You’re playing games. You make a distinction with no difference. Anything to change the subject, and erect a sidetrack.
”While I appreciate the opportunity to learn who Boyarin is, I have no idea how it applies to me.”
ZOOM! Right over your head.”
”I've gone back through your posts and can't find one.”
Next step in the Artful Dodger’s grab bag of diversions. Send your correspondent galloping off on a fool’s errand.
”So does that mean you acknowledge that you're using a definition other than the one usually used in popular writing in the U.S. today?”
No. It means I was quoting one of the definitions you had cited.
I’ve asked if you are sincere in your indifference to the amount of public funds that are allocated to Science and Science Education, and to the policy turbulence that naturally accompanies public support. You must have overlooked that query. What’s the scoop?
ZOOM! Right over your head.
You seem to think that pulling an obscure name out of left field has won you some kind of rhetorical point. I'm not impressed.
Send your correspondent galloping off on a fool’s errand.
So you admit that looking for a post where you offer an example of a generic use of "creationist" or "creationism" (as you claimed you did) would be a fool's errand. Thank you, I'm glad to learn that before I spend any more time on it.
It means I was quoting one of the definitions you had cited.
Right. Just not the one usually used when writing in America today. We are writing in America today, in case you hadn't noticed.
I’ve asked if you are sincere in your indifference to the amount of public funds that are allocated to Science and Science Education, and to the policy turbulence that naturally accompanies public support.
I started to answer than in a previous post, but decided to keep it short. When you talked about gaining political dominance, I thought you meant in this discussion. I see I misunderstood. No, I am not indifferent to the issues around science education.