Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?

I've been struggling to remember (and I still can't) but I think Ben Goldacre (off of Weird Science, off of the Grauniad) high lighted how (this is where my memory fails) that a certain group of writers (in philosophical circles, I think) would use such bodged together words that they had no real meaning.An example of this I do recall was something like "the sum totality of the universal singularity conforms with the thought shape of the individual's perceptual range" (paraphrased).If it was Goldacre, his point was clearly that some people do vanish up their own arse trying to sound wiser tha they are.I know I used to do it in exams: when I couldn't quite put down onto paper what I meant I made up something in the hope my professor would think I was being deep.And what do you know, it only ever worked in my Psychodynamic paper. In the real psychology classes it did not fly.And as we all know, psychodynamism is talking bollocks.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have promised you nothing and made no reference to you.What you infer from my post is your own business, not mine.

Please tell me that post was being ironic as I can see no reason to post what you did other than to poke fun at Buzz. What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Why would you wan to poke fun at poor ole Buzz?Your meaning is not clear.

No, you infered I was implying that you have written word salads, for some reason. I did not.You could be making a general point that you construct sentences better than your creo brethren but why would you think I would be intersted in that?

Thanks to Percy, I now know what the 'Joey' comment was about.But, did it ever ocure to you that attempting to make a point that hinges on a comment from another post in another thread that you have no reason to beleive I've read in a post addressed to me about clarity of communication (say it all in one breath), was a bloody stupid thing to do?Evidently not.

Dno't riun my signichoor!

Quite sure. My interest here lies in the fact that creo posters on this site have a trend towards writing things that only they understand.This is indicative of not being clear as to the points they are attempting to make.This is one of the advantages of the science crowd: using precise and nice vocabulary that is understood universally.Have I made myself clear? Even if you disagree with my position you should understand what I'm getting at.

Buzz, you seem to be celebrating your status as a mascot.

You do know that I have taken these choice paragraphs and put them into my sig as a delicious irreverent comment on people talking bollocks?Rather than being part of the body of my post?Did you, rather egregiously make use of the word comprehend?Irony writ large, I think.Abe: to reduce the chance of other hard of thinking posters making a similar error with my sig, could someone tell me how to ensmallen the text size?Apologies for being a format duffer. Edited by Larni, : Edits

Thanks, fellas!

Do you really want your name appended to the sig? One made with the express purpose of lampooning posts that are best described as 'bollocuss drivilus maximuss'?I made no attribution because I feared I would be raked over the coals for deliberately and continually taking the piss of posters who rarely make a lick of sense.I shall await an admin to guide me on this point.Abe: I see admin has cleared this issue up: no attribution is needed. Edited by Larni, : Abe

That will teach me!

I don't believe that this is the case: please substantiate your assertion.

He goes on a bit, don't he?Mind, I stopped listening after he said 'cunt'.Shocked & Appalled.

All goes to show that creos are not very good at thinking.