I prefer cats. But good advice is good advice, so I am outta here.
Hug a kitten today!
Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
This is devolving into a foodfight. How about cranking it down a few notches?
Would you like to clarify yourself here, pal?
A Christian lied to me and I made the mistake in believing them?
What'd I miss? If there's evidence for that implication, it's better to point it out than to just issue taunts.
Not helping...
How about we take it off completely. :-)
Ergo, ALL "Christians" are liars?
Nice twisted, self-serving logic...
If one presumes YOU aren't a lying (fill-in-the-blank)
Ya think?? ;-)
He could have explained, or better yet just stated that he retracted, that statement when I first posted to him. Instead, I was admonished to seek a dictionary. As of this writing I stand accused of being a murdering Christian soldier because you're pal is a bigot.
He still hasn't retracted the statement and only addressed it because a fellow evo pointed out the brazenness of it.
Evidently, then, your judgment needs work.
I don't think there is any evidence at all in this little tete a tete pointing to that conclusion.
Why don't you point me to my bigotry. Lets save time, give me a link.
I told I that I was dropping this issue but just for the record, I did not accuse you a being a murdering Christian soldier.
You're a disgraceful human being WT. But that's OK, I got your number.
Normally, in scientific circles, one initially states that which he is out to prove so that all may judge the positions taken in the light of the direction that is being pursued. I have no idea what you are trying to prove.
I specifically did not ping since I purposefully left out references to you as I desired not to make your identity known. It was not important to the meaning of the post and I had no desire to fight those battles again.
No, you do not.
because you're pal is a bigot.
Are you perhaps presuming that he is "my pal" because you have a prejudice that all who argue in favor of evolution must be part of some sort of social club?
Was metacognative "your pal" when he falsely accused Daniel Dennett of wanting to put Christians in concentration camps, when actually Dennett was saying that radical Islam may have to be contained in some way?
You're not innocent in this foodfight either. Go hug some puppies or something and then please resume when you're less in the mood to lash out and more in the mood to discuss issues. And yes, others on this thread would do well to take the same advice.
My bad. I guess I have been so disillusioned by being "tricked" by BB and your "font error" claims that I have forgotten my manners.
I prefer cats. But good advice is good advice, so I am outta here.
If I may play referee here for a moment, since I think you two have been unintentionally talking past each other a bit...
It looks to me as if WildTurkey took betty boop's earlier offer to "root out evil" as a playfully worded but sincere offer to help get some inaccurate/dishonest creationist sources to correct their falsehoods, if some examples could be provided which need correcting. That's also how I understood her post.
WT listed some examples (although not giving citations to who/where they've been promulgated, which is necessary information if we're going to try to get the source(s) to correct themselves).
BB responded in different ways to various items in the list, pointing out that some might be arguable, but agreeing to others, and deflecting some by saying that she herself has never said such a thing (although that wasn't the nature of the list in the first place).
From WT's side, it seems as if he feels let down that BB just treated the list as a discussion item, and didn't follow up on her offer to make sure that such claims get corrected at their source. He feels that BB reneged on her offer.
From BB's side, it seems as if she missed WT's interpretation of her post, and thus saw WT's subsequent reference to her "rooting out evil" line as focusing on the word "evil", and she laughed off WT's comment because her use of the word "evil" was flippant, not literal. But WT's focus was actually on the apparent offer to "root out" the original misrepresentations that were being made by some creationists.
In the end, WT felt that an offer had been broken, and BB felt baffled at the response, but this was all due more to misunderstandings than anything else.
At least, that's my take -- if it helps y'all to reach some kind of agreement, great. If not, just feel free to ignore me.
That was my take to, Ichneumon--aside from various cross-chatter involving dictionaries and the entrance of Balrog...
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.