[Alamo-Girl]

Hmmm ... my bad. It appears you are right. I read the "twins" at Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:54 pm through the reply at Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:57 pm and read nothing else. Evidently that was quite enough for me.

I am curious as to who the "butch" might be though you would have to respond 'over there' due to posting guidelines.

To the contrary notwithstanding, my observation remains. There is altogether too much "parroting" - too many knee-jerk group reactions. That one "side" has done it does not not justify the conduct in return.

It must end or we are all wasting our time.

[King Prout]

what you call "parroting" is something I *know* to be independently-reached similar assessments of the opposition and similar independently-reached levels of disgust with that same opposition.

as to "it must end or we are all wasting our time" - well, when one side bases argument on empiricism, facts, and reason while the other side deals almost exclusively from one particular mythos, inherited bias, invective, and a total sneering disrespect for empiricism, facts, and reason... one could justify the belief that the argument has been a waste of time between the two groups ab initio.

An argument can be made that the empiricists serve the interests of the lurkers, and that the empiricists are doing what they can to counter the well-established and unfortunately well-justified perception that the GOP and political conservatism are the exclusive bailiwick of Luddites and religious bigots. That is certainly the ONLY reason some of the empiricists put forth for continuing the discussion.

I hesitate to speculate on what the Luddites serve, save to say that if they believe it is God, they serve Him rather poorly... to the extent of doing far more harm than good. But that is just my opinion, humble or not. Not being among the ranks of Luddism, I cannot speak for those who are.

[ahayes]

Hmmm ... my bad. It appears you are right.

Well then, are you going to withdraw your "You illustrate my point! LOLOL!" posts?