I was under the impression at first that there had been some kind of prior agreement to publish the debate, perhaps there was not, only talk about the possibility. That would make Ehrman's position more understandable, but only somewhat. I am not saying that someone in Ehrman's position couldn't come up with a reason to not have a book published. The reasons might be several. He might have discovered, after the debate, that he simply is not cut out for a debate format. Theodore Drange, for example, debated William Lane Craig at my doctoral institution of the University of Illinois. I think most observers, including Jeff Lowder, concluded that that format was not for him. I'm not sure I would be all that great of a debater. I didn't debate in college (though I did play chess). Or one could say that the debate format was counterproductive to the pursuit of truth. One can make that argument up to a point at least. Or one could say that Craig used debate tactics that are unethical, or that he was rude, or used ad hominem arguments. from what I've seen of Craig, that would be false, but if any of these things could be truly said, that would be a perfectly legitimate reason for not wanting a book published.
Instead, Ehrman plays what I call the Not Even False card. Wolfgang Pauli, the physicist, once described a scientific theory he disliked as "not even false." The idea is that the view you are opposing is so absurd that to even engage it would be to give it more credit than it deserves. I hate the NEF card. I've heard it used on C. S. Lewis more times than I can count. It is used against dualist philosophies of mind all the time. It is popularly used against Intelligent Design. But I could use it against eliminative materialism or Mormonism if I wanted. But that would not be good either. Most of the time when it is used, it is a mask for intellectual laziness. One has no desire to engage views that one thinks are way on the other side and so one uses the prestige of one's position in certain academic circles to avoid engagement. But to use it after one has had a debate with someone strikes me as disingenuous. I'm sorry. If there is anyone whose beliefs are easy to find out about it's William Lane Craig. It's not as if he found out "Gosh, this Craig guy, he's really over the wall. He actually believes that Jesus walked out of his tomb on his own two feet!" Craig is a leading representative of the view Ehrman opposes, a view that is held by millions of orthodox Christians. If Craig is really irrational, and Ehrman demonstrated this in the debate, he should be jumping up and down for a chance for this achievement to be broadcast as widely as possible. If not, there are various reasons he might want to offer for not wanting a debate book published. the Not Even False card is not one of them.
17 comments:
I don’t get this whining over the debate not being published in book form. As you appear to concede, there was no prior agreement to publish it. It is going to be made available over the web, which means anyone with the slightest interest in it will be able to get a copy of it. And you keep saying that Mr. Craig’s views are already well known, so how is he being injured in this case?
It is quite puzzling.
By the way, I believe the orginal statement Mr. Pauli made was "not even wrong". Personally, I find it quite useful at times. There are ideas and theories that are not worth wasting one's time trying to refute. Life is too short for some forms of nonsense, IMHO.
t.
I look forward to William Lane Craig doing a written debate on
http://www.infidels.org/
He refuses to do so.
Probably because he knows he would embarrass them too much ?!?
Steven, is there actual evidence that he refused to debate there? Has the question really been put to him? Did he respond? Did he provide reasons for the response?
Just wondering.
Whatever the answer, you wouldn't get far with claiming that Craig won't take a stand in debate with others who disagree with him.
Vic: WLC told me he thought that Ehrman was embarrassed to let the book out.
At this point, BE's attitude toward the debate transcript itself would be useful to know. If he's saying something like 'yeah, I kicked butt, here's the address if you want to read it, but WLC was giving stuff that wouldn't work well in a book for various reasons'--then we'll know the problem isn't that he's embarassed about the debate. If, on the other hand, he pretends the thing doesn't exist, or dodges questions about it once it's up...
Tim: I don’t get this whining over the debate not being published in book form.
That isn't the problem. The problem is that BE looks like he's copping out by simply slandering his opponent. 'Why not go ahead and do a book from it...?' 'Because my opponent was a total loser who was so weak I don't want to give him more exposure.' Um... oooooookay... {g}
It's the (apparent) slander Victor's pinging on. Not the book refusal. Despite my charitable possible explanation in the previous letter, frankly that fits BE's previously known attitudes to his work, more than rank irrationality fits WLC's previous behavior on the subject.
But I'm trying to give him as much benefit of the doubt as I can. {s}
Steven: I suspect it has more to do with how the SecWeb presents itself. The impression commonly given there is _not_ one of being "a drop of reason in an ocean of chaos". (It looks more like a satire on a mouth-breathing fundy site. I would be totally embarassed to go there as a sceptic.)
