Posted: Jul 25, 2011 11:49 pm
pinkharrier wrote:THWOTH said "I made an observation, not a smear. The term is descriptive and was used because it was wholly appropriate in relation to the cited sources. If you feel a bit touchy about the term or are uncomfortable with the association then perhaps that's informative in itself?
So you defined them. Please spare me the bit about the cited sources then because it is BS.
Have you had a look at the website Galaxian referred to? How would you describe its political agenda? It's not as if I haven't challenge Galaxian on specific points or just relied on an observation to challenge his argument. I'm also sure Galaxian is quite capable of championing his own point of view - if he is wiling to do so I am quite happy to discuss the issues with him. What else should I do, in your opinion?
pinkharrier wrote:As for the second sentences ("If you feel touchy...etc"), more guilt by association smearing. Why don't you run some spooky music as well.
Why is referring to the political agenda of the website quoted a smear exactly?
pinkharrier wrote:You should have some intellectual pride.
I have always done my best to explain my scepticism as I have done my best to address every point addressed to me. What more can I do? What have I got to be intellectually embarrassed about exactly?
I think it would be far better attending to the topic at hand, and in our case for you to respond in kind to the points of issue rather than just lambasting me for whatever you consider incorrect terminology and references :
- http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=935475#p935475
- http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=934310#p934310
- http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=928952#p928952