Since, Jim, your perceived "thrusts" of arguments are, as you have previously asserted, enough for you to base animadversions and denunciations on, I will simply respond to your recent posts in contradiction of me and others, that I perceive their "thrust" to be evasive and/or nonsensical, and quite peculiarly unconvincing.

Just read back over them. Do you even find any true conviction in their "thrust" yourself? Do you truly feel I should find my arguments in any way demolished by their "thrust"?

A bit *desperate* is the adjective I would choose myself, if asked to summarise their "thrust" in one word.

Leaving out all those [you all know who they are] who have been associated with Jim's comments in recent posts ~~ how does anyone else perceive the "thrust" of Jim's arguments, I wonder? In particular, isn't the "thrust" of his evocation of Xtian Fundamentalism as also leading sometimes to assassination an example of that invariably pathetic "well then what about ..." argument, which is inevitably demonstrably more evasive than persuasive in its "thrust", in that it simply confirms the allegation that has been made and thinks to refute it by simply providing further examples of the abuse being adversely criticised?

~Michael~