If we are to debate, the terms of that debate must be defined by all participants exactly, precisely, and agreed to by all. Only then can the emerging debate be of any consequence.
This has nothing to do with throwing down the gauntlet and/or picking it up. It's the terms that are elemental. I've been in debates where the 2 sides have been using apples and oranges for debating terms, and the outcome is predictable - utter chaos and nothing of import brought to the table.
If we do this, we have to do it right.
Now, as to the URL in question, it is a straightforward attempt at addressing some of the claims in Coulter's book. On this site, the topic in question revolves around the peppered moth section of "Godless". The effort is honest and quite good, but still demonstrative of polemics not unknown to comparable sites.
The poster in question on this particular URL is an Aussie, and a whiff of anti-Conservatism can be discerned.
There is a comments section that follows, and the vitriol is at least the equal of what sometimes appears on this board.
As I've cautioned the King, I have not read Ms. Coulter's book yet, so I am not in a position yet to authoritatively comment on what King Prout offers.
However, he has told me that a more extensive rebuttal is in the works, and perhaps by that time I'll have read the book myself.
I thank King Prout for engaging me in this, and the research he has expended on my behalf. It's something I wouldn't have done on my own, so I am grateful.
As per his request, I will not release the result of his efforts until he deems it appropriate.
As for me, I'd really rather, at this point, just sit back and enjoy the show as it might unfold. I hope that's OK with you, Prout?
CA....
s'ok. honesty and integrity go a very long way with me.
Have you ever considered that sometimes it's the terms themselves that are at issue? I won't concede the argument before it even begins.