Getting the Last Word

Yes. A few eccentrics may do but I don't know any and I know more beer drinkers than I really ought to.

Really nothing wrong with having a bit. I sometimes indulge, myself.

You've got the last word, edgar. This thread is now closed.

That's obviously disingenuous because as it stands you are having the last word.

You are absolutely 100% correct.

What is wrong with that Andrei is that it tacitly assumes that your "case" is valid and not dangerous to you or others. If a poster keeps on disagreeing with you it may be that he is trying to save you, or the others, from the danger he sees if you translate the case into action.

I see profound dangers to individuals and to society in teaching evolution to schoolchildren. I am prepared to listen to arguments which show that the dangers I see are a figment of my imagination and thus not to be taken seriously. If such arguments are not forthcoming or persuasive I have the choice of keeping on disagreeing or letting it go and by doing so becoming complicit in the risk of the dangers bearing fruit. Accusing me of last-wordism is merely an excuse to avoid facing up to the dangers I am pointing to and to pretend that they don't exist. The prospect of the dangers is, by your position, being put on Ignore. You have translated "not wanting to know" into "banging your head against the wall" and, by doing so, have made not wanting to know sound superficially sensible.

I would disagree with a woman who expressed a determination to have an abortion right up to the moment the doors of the abortion clinic were shut in my face and she translated the determination into action. Action being the real last word.

If your case is trivial there isn't much to be said.

I once tried to persuade a wilful young lad to forget his determination to buy a powerful motorbike. Even when he bought one and rode it in a way one might expect him to do I persisted in arguing that he should sell it. I failed. He not only killed himself later but also his sister.

I think the "case" is the crucial matter.

Whether or not your assertions about evolution are correct is irrelevant, if the thread originator and the other participants are agreed that your arguments should be reserved for a different thread. To post endlessly in the same vein for the next four years, once the proposition has been made clear to you, makes your actions trollish, in the view of the rest of the participants. Even if the thread premise is misguided, from your point of view.

I have not thawt about it as "getting the last word" so much as fully addressing the issues, in candor.
When I was in practice, it woud have been unprofessional
to allow adverse counsel to assert an argument of flawed merit
without raising my voice to disprove it. Similar reasoning always applies, anywhere.

I have always enjoyed argument, since I was old enuf to speak.
I have chosen friends upon the basis
of their talent in skillfully arguing.

I value keeping an open mind
and being willing to consider the evidence, pro or con.





David

Rubbish ed. You are simply trying to grant them a one-way megaphone through which to bray their unlearned, self-serving sophistries unchallenged over A2K's membership.

Both thread titles invite discussion. You are the troll because you seek to set aside discussion.

BTW ed--both those thread are well above the normal replies to views ratio for debate threads. Face facts--you are just trying to shut me up and we all know why that is.

I don't. Why is he?

I have you ignored on those threads, spendi, as you already know. So, it's not like you are influencing my thoughts when I read there. Away from those things, I don't mind hearing from you, as I have a fondness for the literary. Sometimes your comments re authors are quite good.

Well ed, I consider that if you have me on Ignore on those threads, and I'm a one man opposition to anti-ID, as you know, then you have no right in conscience to comment about my participation.

And I'll give you an example. ros often makes sarcastic, snidey and disparaging remarks on those threads about astrology as if anyone who has the slightest sympathy with that science is a lunatic.

Well-- Shakspeare puts into the mouth of one of his cast of "good" characters, Kent in King Lear, speaking of the polar distance between the nature of the king's daughters--



Is ros, in view of that, to have the path cleared by you, for him to continue attempting to influence young A2Kers with his ignorant and woefully expressed nonsense? Is he not to be challenged on the basis of your assertions that I'm trolling. Bollocks.

You're all ******* totalitarians at heart.

Convolution, spendi.

spendi speaks like a souffle...

there's lots of whipped up air baked into whatever his concoction of the day is.

I'm not sure where these youngsters are that he and Ros are influencing, but they must be very very patient young folks...

Spendius: "Well ed, I consider that if you have me on Ignore on those threads, and I'm a one man opposition to anti-ID, as you know, then you have no right in conscience to comment about my participation."

Wrong, spendi. As a participator in the thread, I have as much right to demand consideration as the rest of them do.

Nah! The point is that ros is not getting the last word on astrology when Shakespeare is there to contradict him and ros a pipsqueak by the side of the Bard. No way.

And ros uses the disparagement of astrology to disparage all other beliefs, superstitions and folk-lore.

And you want him unanswered in front of the eyes of an audience.

You only think you are literary. It's a piece of self-flattery.

And I'm not even defending astrology here which I can do from an evolutionary standpoint and as Shakespeare does with the outcome of King Lear. I'm just saying that it is not as black and white as ros tries to delude people that it is on the basis that the Your Stars feechewers are a pile of drivel.

He cannot prove that astrological events don't influence life on earth or that some increasingly refined reading of the skies is not possible. Which is to say he is not only unscientific but anti-scientific as well and is just using science in front of what he must think is a stupid audience to row some boat of his ashore which can be almost guaranteed to involve infractions of the Christian morality on sexual practice. I hardly think it is bank robbing.

And you seek to strew roses in his path and lead him safely to the altar on which the Kremlin-style megaphone stands.

People destined for influential positions Rockie are usually patient.

They might even read posts more closely that most.

You have no right in conscience to comment on my participation in those threads if you don't know what it consists of by your own choice. None at all.

Astrology? You pin your credibility on that? I have to throw up my hands with that one.