Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 256 of 301 (296879)
03-20-2006 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by randman
03-20-2006 5:05 PM


Moderator decision required!!!
Another baldfaced lie on your part, modulous
How does this acerbic drivel pass as civil debate. You could have simply said 'you are wrong, mod' but instead you had to call me a liar? What the fuck is wrong with you? If you can't debate dispassionately might I suggest you go away from the computer?
I am obviously involved in the debate so I will not take Admin action, I have integrity like that.
modulous. The fact is in Message 222 I provide a link which states that universal common descent is a fact and the theory part only relates to the mechanism.
And in several messages, including Message 238 I refuted it, by posting every single mention of the word common on the page. You say it says:
that universal common descent is a fact
The page says:
However, it is not yet appropriate to call [universal common descent] a "fact"
Explicitly the opposite of what you claim it says. Are you just trying to fill the rest of this thread up with pointlessly bickering over your innocent mistake? It's starting to look like something more than an innocent mistake, that's all.
This is gross propaganda because in fact the inverse is true. Some proposed mechanisms of evolution are factual, such as heritable change and genetic drift. The theoritical part is the universal common descent.
This is the first time you've made any sense for some time. Heritable change/genetic drift are factual occurances. What is theoretical is their impact on population alelle frequencies (ie evolution). A fact is defined as something that has a lot of evidence for it. Universal common descent has a lot of evidence for it. It is therefore referred to as a fact. The fact vs theory page makes this explicitly clear, so I don't see this as propaganda.
The same applies for gravity. The fact is that some force affects bodies, the theory is that this is caused by local distortions in space/time.
But once again, you refuse to engage my points, the substance of the debate, and imo, are spouting baldfaced lies here.
On the contrary, I'm desperately trying to get you to tell me your points so that I can engage them, and have not once told a lie here. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you are right. My being wrong does not make me a liar. If you do get suspended for this inflammatory debating technique, I hope you can come back cool and collected and discuss the good point you raised above in a calm fashion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:05 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by AdminJar, posted 03-20-2006 5:34 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 260 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:40 PM Modulous has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 301 (296880)
03-20-2006 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Modulous
03-20-2006 5:32 PM


Re: Moderator decision required!!!
It does not. We allow randman leaway that is denied to almost all other posters, yet he continues to exceed even those lax bounds.
If he does it again he will be suspended indefinitely.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 256 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 5:32 PM Modulous has not replied

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 258 of 301 (296882)
    03-20-2006 5:36 PM


    let's review.....
    TO states, as I have repeatedly quoted:
    Introduction
    volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
    Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
    MOdulous and PaulK, do you or do you not accept that right here they are claiming universal common descent is a fact?
    Read the article, and click on "the fact of evolution" and it takes you to another article, clearly indicating that the other article is going to discuss this idea of "the fact of evolution" and that article states that the only theoritical part of evolution is the mechanism.
    Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
    How much more obvious that this can it get for you guys? You say the second article only refers to "common descent" as heritable change or something, and not universal common descent.
    That would just make my case all the more stronger. They leave off, but only imply universal common descent in the 2nd article, but still include it obviously, and yet link to the article from one stating explicitly that universal common descent is a fact.
    This is exactly what one would expect from propagandist.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 262 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 5:46 PM randman has not replied

    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 259 of 301 (296883)
    03-20-2006 5:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 254 by randman
    03-20-2006 5:25 PM


    Re: here ya go again
    Unfortunately for you my Message 226 is referring to that one particular essay. Thus you cannot refute it by intorducing a quote form a different essay as you claimed to do. The fact that the other essay was disucssed earlier is simply irrelevant.
    As for your argument in Message 222 I refuted it in Message 224 by pointing out that it was a false dichotomy. Fact and theory in this context are not exhaustive and there is room for hypotheses which are neither considered part of the theory nor so well supported as to be considered fact.p

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 254 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:25 PM randman has not replied

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 260 of 301 (296887)
    03-20-2006 5:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 256 by Modulous
    03-20-2006 5:32 PM