Jason
Jason,
My understanding of this matter is 180 degrees the reverse of yours. The only one I see being slandered here (by the continuous questioning of his motives, such as "he's just embarrased") is Mr. Ehrman.
Also, you've read a lot into Mr. Erhman's email (Who was the email directed to, by the way? Did he think he was engaged in a private conversation when he sent it?). I don't pick up on any of the sneering upmanship that seems so obvious to you.
By the way, this whole thing (as presented here) seems to have started as an attack on Mr. Ehrman for not wishing to publish this debate in book form. It was suggested that he reneged on a former agreement. Of course, that has been factually discounted now. Yet, the questioning of his motives continues?
t.
“It's not as if he found out "Gosh, this Craig guy, he's really over the wall. He actually believes that Jesus walked out of his tomb on his own two feet!"”
Just another example of the over the top criticism against Mr. Ehrman taking place here. Mr. Reppert, why are you putting words in Mr. Ehrman’s mouth?
He did write in the email you quoted earlier that he found some of Mr. Craig’s arguments irrrational. That doesn’t equate to the kind of mocking statement you wrote above.
This debate is going to be public in a few weeks. Why not be a little patient and then write a critique of what Mr. Ehrman actually said, instead of all this speculation?
t.
I have been as clear as I could possibly be that my objection is not to a refusal to make a book out of the debate, and I was at some pains to point out several reasons Ehrman might have provided for why he might not want a book to come out. So I'm not saying that the only possible reason for not doing a book is that he felt defeated. My objection was to the kind of statement he made to back this up. That's it. If you read more into what I said, you weren't paying attention.
My point was that, of all people on earth, it's as easy as pie to find out what WLC believes, and how he defends his positions. He has plenty of venues already. If Ehrman really thought Craig was open to a Pauli-type response, he should not have agreed to a debate.
Jason I think you're being a little tough on the Secular Web. But I see your point.
' So I'm not saying that the only possible reason for not doing a book is that he felt defeated. '
And the only reason Craig refuses to debate on Infidels.org is because he feels he would be defeated....
My objection was to the kind of statement he made to back this up. That's it. If you read more into what I said, you weren't paying attention.
Mr. Ehrman only said: “We agreed to stage a public debate, and afterwards I thought some of his arguments were so far removed from anything rational, that I decided giving him a platform to air them was conceding way to much.”
So after looking over the arguments used in the debate, he came to the conclusion that some of Mr. Craig’s arguments were not at all rational. He did not come to the conclusion that Mr. Craig or millions of Christians were irrational because they believed in the resurrection, as you suggested in your criticism of him.
Simply because you make some reasonable remarks does not give you license to throw in some wild guesses about what is in Mr. Ehrman’s mind.
If Ehrman really thought Craig was open to a Pauli-type response, he should not have agreed to a debate.
Huh? Mr. Ehrman never said that the basic position of Mr. Craig was “not even wrong.” He said that some of the arguments he used to support that position were irratioal. This analogy to Pauli’s statement is all in your head. I don’t see it in the email Mr. Ehrman wrote.
By the way, apparently Mr. Sabatino provided you with this email from Mr. Ehrman. Was it addressed to Mr. Sabatino?
t.
Tim: My understanding of this matter is 180 degrees the reverse of yours. The only one I see being slandered here (by the continuous questioning of his motives, such as "he's just embarrased") is Mr. Ehrman.
BE (purportedly) wrote: "I thought some of [WLC's] arguments were so far removed from anything rational, that I decided giving him a platform to air them was conceding way too much."
Are you saying you think this is a fairly neutral (if not charitable) evaluation by Mr. Ehrman of WLC's portion of the debate? Or, are you perhaps claiming John Sabatino and/or Victor forged this remark? (That would certainly render Victor's whole discussion to be only slander toward BE. Or libel, since it's in print.)
Also, you've read a lot into Mr. Erhman's email... I don't pick up on any of the sneering upmanship that seems so obvious to you.
Actually, I _did_ come up with a fairly charitable and plausible explanation for why BE might make such a claim; an explanation that doesn't require me to accept WLC behaving in a fashion and degree that I have never seen him do before--a fashion and degree required by the emphases which BE himself (purportedly) gives in his reply. You can scroll down Victor's main page and read my proposal in one of the commments. It's near the top.
(Who was the email directed to, by the way? Did he think he was engaged in a private conversation when he sent it?)
