From: martinharran@gmail.com
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:53:22 -0800, John Harshman
wrote:
>On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>Now you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.
Anyone can make a mistake although it is a bit less understandable
when the mistake has been corrected previously. I have explained my
point about Y-Adam and mt-Eve to you numerous times in various
discussions over the years. Here is just one example from 2023 in a
response to you and Lawyer Daggett:
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom we
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/5GwJXSwZAAAJ
Problems arise when the mistake is clearly pointed out but the person
making it refuses to admit it as you have tried to do here as shown
even in your weasel words to Jillery, where you make out that
"apparently" it was not what I meant.
*That* is what is annoying - your refusal to accept your mistake and
move on. Rather badly played.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