    Re: Moderator decision required!!!
    How does this acerbic drivel pass as civil debate. You could have simply said 'you are wrong, mod' but instead you had to call me a liar? What the fuck is wrong with you? If you can't debate dispassionately might I suggest you go away from the computer?
    Because it is outrageous to have posted the exact same quotes, and you deny I have. Your derogatory comments are no less offensive, and yet untruthful. How else should I view them after page after page of showing where TO does state universal common descent is a fact, and yet you refuse to accept the statements as real.
    What gives?
    I see where adminjar threatens permanent suspension due to a lack of civility, but I see nowhere anyone censures you or PaulK for refusing to honestly deal with the facts of what I quoted. I mean they are TO quotes, for heaven's sake, and yet page after page, you just stonewall and deny and then falsely claim I have provided no substantiation for my points.
    Well, I do consider that lying after awhile. You are misrepresenting me. So I am calling you on it.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 256 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 5:32 PM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 261 by AdminJar, posted 03-20-2006 5:41 PM randman has not replied
     Message 266 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 7:34 PM randman has not replied
     Message 267 by Admin, posted 03-21-2006 10:18 AM randman has not replied

    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 261 of 301 (296888)
    03-20-2006 5:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 260 by randman
    03-20-2006 5:40 PM


    Re: Moderator decision required!!!
    Well, then bye.

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 260 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:40 PM randman has not replied

    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 262 of 301 (296891)
    03-20-2006 5:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 258 by randman
    03-20-2006 5:36 PM


    Re: let's review.....
    I have never denied that 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
    states the universal common descent is considered a fact.
    The question at hand was whether the other essay Evolution is a Fact and a Theory made the same claim. It does not, it explicitly denies it - as you know. Why can you not admit that ?
    Why do you try to argue otherwise by quoting another article ?
    Why do you think that any inferred claim should override a clear and explicit statement in the article itself ?
    And even if the inference were defensible, why would any honest reader believe the inferred statement over a clear and explicit staement to the contrary ?o

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 258 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:36 PM randman has not replied

    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 263 of 301 (296892)
    03-20-2006 5:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 251 by randman
    03-20-2006 5:17 PM


    You can drop this any time
    I have referenced the same pages numerous times on this thread. You have denied completely that I have quoted anything that backs up my claims. I consider that both a lie and a deliberate smear on your part.
    Hi rand,
    Care to take a step back and talk about the topic? I am sorry if you have taken offense by anything I have said. Maybe you have quoted something that backs up your claims, your posting style can make it difficult since you can be quite aggressive and derogatory to your opponents. Maybe I subconsciously filtered out your good points due to the sea of irrelevant ones.
    Sure, in an attempt to get you guys to focus on at least something factual, I drew your attention to the article where they explicitly state "evolution is a fact" and that the only theoritical aspect of the mechanism.
    Agreed. They do say that, I say that. I agree with them on this. Have done for a while. I even started a thread about history vs theory and have worked hard on these boards to stress the difference between the phenomenon of evolution and the theory used to describe it.
    Undeniably then, the idea we all descended from a common ancestor and are all genetically related is a major proposal of evolutionary theory
    This can be confusing because in a sense the two things feedback from one another. There is this phenomenon: evolution. Life on earth has changed. The hypothesis put forward about this phenomenon is that we all descended from common ancestors conceivably going back to start of life. The theory is used to explain how this could work. The theory works so well in explaining common descent that common descent has become almost a corollary to the theory itself.
    Since that is part of the "fact" area, not the mechanism, they are then asserting universal common descent is a fact.
    The page 'fact vs theory' doesnt asesrt this, it asserts that 'common descent' is a fact but says that in the author's opinion universal common descent isn't a fact. It makes that perfectly clear, I trust you understand this now.
    The page '29+ Evidences' says that in his opinion universal common descent can be considered a fact (or rather it is often referred to as a fact).
    Is there any need to continue bashing this out? We don't disagree on this.
    Why can you not admit this?
    Admit what? You do realise that Paul and I were discussing 'Fact vs Theory' because you said it said something that it didn't say. We just pointed that out to you. It should be clear now where the confusion lies, I don't know why we need to keep up with it.
    You said that 'theory vs fact' claims universal common descent is a fact. It doesn't. Paul and I pointed this out and that should be the end of it. I don't care about the error and will happily drop it since it isn't vital.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 251 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:17 PM randman has not replied

    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 264 of 301 (296899)
    03-20-2006 6:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 252 by randman
    03-20-2006 5:20 PM