It seems rather odd to say you see nothing objectionable in his letter that we might have any good reason to be pinging on; and _then_ call in privacy of correspondence in defense of.... what? In regard to the strength of something which you've denied actually being there in the text??
By the way, this whole thing (as presented here) seems to have started as an attack on Mr. Ehrman for not wishing to publish this debate in book form. It was suggested that he reneged on a former agreement.
Since the conversation has moved along since you wrote this, I will suppose you're willing to agree now that this was _not_ the main reason Victor was bringing up the refusal in the first place.
Vic says (first) "Ehrman was pulling out... on the grounds that he did not want to give a venue for Craig's views. Doesn't make sense to me, Craig's views are about as well-known as anyone's could be."
BE (apparently) says (next, after some speculation by Victor on why BE would _give that explanation_--speculation which I joined _you_, Tim, in nipping, by the way, as you seem to have forgotten): "I thought some of [WLC's] arguments were so far removed from anything rational, that I decided giving him a platform to air them was conceding way to much."
BE's explanation was actually ramped up by (apparently) BE himself _beyond_ what Victor originally reported hearing.
BE doesn't want to do a book on the debate--fine. His reason, however, is _not_ as mild as coming to a conclusion that some of WLC's arguments are not rational. Why _would_ anyone refuse to do a book on grounds as mild as that??
He's (purportedly) giving a _strong_ reason why he himself would not do something that would (nominally) be in his _own_ favor. It isn't that he doesn't have the time, or some other reason having nothing to do with the debate itself. His reason for such a refusal has to do with the debate itself. He's not going to do the book because... ... ... well, apparently, because WLC performed so poorly that if BE gave WLC a chance to perform that poorly in a wider public venue, then WLC's poor showing, _as_ such a poor showing, would give WLC too strong an advantage. ("*so* far removed from *anything* rational... that... giving him a platform to air them was *conceding* *way too* much.")
So far, your defense has been, in essence:
a.) 'so what if BE doesn't want to publish a book? That's no reason to call his motives into question.'
b.) 'BE wasn't saying anything against WLC.' (The only slander you've seen is against BE, even after BE's letter was printed.)
c.) 'Okay, so he was saying something against WLC, but it doesn't have the strength you're claiming it does.'
and
d.) 'Maybe he said things this strongly because he thought it would be a private correspondence, which John and subsequently Victor then violated.'
For what it's worth, I'm entirely willing to accept d, if that's what indeed happened.
Since you seem to be repeatedly insisting on d, would you mind in return conceding c?--and then perhaps giving an explanation which properly accounts for the strength of BE's remark (which he perhaps wouldn't have put so strongly unless he thought the correspondence would be private?)
_Victor_ is proposing an explanation which accounts for more of the available data and contexts. You don't like that explanation; understandable. _I_ gave a completely different explanation which accounts for more of the available data and contexts; one which doesn't require BE to be making facile excuses. Despite this, I am also apparently only defending WLC and pinging against BE. So, is there a third option which accounts for the strength of BE's comment (as your d defense necessarily implies), that you might be comfortable with?
Jason
PS: okay, yes, I'm being a little too hard on the SecWeb. {s}
Jason,
“BE (purportedly) wrote: "I thought some of [WLC's] arguments were so far removed from anything rational, that I decided giving him a platform to air them was conceding way too much."
Mr. Ehrman said that some of the arguments were irrational. That word "some" is a very important qualifier which you and Mr. Reppert seem to be overlooking.
Why don’t we wait until the debate is actually published and then make up our individual minds on the veracity of this statement? I see too much speculation here on very little data.
Since the conversation has moved along since you wrote this, I will suppose you're willing to agree now that this was _not_ the main reason Victor was bringing up the refusal in the first place.
Vic says (first) "Ehrman was pulling out... on the grounds that he did not want to give a venue for Craig's views. Doesn't make sense to me, Craig's views are about as well-known as anyone's could be."
Your quoting of Mr. Reppert is quite selective. This is from his first post on this topic:
“I had heard that the parties had agreed to publish a book about it, but that Ehrman was pulling out of the agreement on the grounds that he did not want to give a venue for Craig's views.”
I see this as a cheap shot directed at Mr. Ehrman, especially in light of the fact that there has been no evidence brought forth to substantiate the claim that the parties to the debate had agreed on publishing it in book form.
There is a big difference between simply choosing not to publish and reneging on a prior commitment to publish. Mr. Reppert should have takn the 5 or 10 minutes of time it would have required to actually check the facts here.
