[atlaw]

So your objection is to my alleged guilt by association argument (though here, of course, I am referencing GGG’s specific assertions, as well as, admittedly, the words of the Islamic-Creationist from whom he evidently lifted his assertions). I am trying to remember, Andrew, have you ever objected to the reams of guilt by association arguments tossed out by creationists? Perhaps so. But I frankly can't recall a specific instance.

[GodGunsGuts]

==though here, of course, I am referencing GGG’s specific assertions, as well as, admittedly, the words of the Islamic-Creationist from whom he evidently lifted his assertions

Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about, Mr. Lawyer. Every assertion I have made I have found doing my own independent research, and not a one of them comes from “Islamic-Creationists”. You really are some piece of work.

[AndrewC]

So your objection is to my alleged guilt by association argument

It is not alleged. You brought the guy in. It is a fact that you are using a guilt by association by association by association. First, I doubt that GGG even knew the guy before you mentioned him. Second, the fact that Harunan(or whatever) is a Muslim is the second association. Third, the fact that islamic terrorists are Muslim(certainly obvious) you attempt to establish a third association. Quite a feat of legerdemain(and not in the good sense). And to top off your "tour de force"(again not in a good sense) you attempt a fourth red herring. What I do or fail to do does not support your argument with GGG.