rationalskepticism.org

DavidMcC wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Either way it's an inane semantic point followed by a personalised edit.

Assuming the "it" was my post, then I think it is you who misunderstood. It was certainly NOT merely a semantic issue! It was theropod being literalist.

I would think when soneone writes the word "all" unqualified in a sentence, they mean "all." Otherwise they would gphave written something like "almost all" or "virtually all" or "all the most significant." Of course when you're an ID proponent, nuance in writing and clarity of ideas aren't a primary pursuit.

Well, funnily enough, I think all means all too! (In fact, that was my point.) So why this: "The ALL isn't the point of the post"??
And, Oh, dear! Have we sunk back into innuendos? AGAIN!!