I sometimes wonder if it is worth sparring with Stephen like this, now that
he refuses to discuss real issues and simply engages in rhetorical attacks.
To a certain extent I'm too stubborn to let him have the last word, and there
is the same vicarious thrill that one would get from bear-baiting. Plus
there are a few on this group who continually write to encourage me to keep
poking Stephen with sharp sticks. But after awhile the luster fades, and I
am reminded of what Woodrow Wilson once said about Theodore Roosevelt: "The
best way to handle an opponent like that is to concentrate on the stars above
his head."
Even so, every now and then Stephen presents me with little gifts that remind
me just how much fun he can be at times....
> >SJ>Kevin wrongly assumes that I "ignored" it. I simply did not see it.
>
> KO>Apparently then Stephen has been "simply ... not seeing" alot of my
posts
> >lately, considering how many he has not responded to (he even seems to
have
> >abandoned our thermal protein debate); I thought he just didn't like me
> >anymore.
>
> In this case I just ignored Kevin's proliferation of multiple simultaneous
> posts on the same thread. I was prepared to debate one post at a time
> regarding Kevin's minority views on so-called "thermal proteins", but
> not multiple posts at a time.
>
Wait a minute, let me get this straight. I start the thread by posting a
single post; Stephen then begins posting multiple sequential responses to
this post, forcing me to do the same in order to keep up; and now Stephen is
using that as an excuse to break off the debate without even finishing his
responses to my original post?
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
What makes this particularly ludicrous is that he did the same thing with
another thread he started: he posts a lengthy response to a related but
peripheral post of mine, I respond with a SINGLE but well detailed post, and
immediately he abandons the discussion, despite having claimed that he wanted
to pursue it instead of the earlier multiple-submission debate. I wonder if
it was simply coincidental that in both cases he broke off after I sounded
refuted each and every one of his objections? No doubt he will disagree with
this assessment, but without explaining just how I am supposed to be wrong
(something he now claims he has no interest in doing), his disagreement means
nothing.
Just out of curiosity, though, what does my supposed "minority view" have to
do with anything?
>
> Frankly I have better things to do with my time than debate an origin of
> life position that (by Kevin's own admission) most mainstream
origin-of-life
> specialists reject.
>
Oh, I see, the old "I don't have to listen to the evidence because everyone
else thinks its irrelevant" apologetic. Funny, though, about how all these
people who supposedly reject this "minority view" still feel the need to
discuss it in the scientific literature and at conferences, and how the
"minority" isn't really so minor. But then, any excuse to remain blinded to
the truth is a good excuse I guess.
Kevin L. O'Brien