I think they're in vain. I don't come on these types of threads often, and reading the posts--I'm not sure those responding to you are actually reading what they have written. It leads one to believe that certain individuals are not on these threads to discuss things in good faith--which then leads to the question 'Why are they here?'.
I did have one serious question I wanted to ask the Darwin Central ping list, but I think I'll refrain because I doubt I would get an honest answer.

[bobdsmith]

It was intended as a parody of what I thought you were doing. I thought you were playing semantics by changing 1/1000000%'s use of "pre-darwin" to mean before darwin born rather than before his theory. However having just read through the entire discussion between 1/1000000% and yourself I now see it was you who used the phrase first and quite clearly in terms of darwins birth and not his theory. So I got the whole thing wrong and apologize for my "parody" post to you which was not justified and was rather ridiculous in hindsight