<<On two occasions, you made an assertion about the ACLU that did not square
with my understanding. The second time, mildly interested, I asked you for a
citation. You responded with a quotation from an unnamed journalist in an
unspecified issue on an unknown topic of the LA Times, which, by any rational
person's use of logic, did not justify your assertion.>>
This has already been answered for you in my last post, but you have not dealt
with that answer. Let's try it one more time.
1. You objected to a "third party" making the quote. The "third party,"
however, turns out to be a representative of the ACLU. If quoted correctly,
there is a logical inference to be drawn.
2. You made an assertion about "Creationism" v. "Biblical Creationism." I
pointed out this is a false distinction, one the ACLU does not make.
Instead of addressing these two, clear objections, you chose to post a
slightly insulting post about Eskimos and "evil demons" and such.
Burgy, that's not necessary. Just tell me where the ACLU makes "creationism"
distinctions, and why we shouldn't assume a representative of the ACLU, quoted
in an L.A. Times story, speaks on behalf of the organization?
Jim