Replies

But don't ever say that the debate was pointless. I must have scored at least 312 points. This makes me the winner, and I'm really happy about that.

Har har har. Where shall we send the ~~plague~~ plaque? ;)

More on point, you asked me about a hundred and fifty posts ago whether I'd noticed the flaw in the article on my first reading, or only after you pointed it out. But don't you see? Kinsman is right. Nobody really reads these articles, pro or con. And the posting following afterward is largely a pro forma affair, as nearly as I can tell.

I've been reading the crevo threads for some time now, and only posted to a few, all very recently - within the last few weeks. And after this, I think I'll slink back into the shadows, because watching this is becoming a lot like that silly movie, "Groundhog Day".

Really, it's got all the regularity and organization of a well-worn symphony - the conductor flicks his baton just so, and there's Archaeopteryx. A slight wave to the percussion, and there's a tidal wave of a post purporting to be the be-all and end-all of the debate. A lifted eyebrow to the brass, and there's a whale's hips. A wiggle to the piccolos, and a post springs forth showing that Darwinism invariably leads to lesbian abortionist Nazis. A quick flick of the wrist, and the strings shout out with the geologic column. A wink and a nod, and the oboes burst forth into a song of statistics. And so it goes, gradually growing more and more dissonant, as the proxy arguments over the toes of sloths and the lengths of genomes and such slowly give way to the same futile question every time - "Is there a Goddammit?"

All in perfect rhythm, two separate circles, not talking to each other so much as near each other.

So, I propose we lock the crevo_list. We find the best representative of this orchestral arrangement - call it "Thread" - and remove all the lesser candidates. Then we simply link to Thread as being the best we all can possibly manage, and just call it a day. We can even write "The End" at the end...

You are a very talented writer.

You gave an excellent summary of what happens with each flick of the baton.

I have just re-read all of your posts in this particular thread and I conclude that (although we disagree) you are fair and tolerant. Nothing less should be expected in a forum such as this.

I really appreciate the way that you have conducted yourself (pun intended, but not meant to imply anything) during this iteration of the debate.

It is nice to meet you.

Russ

Re: your post #276

I have been leaning that direction myself. On the other hand, if I hadn't posted on one of these hopeless threads, I would not have discovered a Freeper with a common interest. That was refreshing.

Sometimes I think I'll never bother posting on one of these again. Then I'll read something that draws me out again. Not that it matters. My posts are often ignored, even though I don't post medved-style articles.

If for nothing else, however, posting on these threads provides some practice in writing, something I seldom otherwise get these days.

That was a really nice piece of writing. And on the point you raise, there is now a topic named Science in the General Interest forum. These threads should be moved there, so that those of us who feel a twinge of irritation when we come across them --- mainly for the reasons you so ably outlined in your post --- can be spared the sight of them unless we specifically choose to enter the General Interest forum.

Really, it's got all the regularity and organization of a well-worn symphony - the conductor flicks his baton just so, and there's Archaeopteryx. A slight wave to the percussion, and there's a tidal wave of a post purporting to be the be-all and end-all of the debate. A lifted eyebrow to the brass, and there's a whale's hips. A wiggle to the piccolos, and a post springs forth showing that Darwinism invariably leads to lesbian abortionist Nazis. A quick flick of the wrist, and the strings shout out with the geologic column. A wink and a nod, and the oboes burst forth into a song of statistics. And so it goes, gradually growing more and more dissonant, as the proxy arguments over the toes of sloths and the lengths of genomes and such slowly give way to the same futile question every time - "Is there a Goddammit?"

Kudos! (And I agree) So now that most of us are sick of the symphony...how do we change it to have some meaningful dialogue?