Ok, I admit it! I have been irked into a reply by that last splurge, but promise I really will stop now whatever you say in reply to this.

You said: "To stress again, it is about trying to get effective communication by ensuring words are going to be understood by the reader rather than inventing your own personal meaning which can do nothing but harm communication."

Well I couldn't agree more.

Actually, you did not agree at all, because what that paragraph was about was you redefining the word 'creationist' to have a completely different meaning to the whole rest of the world. You know that, I know that, all the readers of this thread know that. And why did you have to do that? Just so you could get a little burst of pleasure by saying "Ha ha ha. Three lines of bullshit, then, finally, the simple answer to the simple question. You are no less a creationist than pete". And please don't try to say you are so ice-cold when you post that the 'ha ha ha' does not indicate a touch of glee that you think you have forced me into admitting something I was fighting against.

That is simply foolish, and you are better than that. Why on earth should I object to being labelled as a creationist-but-only-in-the-sense-that-Steve-uses-it-and-no-one-else-in-the-world?   What I do object to is a deliberate attempt on your part to deceive the careless reader into thinking when you say "You are no less a creationist than pete" that it means what all the rest of the world thinks it means. That is the opposite of what true debate is about and you know it.

Then we get the three lines of bullshit bit. Really, Steve, you do need to read more widely. Have a chat with Bill D: he will give you a bit of guidance about what things like 'excluded middle', 'equivocation' and all the rest mean.

Just to sign off, I have reproduced the middle paragraph of Steve's post of 14 Nov 15 - 05:46 AM, swapped the first sentence to the end and added a bit of highlighting. Food for thought on your approach, Steve.


I put my points very directly and undiplomatically when it comes to religion and I know some of you don't like it. Well I'm glad you don't because you haven't really got a leg to stand on but you refuse to confront it. What do I mean by that? Why, you believe in a deity who is far less likely to exist than fairies at the bottom of my garden. You wrap him up in profoundly meaningless, flowery language that's merely an attempt to dignify him and stop yourselves from looking foolish. You tell children to believe in him and make them bow their heads and sing silly hymns praising him. You can't tell me why it's better to tell them lies instead of the truth. It's self-infantilisation on a massive scale and you simply can't see it.

The last refuge of a scoundrel who hasn't got anything useful left to say is to accuse your adversary of having personality defects.