From: martinharran@gmail.com
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
wrote:
>On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
>>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>> Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that
>>>> what you said encourages my interpretation.
>>>
>>> Only if:
>>>
>>> a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
>>>
>>> b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
>>>
>>> I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
>>
>> I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
>>
>> c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid.
>>
>> I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
>
>If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
>question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were
>attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents
>with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now
>refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate
>whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a
total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said
and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
> I could impugn your motives all
>day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you.
>
>So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
>science being forced to agree with the bible?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
