Post 1875 is a mindless knee-jerk reaction to 1873. Moreover, it is a non-responsive false dichotomy. Post 1873 holds up a mirror (pot-kettle-black) to your statement at 1872 …
And the chuckles at 1891 are not diminished for you offered two completely unrelated Freepers at 1884 who happen to have handles which are the very pejoratives used on the other website which I wrongly assumed were meant for betty boop and me. The ” Blavatsky twins” pejorative was indeed meant for us .
But neither of the posters at 1884 replied on this thread, the second is banned. Thus reasoning (the missing and much sought-after trait in 1873) should have eliminated them entirely as ‘candidate’ targets of the pejoratives, lapdog and nameless.
Thus my point was and is illustrated.
Moreover, ahayes, two wrongs not make a right. And that truism applies to this mindless, knee-jerk, back and forth - scriptable - parroting of “talking points.” It tars both sides, but more so the side which eschews altogether the concept of accepting anything by faith and further holds itself up to be the master of Aristotlean reasoning.
So again I challenge:
1875 was not "mindless knee-jerk reaction," in fact if we're talking about mindless knee-jerking perhaps we should talk about that group of people who misread things in one place and then go off to another place to complain to a totally unrelated person about their misapprehension.
1872 was pointing out that there is a group of people that persist in bringing forth the same rebutted arguments ad nauseum.
1884 was pointing out that a later post on that thread said that "nameless" and "lapdog" were screennames that those people had chosen for themselves, so it was a reasonable conclusion that those people were the ones mentioned (I still don't know who was meant, perhaps they are on a different forum, but I was right in saying they were not you two). Note that this was based upon what someone actually said rather than upon what I might have misread someone as saying.
I'm sorry if my confidence in my point of view makes you feel like I have "talking points" and am being mindlessly reactive. I've given a lot of thought to this topic and spent a lot of time researching it, and if I repeat things that you consider to be "talking points," it is because those are well-reasoned responses to the oft-rebutted arguments that people often bring here from sites such as AiG. I would love to be able to stop having to repeat myself over and over and over. How about you pray and I hope for people to stop bringing oft-rebutted talking points to the thread, and then perhaps we can get something done.
Power corrupts.
LOL A-G!
Funny thing I noticed about Darwin Central when I visited there recently: There was little, if any, discussion about Darwin or evolutionary theory. Just a whole bunch of kibbitzing, identifying "enemies," and imputing motives to same. I gather it is a club where the like-minded can get together and schmooze....
Thous shalt have no other forums than FR?