Joined: May 2006
|Regarding the quote above, the problem is this quickly gets fairly complicated, and too lengthy for posting.|
you must be awfully simple minded to think the quoted section is anything other than crystal clear.
You were asked a very simple question, and you punted.
now we know why you work for the DI.
do they teach classes in obfuscation and deflection before you're allowed to claim you're an actual "fellow"?
...and about the rest of your lies:
we also note that we can clearly see the picture Wes kindly reposted right in the thread, you know the one right above your last bullshit session that says tasmanian wolf on one side and wolf on the other, even though they are both the same picture?
holly crap, you people amaze me. How do you do these things and keep a straight face?
| But we also need to keep in mind that there are potentially many non scientific reasons why one might opt for one paradigm over another. |
emphasis mine, and unless you can name ONE good reason why a "paradigm" should be accepted in science for non scientific reasons, your argument is entirely full of holes.
...but you already knew that.
the real question is are you stupid, or are you just trying out some new angles?
|I think we need to stick to the evidence and what it says.|
you should have more honestly stated that thusly:
"I think I need to work more on making my manufactured evidence a bit more credible"
face it, your ilk views actual evidence like a vampire views the sun.
Your writings don't even rise to the level of mundane; that person was simply being kind to you to see what funny shit you would say next.
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."