Bobert: Well, Arne, where were you when we needed you here...

Well, I've been "around" for many years now ... search my name and you'll see. I generally don't look into the Mudcat as often as I'd like if I was gainfully unemployed (not making any insinuations abotu anyone else, of course). I occasionally comment in the non-BS threads that I think I have something I can add ... and occasionally tangle with the RW folks on the BS threads. I think I've have at least one exchaneg with Terebus (the original) in the past.

I've also been meaning to become a member ... but I guess my procrastinating ways are still with me.

Guest,A: Arne, why the name change?

I just got married. ;-) Either that or I'm a klutzy typist. Unlike some folks here, I'm perfectly happy to sign my name to my work both here and on the political websites. Hey, check out my blog if you want some more of my writing. Some neat pictures there too...

Guest,A continues: Doesn't connect up with the scientist link and most scientists would not, at first glance, accuse someone of being dishonest.

You're wrong. For instance, there's many scientists that say that the creationists (and the Discovery Institute folks) are dishonest. Take a gander over to the Panda's Thumb if you want to see some scientists (and interested non-scientists) eviscerate the DI and YEC folks. In my experience, scientists are particularly sensitive to lies; while common in the political arena -- where what is "right" and what is "wrong" is often not as clear or is a matter of opinion, and where the primary aim is not necessarily finding the truth -- in the realm of science, we're supposed to be looking for objective fact whatever that may be, and deliberate deception is a far greater crime. I certainly personally feel that way. I'd note that scientists that are found to have been dishonest in their papers may lose their grants and their jobs as well as their reputation. OTOH, if you do that in politics, you might just get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Certainly doesn't seem to get you fired, if you've been following the papers....

Guest,A: continues inexplicably: However, your association with bobert may be a factor in this apparent lack of lucidity.

Umm, what is my "association with bobert"? I was unaware of any. Did he wrote me into his will unbeknownst? (IOW, you should show some integrity and take back that insinuation).

Don Firth: These are a few things to look out for, but it is far from an exhaustive list.

Don't sweat it, I'm no newbie to such -- umm, "argumentation".

Guest (presumably, "Guest,A"): I mentioned Arnes' so called affilation he offered as the names don't match. An attempt to be someone he is not?

I won't bother with nitpicking the usage and typos here from someone who seems to have missed my typo. You ought to read the thread a bit more carefully and pay attention; having done so, you might have first seen that I used my correct name in previous posts and you might have twigged to the notion I'm doing no such thing as "attempt[ing] to be someone he is not". As for the "brain scientist" comment of mine (note I added "recovering"; haven't done it in 30 years), I was just funnin' on Bobert's "rocket surgery", not responding to the RW folks here. Too bad you don't seem to appreciate wordplay; it's a handy attribute on the 'Cat..... You might turn your Sar-Cas-O-Meter sensitivity up a notch too. But I yam what I yam. 8^P

Cheers,