    Re: you can question my integrity, but don't call me a liar.
    It does because it divides evolutionary theory into 2 parts, one dealing with the mechanism, which they say is theory, and another dealing with the events, which they say is fact. Since evolutionary theory includes universal common descent, as they explicitly state in the article linked together with this one, they are clearly stating that universal common descent is a fact.
    Hello again rand.
    You have made a false dichotomy here. The 'fact vs theory' page clearly discusses the mechanisms (theory), common ancestry of closely related species (fact) and universal common ancestry (which it explicitly states shouldn't be considered a fact).
    The other author disagrees with him and it considers that there is enough evidence to call it a fact.
    Its very straightforward.
    It's not even debatable.
    Correct. When somebody says 'x is not a fact' it should not be debatable whether they consider x a fact or not.
    I question your integrity because you claimed on another thread that my points had been refuted and that I had not offerred anything to show what I was saying was true. Imo, that was a lie.
    There is a difference between being wrong and lying. In my opinion your points have been refuted, if you wish to prove me wrong, get to the point. As it stands you've hardly touched on propaganda since coming back to the thread.
    You also questioned my characterization of what the TO site has stated, claiming they do not claim universal common descent is a fact, when they obviously do, as I have repeatedly shown.
    I only question you saying 'fact vs theory' says what you said it says about universal common descent. It doesn't say what you say it was.
    Why not read through my statements on this thread, and come clean?
    Why not respond to my near dozen refutations of your points and respond to them...or tell me what your points are now and we can discuss them.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 252 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:20 PM randman has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 265 by AdminJar, posted 03-20-2006 6:08 PM Modulous has not replied

    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 265 of 301 (296903)
    03-20-2006 6:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 264 by Modulous
    03-20-2006 6:03 PM


    Re: you can question my integrity, but don't call me a liar.
    Why not respond to my near dozen refutations of your points and respond to them...or tell me what your points are now and we can discuss them.
    Because he is gone and I see no likelyhood of him ever being allowed back in.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 264 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 6:03 PM Modulous has not replied

    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 266 of 301 (296933)
    03-20-2006 7:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 260 by randman
    03-20-2006 5:40 PM


    Goodbye, randman
    I'm sorry to see you've been permanently suspended. It was warranted, since you were warned with the action and continued to engage in the behaviour. Perhaps one day you'll be allowed back, and I hope you'll be able to resume this debate with an air of detachment and dispassion.
    I understand why you might get so emotive over the subject, I am passionate about propaganda and so can sympathise with your state of mind somewhat. If T.O is propaganda, I want to know.
    For the record (and in case you do indeed read this), let me clear up a little misunderstanding you seem to have. I'm not really sure where it came from, but let's lay it to rest for all time, OK?
    If I ever said 'T.O never states that universal common descent is a fact' then I was wrong. I don't remember saying that (it's a big website and I've not read it all), what I remember saying is that the article I have dubbed 'fact vs theory' (for ease of typing), explicitly states it is not appropriate to call universal common descent a fact. I brought this up because in Message 222 and the messages around it you made the claim that this article does say that universal common descent is a fact. This is not the case. To paraphrase yourself, 'you refused to deal with the facts of what I quoted. I mean they are TO quotes for heaven's sake'.
    It was a perfectly innocent mistake and could have been cleared up easily and quickly so that we could discuss the article in which the author does believe we can safely call universal common descent a fact. I have never denied that '29+ evidences' says what you said it says in this regard. May I draw your attention to Message 244 I am as explicit as it is possible to be
    quote:
    In 29+ Evidences they state that universal common descent is considered a fact.
    It is a shame that you had to get suspended over being so emotive over what is really only a minor issue.
    Take care randman, I hope you find peace in your heart and love of your neighbours. I am not angry for anything you have said tonight, I forgive you for getting angry with me. I wish you all the very best.
    God bless,
    Mod

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 260 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:40 PM randman has not replied

    Admin
    Director
    Posts: 12998
    From: EvC Forum
    Joined: 06-14-2002
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 267 of 301 (297042)
    03-21-2006 10:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 260 by randman
    03-20-2006 5:40 PM


    Re: Moderator decision required!!!
    Hi Randman,
    Permanently suspended by the moderator most opposed to permanent suspensions? How *do* you do it? I guess it's a gift!
    Is there anyone out there who agrees with Randman? It doesn't matter whether you're a creationist, evolutionist or even a numismatist, if you can see what he's getting at and can put it in rational terms supported by excerpts from TalkOrigins, your contributions would be most welcome. To be specific, the point in question is whether TalkOrigins purposefully conflates the two definitions of evolution in order to promote an aura of certainty about long-term evolution that does not in reality exist. I suspect others here can put a finer point on it.

