keeping my word for Salty

I disagree that things have gone "too far". The initial message of this thread is a substantive response to a challenge issued by salty. The response meets salty's challenge. How can this be interpreted as salty-bashing? If administration is prepared to tolerate salty's continued empty posts and not delete something such as salty's initial challenge, why castigate the respondent who gives the substantive response. That is the purpose of the board, isn't it?I feel it completely appropriate to point out that salty has presented nothing of substance each time he posts his personal, unsupported view about Darwinian evolution. His response on this thread is a typical example. If salty feels that he can dish it out, and administration is prepared to tolerate this because it demonstrates the absence of his supporting evidence and deprives salty of sustenance for his martyr complex, then others should be free to respond in kind.I also think it is appropriate that salty's future assertions be bashed with substantive responses, not in the forlorn hope of convincing salty of the error of his ways but to demonstrate to the interested readers that salty's arguments have been rebutted. To suggest that salty not be responded to may give the impression to the interested reader that salty's arguments cannot be rebutted. This would be a most unfortunate impression and a disservice to the interested reader.

Mammuthus, my large hairy friend, I replied to your use of "things have gone too far" because it was the most recent in a series of posts by administrators suggesting that people leave salty alone. For the reasons stated previously I believe this to be unwise.I suggest the simplest way to deal with salty's contentless posts is to say "provide supporting evidence and then we'll talk". It does not leave the interested reader with the wrong impression. However I notice that one of salty's posts has been deleted. I wonder if this will bring cries of "Darwinist censorship" from him?