Wolfgang, either you're missing something, or I am.

1. I said: My whole [expletive deleted] point was that repeatability is not the be-all and end-all of science.

2. You said: had you said what you now claim you have meant, there would have been no need for my sermon.

At this point, my most obvious rejoinder would be to show that I did, in fact, say what I claim to have meant, which I immediately do:

3. I pointed out that I had earlier said: I was objecting, not to evolution per se, but to Naemanson's narrow definition of "science."

4. Now you come back and say: I had cited the sentence I was criticising at the beginning of my long post. You respond by citing another sentence from your post I had not attacked at all. Had you read sine ira et studio this should have been obvious to you.

I wasn't responding to your long post in #3; I was responding to your claim #2. You make it sound (in #4) like I was responding to your "sermon" by pointing out the sentence quoted in #3. This is rather a cheap shot and seems to purposely confuse what really happened. #3 was not a response to your sermon, it is a response to your claim in #2, showing that I did, in fact, say earlier what you wish I had said earlier. I'm not sure if this was an honest mistake on your part, or an attempt to obfuscate the issues to make yourself look better. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

By the way what does "sina ira et studio" mean?

Alex