[lutusp]

I posted what I did so nontechnical readers wouldn't be misled. Would you object if I similarly addressed someone who claimed that evolution must be wrong because it's not in the Bible?

> ... you're just trashing someone that had a thought and expressed it ...

Indeed, that's what I did, but it was because of what was expressed, not the fact of its expression.

Surely it has by now occurred to you that you're defending this person's right to say whatever he chooses, while denying me the same right? Or did that escape your attention?

> Oh, get over yourselves, both of you.

Under the circumstances, it's time for you to get over yourself. The OP's post, and my reply, are perfectly symmetrical -- one demands the other.

[Helianthus]

Heh. Well, you've made it pretty easy for me.

>>Under the circumstances, it's time for you to get over yourself. The OP's post, and my reply, are perfectly symmetrical -- one demands the other.

Perfect. Now for an actual rebuttal...

---

>Surely it has by now occurred to you that you're defending this person's right to say whatever he chooses, while denying me the same right?

I didn't say you shouldn't say anything, I'm saying you're an asshole for being proud of having said anything.

Your original response regarding what constitutes a violation of physics was fine. Your response to gfodor was simple gloating.

[lutusp]

> I didn't say you shouldn't say anything, I'm saying you're an asshole for being proud of having said anything.

Congratulations on abandoning the moral high ground, rocket scientist. You just demolished your own position.

How did you get to your present age without learning about the risk of fatal self-reference?

[Helianthus]

I never said I was proud that I could tell your comment was self-aggrandizing. I only said it was obvious.

[lutusp]

You've just demonstrated that you're a study in hypocrisy and have no grasp of how you sound. Under the circumstances, what's my incentive to continue?

[Helianthus]

Why are you asking me?

Goodnight.