_Victor_ is proposing an explanation which accounts for more of the available data and contexts.
Mr. Reppert is doing a lot of speculating here. He'd do better to be a little patient and then respond to what was actually said in the debate.
t.
I never said I knew for sure that there were arrangements, and I was gratified to find out that there were none to begin with. I was even asking if I was misinformed about this. That's fine.
I don't know what the explanation for this is. What occurred to me was that Ehrman's position ended up looking bad in the debate, but until I see the debate I won't say that this is why Ehrman didn't want a book to come out. What I do know is that either Ehrman successfully showed that Craig's view (or some of them) were irrational, or he did not. If he did, then you would think a refutation of views as widely held as Craig's would be on that the refuter would want published as widely as possible. If he had failed to refute Craig's irrational views, then Ehrman could argue that the debate situation was not a good one form dealing with Craig's "irrationality," which would be fine.
Not only are Craig's positions well known, his arguments in defense of those positions are also well known. Ehrman gave Craig a venue by agreeing to debate. It's hard for me to believe that he discovered something about how irrational Craig's arguments were in the course of debating him.
I understood that Ehrman's position on the debate book was a public position, which I thought had already been reported. If I am wrong about this I apologize.
Ehrman's response just does not ring true to me. The more mild you make his statements, the more difficult it is to understand why this is grounds for not wanting a book published. When we see the debate, we may see that the Ehrman slaughtered Craig and showed how irrational his arguments are. But that will be a surprise. I am content to wait and see.
My major point is that he could have declined the debate book in a less arrogant manner, which I would have respected a whole lot more.
Jason wrote:
"Steven: I suspect it has more to do with how the SecWeb presents itself. The impression commonly given there is _not_ one of being "a drop of reason in an ocean of chaos". (It looks more like a satire on a mouth-breathing fundy site. I would be totally embarassed to go there as a sceptic.)"
What are you referring to? Are you talking about the Secular Web (a library of documents at www.infidels.org), the Internet Infidels Discussion forums (at www.iidb.org), the Kiosk articles (at www.secweb.org), or all of the above? Can you give an example of content that you think "looks more like a satire on a mouth-breathing fundy site"?
(Btw, before we go on topic--what's the html coding you use to make the quotes blue like that? I like the effect, and would rather do that than use bold, reserving that for emphasis.)
(Also, Jim's comment deserves a fairer answer from me; but it's rather off-topic, so I'll post it afterward, since I expect the discussion about BE's grounds for refusal will now move to the new entry Victor has made in the main list. Tim can reply to me there, if he wishes.)
Tim: "Mr. Ehrman said that some of the arguments were irrational. That word 'some' is a very important qualifier which you and Mr. Reppert seem to be overlooking."
Not overlooking so much as reading it in light of the reason for the refusal, which needs to be strong. 'Some' means 'a not inconsiderate number'--after which we go to the strength of the refusal, being applied to that not inconsiderate number. (If the number was inconsiderable, where would be the strength of the refusal?)
So far as I recall, I never once said that BE's refusal had to be read in regard to _all_ of WLC's attempt (which I think Victor has also already made clear himself, before you wrote this comment). But to take the refusal seriously as offered, it has to be read in strong regard, to some significant part of WLC's attempt.
Meanwhile--I asked if you thought BE's remark, in light of the portions _I_ emphasized, was "a fairly neutral (if not charitable) evaluation by Mr. Ehrman of WLC's portion of the debate". Is this your answer?--that the 'some' means everything else after the 'some' is to be read as having only mild strength in regard to being a ground for BE's refusal?
"Your quoting of Mr. Reppert is quite selective."
True--I was quoting the ground of the refusal, since that was what Victor has said from the beginning that he was confused about, and what the discussion has been about from him (and me) primarily. I think you're the only person so far who has been latching onto the lack of a book (in itself) being the primary topic.
If BE had said he didn't plan to do a book (or even was backing out of a prior agreement, as Victor had previously understood) because his schedule was too full, or something mundane like that, then I doubt Victor would even have bothered to mention the refusal at all.
"I see this as a cheap shot directed at Mr. Ehrman, especially in light of the fact that there has been no evidence brought forth to substantiate the claim that the parties to the debate had agreed on publishing it in book form."
