General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0

Can you show me a single instance where I have done this in either of those threads?How can you argue that I fail to support my arguments with references/links and at the same time that I post references/links without any associated argumentation?I can understand that you might consider some of the statements I have made as part of my argumentation to be bare assertions, though I would contend with that, but I really don't see what you think could have possibly infringed rule 5. Paranoid much?TTFN,WK

I think the great debate might be a better forum for Randman to show that he is capable of constructive discussion than the Showcase is.TTFN,WK

Not only do you still apparently think you were right about the paper you have already admitted you were wrong about but now you seem to have reading comprehension problems with one of the forum guidelines.Rule 5 is about not using bare links. I did not use any bare links, therefore I did not infringe rule 5. When it talks about using links it is to contrast it to bare links, not to say you need a link for anything you say.Rule 4 is the one about supporting your arguments with references rather than making bare assertions. Because I wasn't putting forward an argument concerning selection vs. drift!!! I was putting forward an argument that you were talking nonsense when you said the Smith & Eyre-walker paper was talking about Drift vs Selection as causes of speciation. Since you have already agreed you were wrong on this why are you still pretending that that wasn't what the argument was about?My reference is the same as yours because I read the paper and understood it and you apparently read the paper picked the numbers you liked out of it and made up your own version of what they actually represented. Or alternatively, as you said to Quetzal, you just got confused between the concepts of microevolution and speciation but then decided that you would continue trying to pretend you were right in your very next post.Perhaps when you have just admitted to such a substantial error it might be better to go back and look over the thread to see if maybe you propagated the same error in other areas rather than just forgetting about it in the next breath. That's the great thing about woad, and kilts, you don't need any underwear.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : b'cos i Cannt spel

I guess that would be me then, except for being a professor and the fact that I do this while I'm at work as well.Sadly there is a much smaller pool of IDists/Creationists who are actively involved in relevant scientific research than evolutionists, which may be why there don't seem to be any ready top participate in a site like this. Any recall what the thread was about? As it is this is pretty vague and the fact that you considered them to be 'scientifically articulate' is not necessarily a guarantee that they actually were.TTFN,WK