Well done, Paul; your arguments are both illuminating and entertaining.

Pity the same can’t be said for your ‘opponents’. If this were a boxing match you’d be walking away unblemished, while the others would be flat-out on their backs, feebly crying “we win” (the Black Knight scene from the Holy Grail would work here too).

*applause*

I followed up in the other thread with another comment, clarifying Mooney and Kirschenbaum’s apparent inconsistency and hypocrisy about basic philosophy of science and religion.

(Basically, they seem just fine with science-of-religion stuff from Wade and Wilson that they reject and condescendingly vilify when the New Atheists say the very same things.)

That may just be gilding the lily of Bone of Contention #1, or it might clarify something.

No, at present I’m doing a bunch of stuff that gives me a few minutes slack several times an hour. Hard to get serious work done in those little slack periods. (Or to tighten up my comments here… it’s easier to reel off a longish response in a few minutes than to carefully structure and edit one… and if nobody’s going to bother to answer even one question, that’s too much work.)

I notice you’re still dodging the relevant questions. (Pointedly failing to answer a question and gloating about it is hardly ignoring it—or if you call that “ignoring,” okay, whatever, but it’s still dodging.)

No, I have plenty of better things to do, but it a nice distraction here and there through the day as I work on editing a tricky paper. As I said, you are quite entertaining. Besides, pokes don’t take long. You, on the other hand seem to be taking quite a lot of time away from grant-writing for your thread-filling and turgid rants.

Wait a second…

You basically admit that you have nothing better to do than poke at me to get a reaction, rather than ever addressing anything I actually say…

…and bilbo is over in the “An Armistice in the Religious Wars” thread ranting about my supposed bloody stumps… WTF?…

But you’re talking about my “barely contained rage”?

I think you must be misreading my tone!

*snicker*

Here’s an explanation of the first major bone of contention:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/11/19/more-of-stephen-meyers-bad-history-of-science/#comment-37346

My latest comment in the “An Armistice in the Religious Wars” thread is essentially an illustration of that:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/12/02/an-armistice-in-the-religious-wars/comment-page-1/#comment-40140

Repeatedly, pointedly saying that you’re ignoring someone is not ignoring them. (What, are you five or something?)

If you keep telling me you won’t talk to me, I’ll have a hard time believing you. (How can I miss you if you won’t go away?)

Do feel free to actually ignore me.

Saying you’re ignoring people, and insulting them, while refusing to answer any serious questions, and excusing it with an ad hominem… well, that’s not ignoring. It is dodging.

What are those two bones, Paul?

Ignoring is not dodging. I’m not surprised you don’t know the difference between the two concepts, though. You seem to have a knack for living in your own reality. And in that reality, you see to think you have dealt with me for far longer than you have. What color is the sky in Paul W. world? Of are your Overton Windows so polarized you can’t really tell any more?