Re: Michael Clark, would you like to make a retraction?

On Feb 11, 8:19 am, "Makouli" <m...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
<claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:af8d55e3-bba8-4ae1-b2d6-8b1514d65c2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 11, 7:40 am, "Makouli" <m...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:





<claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:206a5a9f-40ee-4e4c-82ec-cff4e05b03ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 11, 6:30 am, "Makouli" <m...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[..]
Retract "what", Dimmy? And will you stop with all
that irony already? That .sig file is getting *huge*.
Just think. If you had a hypothesis you wouldn't have to pretend
that
you can't see my questions.

Retract "what", Dimmy?

The reason you dimwits focus on AAT is because it draws attention away
from the ineptitude of conventional theory. My hypothesis explains
the selective origins of the human attributes that you and your fellow
AAT whackjobs can only dismiss with rather obvious political tactics.
Real scientists have no need/use for political tactics.

Retract "what", Dimmy?

=================================
"It's a simple question. Why not just
provide a simple (non-evasive) response?"
Dimmy --01/29/08
You can't say I didn't provide you with an opportunity to redeem
yourself.  (Given your track record I can see how that wouldn't be
that attractive anyways.)

Retract "what", Dimmy?


Just think. If there actually was a hypothesis for you conventional
theorists you wouldn't have to pretend you can't see my questions.
.

Loading