Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   You always sound so arrogant, but in this case you are simply wrong,
> > sorry, and this time I have quite clear references. For example:
> > 
> > http://amasci.com/weird/end.html

> OK, so for 20 years they thought they'd have everything figured out. 
> That's hardly stagnation.

  I don't remember saying anything about stagnation, but whatever.

> >   And why do you bring up religion into this?

> Must be something about the thread.  Hmmm... Could be the creationist 
> museum concept?

  The sub-thread I started was related to the mocking of other people
because of their beliefs, not to whether creationists are right or wrong.

  The usenet protocol doesn't really support the concept of "sub-thread",
where a thread is spawned by another. You can either change the subject
of your post (which still technically makes it part of the same thread)
or create a completely new thread (which would separate it from its
context).

  The objection I raised was not about the validity of any claims, but
about the moral justification of this kind of mocking.

> >   Where have I proposed that? Why do you insist in bringing religion
> > into this?

> I dunno. I look at the subject line, and when you say "I believe 
> evolution is implausible",

  I have never said that's my opinion. The only thing I have said is
that someone having that opinion is not reason enough to ridicule him.

  If I say "you should not make fun of homosexuals" that doesn't imply
I am a homosexual, nor even that I am a pro-homosexual. It simply means
that I object to making fun of people because of their orientation.

> I have to believe it's because you prefer the 
> religious explanation.

  I have never implied anything like that either. That's completely your
own idea.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message