Actually, specific evidence _was_ brought forth almost immediately (after I also recommended we wait to discuss it until some actual evidence was presented other than hearsay), correcting the impression that the parties had already agreed to publish the debate in book form. Which Victor immediately posted, and immediately accepted the correction on. The reason Victor continued on, is because he was more interested in the _ground_ of the refusal from the outset.
Are you saying you didn't notice Victor immediately correcting that impression?
You may have noticed, perhaps, that nothing I wrote in my previous comment had anything at all to do with BE backing out of a previous agreement. Come to think of it, I don't recall _anything_ I wrote previously to be _grounded_ in the importance of BE backing out of a previous agreement. This is partly because I would have considered backing out of a prior agreement to be secondary to the way in which BE put his refusal; but more importantly because Victor corrected it so early, eliminating it even as a consideration.
(Ironically, I had originally included Victor's immediate correction of this impression, as data in my previous comment's tracing of what happened; but then deleted it to save some length. Now I wish I had included it. {sigh}{s})
"Mr. Reppert should have taken the 5 or 10 minutes of time it would have required to actually check the facts here."
Victor has now pointed out (after your comment here) that he brought it up originally as something about which he may have been misinformed, _asking_ for correction on it. But, I'm entirely willing to agree that he could have phrased his unsureity on this (specifically) from the outset. (He introduced the reneging as a statement, not a question; with a different claim, about the ground, being introduced before the question about being misinformed at the end.)
In turn, are _you_ willing to fairly acknowledge that Victor posted a correction to this within a day or two anyway before he continued on with a discussion of the ground for the refusal?
I'm also still curious about an answer to my question about why you persisted in bringing up the possibility that BE's comment had been private correspondence instead of public. (You skipped over that in your reply to me.)
Jason
Okay, now to Jim's entirely reasonable question (on a completely different topic than the ground for BE's refusal to a book of the debate with WLC.)
So, some clarifications (and very first the most important one {s!}):
1.) I did publicly admit, at the end of a later post, that I was being a little too hard on the SecWeb.
I wanted to be more clear about why I was saying it, and about what I did (and perhaps more importantly didn't) mean by it. But going into detail about _why_ I was saying it, would have inflated an already-long comment beyond even _my_ tolerance of comment-length. {self-critical g} And I couldn't think of any other way to reply to Steven as succinctly (even if too succinctly). I figured if someone asked me about it, then I would do my best to answer at that time. Fortunately, you were the one who asked.
2.) Even if the strength of how I put it turns out to be defensible, that _doesn't_ mean I think everything on the site is necessarily of equal calibre. I happen to have a fairly high opinion of your own work, for instance; I frequently have good things to say about Keith Parsons as well (as I did recently here on this site, even though I was criticising some positions he continues to defend). Similarly, I can go to Christian sites where I'm uncomfortable and even embarassed with the presentation (these being not a few!), and not be surprised to find something of respectable content if I decide to go digging around.
On the other hand, I can go to a fairly restrained site (HisDefense.org comes to mind, whether in its old or new format), and run across some things that I think are jaw-droppingly wrong, even with some frequency and persistancy--but I'm not embarassed to be there as a proponent.
3.) I can definitely say that the problem is not the marketing, in itself. Sites cost money to run, and so rely totally on the financial generosity of someone, one way or another. Still--the marketing is rather overt at II. HD.org requires the same financial support; but the marketing is far more subdued.
Put a little more directly, the _impression_ I get when I go to HD.org (continuing with it as my example), is that their site is more about serious discussion of the issues than it is about keeping up their site.
But isn't the Christianity Today site (to take a for-instance) even more marketing oriented (including self-marketing oriented) than II is? Yep. Does this mean the content is necessarily worthless to any significant degree? Nope. Would I be surprised to find WLC doing debates there? Actually, yes, I would be a little surprised; but not overly much.
Would I mock a noted atheistic apologist and author for not doing a debate there, and hint that maybe he's scared to go up against the people who frequent the site? Not even remotely.
Would I at least be surprised if (for example) Keith Parsons seemed to avoid doing debates on the CT site? Nope, not even remotely.
Why not?
It isn't because I think the CT site would be a worthless place to hold a debate, compared to HD. In some ways it would be clearly superior. But the agressively 'go us!' attitude of the CT site would be something that would not be convivial for an opponent to come speak in. It would be very easy for him to receive the impression, that no matter what he said or how well he said it, he would never be taken seriously there.
That's why I wouldn't blame Keith if he simply flat refused even to debate at CT; much less at the sort of site Victor found the Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter at (which I won't dignify by repeating the address here.)