    --Percy
    EvC Forum Director

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 260 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:40 PM randman has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 268 by jar, posted 03-21-2006 11:02 AM Admin has not replied

    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 268 of 301 (297054)
    03-21-2006 11:02 AM
    Reply to: Message 267 by Admin
    03-21-2006 10:18 AM


    While it will not support randman's claims
    I do think that I can point to the areas where his sources actually refute what he claimed.
    In Message 258 randman claims that this source shows that TO claims Common Descent is a fact. In suport he includes this quote from that page.
    randman writes:
    Introduction
    volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
    Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
    randman writes:
    MOdulous and PaulK, do you or do you not accept that right here they are claiming universal common descent is a fact?
    What he fails to include is this paragraph from the very same page.
    TO Introduction writes:
    What is Universal Common Descent?
    Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related.
    Here it clearly says that it is a hypothesis, not fact. In fact, even if you only read the part that randman quotemined from the article, you would find that it says that Common Descent is a theory.
    randman's quote writes:
    Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life).
    He then linked to a second article, one discussion the differentiation between the Fact of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution. That article contains this telling statement.
    In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.
    The article also contains quotes from other authors. In some of those the author states that common ancestry is so well supported as to be a fact, but those comments are clearly marked and attributed to the individual author. In addition, the statement from the contributors actually preceeded the statement from TO.
    Far from supporting a charge of propaganda, the readings from the pages randman cited seem to show an attempt to be overly considerate and to point out the fact that disagreement exists.

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 267 by Admin, posted 03-21-2006 10:18 AM Admin has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 278 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 5:54 PM jar has replied

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 269 of 301 (299903)
    03-31-2006 5:58 PM


    reasons for acerbic tone
    On another thread, Modulous characterized my posts on this thread as follows:
    but if you don't like indoctrination technigues such as using the term "evolution" in different ways, insisting because one definition is true that the other is as well, a logical fallacy
    You attempted, and failed, to support this accusation of equivocation at Message 29. Every page you linked to was quite clear in differentiating between common ancestry and allele frequency change. I post this here because the thread is still open if either you or anglagard wish to discuss it further (since it is not about humans/dinosaurs it is heading off topic).
    This did bother me a lot as I believe I amply and fully documented my claims thoroughly on this thread contrary to what he wrote, and eventually Modulous came around to admitting some of that, it seems. Since there was a mischaracterization, imo, being used on other threads, I came back to this thread and detailed again what I felt was undeniable in plain English what TO is claiming. Imo, this was not debatable since we weren't dealing with claims of science or some debatable issue, but just what TO site has stated. I believe the quotes I have provided from TO fully substantiate my claims about what the TO claims, and the faulty and contradictory nature of those claims.
    I do apologize for the use of the term "liar" and such.
    Note: This is the post modulous referenced, but in making such a broad statement, he suggests nowhere in the thread was the point made. Regardless, I think the post he references does the opposite anyway and is a good argument illustrating the overall point of the thread.
    One of the favorite propaganda technigues of evos is used at Talkorigins. Evos define "evolution" as basically any change or any heritable change, as shown in the article below.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
    So they can safely argue that "evolution" is observed based on this definition of evolution. The reason this is a false argument is that the definition of "evolution" under debate is not the idea that change occurs. Creationism is thus equally as much "evolution" under the observed evolution definition as the Theory of Evolution, and evos know this.
    Let's see if they really are consistent and state "evolution" is mere change over time.
    Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.
    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
    So here we see TalkOrigins state evolution is actually the grander concept they call "the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses."
    Hmmm....what should we make of this?
    Clearly, they deliberately use propaganda stating "evolution" is observed to argue for an entirely different definition of "evolution" the grand concept embracing a plurality of hypothesis and theories. In other words, they talk out of both sides of their mouth. They say evolution is observed, and then use the same word to describe the Theory of Evolution, which is not observed.
    This is like saying, hey, we can read of someone stating in the past, for example, that they had a gay time, and trying to argue they referred to homosexuality. Evos are trying to use semantics to make a scientific argument, and imo, do so because they cannot make a sound argument based on people understanding the facts.
    This message has been edited by randman, 03-31-2006 06:00 PM
    This message has been edited by randman, 03-31-2006 06:04 PM
    This message has been edited by randman, 03-31-2006 06:10 PM

    Replies to this message:
     Message 270 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 5:17 AM randman has replied

    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 270 of 301 (300000)
    04-01-2006 5:17 AM
    Reply to: Message 269 by randman
    03-31-2006 5:58 PM


    Re: reasons for acerbic tone
    So basically you got angry because your attempts to smear t.o failed.
    Yes, you documented your "case" in sufficient detail to demonstrate that you don't really have one.
    Yet when it was clearly documented that you explicitly limited discussion to a single essay on the site you seemrd unwilling or unable to accept that, preferring to resort to misrepresentations and false accusations.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 269 by randman, posted 03-31-2006 5:58 PM randman has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 271 by AdminNWR, posted 04-01-2006 10:12 AM PaulK has not replied
     Message 273 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 4:09 PM PaulK has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024