I called him a creationist as a way to signal that he's not reachable by logic or fact and that he'll trollishly defend untoward positions with an endless parade of trying to spin the debate instead of resolve the debate. And, I actually do feel like he's trying to make the case that today's creationists maintain with statements which have been deeply considered in the literature and found to be easily debunked.
Perhaps, but only just barely, Hugo may simply just not be well-read instead of the hidden agendaist that I think he obviously presents to us. And, yeah, sometimes I'm just a name caller, cuz it gets to the point. Edg --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > I have concluded that you are not actually reading my words > > with understanding....if at all. > > Calling Hugo a "creationist" doesn't exactly put you in the > best position to conclude that *he* is not reading *your* > words with understanding. Just sayin'... >