And that's one reason why I _would_ be surprised if WLC ever agreed to do a debate for your site. Your presentation is just about entirely geared, not unreasonbly, to cater to the people whom you can expect to do what your site _needs_ them to do: support your site. And it's geared to a degree which caters to (and helps foster) a particular _attitude_.
This leads into:
4.) Any opponent who comes to your site to debate, is going to have to do so in the teeth of an impression of how well he can expect to be treated (even as an opponent) at your site. I can easily imagine the HD site respectfully treating Keith as a visiting debator. I can easily imagine the HolyCross site treating Bart Ehrman respectfully as a visiting debator. Although I can imagine CT treating Keith (or BE) respectfully, I can also at the same time see how either one of them might decline to go out of suspicion that they would be tossing pearls to people who are only going to trample them underfoot. I can absolutely see neither of them accepting an invitation to debate at the site which hosted the HDER. (Not that I would think it impossible; it's just that I would completely surprised if they agreed to do it.)
And--to be honest--that's the level of surprise I would have, to learn that WLC or any well-established apologist had agreed to a debate hosted at II.
Because the site material is completely worthless? No; the site material has some real worth. Because no respectable proponent (on the II side) would ever be found there? No; respectable proponents can be found there. Because of the prevalence of the marketing? Not exactly, no. I wouldn't be surprised if Keith avoided doing a debate at CT, but I wouldn't say I would never expect him to do one there; nor would I be more than a bit surprised if he did.
It's because the character and atmosphere of your site is geared almost totally toward being hostile in opposition. A duelist, accepting an offer purporting to give an honorable duel, _might_ go to the dojo of the opponent even if the place was soaked in specific antagonism to the duelist's home; where even the advertisements for things his opponents care about are usually based on attacking his home somehow. But could he really expect to receive a fair and honorable duel when he gets there?
What is the very _first_ thing any visitor to your site sees? If you called up WLC's publisher, or sent him an email, and said "Hello, I'm Jim Lippard with...", what would you have to say? Who are you with?
You're with traitors. That's your name. You flaunt it like it's a joke, or something to be proud of. That's what 'infidel' _means_. You make your opposition _and_ _hostility_ entirely clear from the first words. Nor is it in the least incidental to the attitude of the site once a reader gets past those first two words--you've got an uphill battle (from a proudly self-chosen claim to be in the lowest abyss), instantly from that point on, to be taken seriously as anything other than absolutely close-minded idealogues. An advertisement for a DVD with a ridiculously insulting marketing campaign ('we're going to hide 666 copies of this around the nation for little kids to find like poison easter eggs, muahahahah!') would be right in place--and, what's the _second_ thing I'm likely to see on your site? No surprise there.
Sure, the mission statement talks about being "dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet", plus a quote from Paul Draper about what naturalism is--but do you seriously think I'm going to forget the title of the page is Internet _Infidel_?? What does _that_ have to do with defending philosophical naturalism!? Oh, right--the non-existence of the theistic God. That's what the infidelity is about. After that, the lowest common denominator populism kicks back in, and stays kicked in at this or that level. (Today's ignorant quote from a theist is from--hey, WLC!)
You might as well be inviting a professional theist to debate at a site which takes Milton's Satan as its mascot, arguing that Milton somehow missed seeing what such good arguments Satan presents in Paradise Lost. (I would be completely surprised to see WLC agreeing to debate at Philip Pullman's website, too, relatedly.)
Hey--we're _proud_ to be a bunch of traitors who can't be trusted to keep their pledges! (That's what infidel _means_.) So, why won't WLC come debate with us, huh?
{shrug} I can put it another way. I would be surprised to find the Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter being promoted, even humorously, on the CT site (much much _much_ less on HD.) Not saying it's impossible; just that I'd be surprised to see it.
But I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find a Handy Dandy Evolution Defender being promoted, even if only as a joke, on the II site. Not saying there's one there; just saying, I wouldn't be surprised to find it.
That's the attitude the site gives me, as an impression. I doubt it strikes WLC any better.
And that's why I said what I did, with the strength that I said it.
Jason
Why are people even taking tim's suggestions/comments seriously?
Charity to the opposition. Tim's a person, too, and deserves to be treated like one.
Still, there are practical limits eventually. (Notice that even I haven't bothered to reply more than a bit to Steven. Long experience there. {s})
Jason
Post a Comment