From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John Harshman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your   
   >heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said   
   >was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is   
   >no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still,   
   >your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not   
   >helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.   
      
   QED   
      
   >   
   >>> 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?   
   >   
   >True, isn't it?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)