Actually, someone on one of the threads at PZ described the problem 
pretty well:

"The intolerant, religious and otherwise, have, through their 
stranglehold on much of society, redefined "respectful" so that anything 
less conciliatory than "well, I don't agree with you on that *apologetic 
smile, shrug*" - including calmly giving reasons WHY one disagrees - is 
considered "disrespectful." And unfortunately they've done it so 
efficiently that many of us unconsciously use words the way they've 
redefined them."

The ones that opt not to unconsciously use those words, get called every 
sort of negative thing possible, even if the words where contained in 
one sentence, and there are 10 paragraphs of scientific facts and 
explanations for just *why* the crazy BS they claimed is in fact wrong. 
That is the usual content of stuff on PZ's site. The stuff that involves 
just pointing out stupidity, and calling it such, *still* tend to link 
to the story or event, and explain why PZ thought it was crazy and 
stupid.

Now, the other side.. They can't even link to, or accurately give 
citations, of stuff they insists "proves" their point. Worse, half the 
points they come up with have no basis in fact, but are reposts of 
someone else's blog, quoting someone's book, which quoted a page of 
professes quotes, of things copied from someone claiming to have quoted 
a paper, which was once written by some famous person, but for which 
**no** evidence exists to suggest that the quote is representative of 
anything they would have said or did, nor that the supposed letter, 
document or book had ever existed. And if that sounds confusing, imagine 
the frustration of the people trying to track down where the hell they 
get some of their supposed "quotes from the founding fathers"... Most of 
them can be traced back, via links, searches and chronology of when the 
pages first appeared (according to archiving sites), to one web site. 
And that one, doesn't even pretend to give any references, links and/or 
citations of the sources of them.

It is like someone quoting historical details from the TV show Sliders, 
as evidence. made even more absurd when some people dig up the "real" 
origins of some of the tales. One example. A hugely famous one of theres 
describes Jefferson going to a church and having a military band play 
for the congregation. The actual events involve 1) a pastor quoting 
something he claimed, back when he was ten, that his friend had heard 
Jefferson say about religion, while that friend supposedly saw Jefferson 
going to a church. There is no evidence the event wasn't just made up, 
and lots of evidence to suggest that Jefferson wasn't social enough to 
have been seen going around to churches, or that he would have said 
anything positive about them. 2) a news article posted by a women who 
visited the capitol for the paper she worked for. Her article made it 
clear that a) while some pastor occasionally spoke at the start of the 
meeting, no one paid much attention, b) it was more of a mens club, to 
talk about their day, issues, etc. and c) Jefferson did have the 
military band play there, not as something linked to the vague service 
that they allowed, but to impress the reporter.

I mean, how dumb do you have to be to make up an event based on third 
hand hearsay + events in a news article, which **anyone** can look up in 
the national archives? Apparently, not very, since its posted as fact, 
and repeated on almost every site that attempts to claim that the 
founders wanted Christians to run things. :p

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message