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

On Feb 11, 2:27 pm, "Makouli" <m...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
<claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:99d83bf1-8135-4ba2-a39f-c65d43f7870f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 11, 12:29 pm, "Makouli" <m...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:





<claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:0f772310-06a9-4dac-911a-a02255f817aa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 11, 8:19 am, "Makouli" <m...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

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.

Retract "what", Dimmy?

============================
"I know evasiveness when I see it."
--Dimmy 12/02/2005
Your foot from your mouth.

Could you take some time out of your busy
schedule to show me just what you'd like
me to retract?  Or are we gonna play this
little dodge game of yours until the cows
come home?

If you now say that you dispute Lee's assertion that HE regularly
outran predators and ran-down kudu and antelope why did you not
dispute it before? And then there's the rather obvious observation
that humans cannot go far without access to fresh water. It never
even occurred to you that this was inconsistent with reality as we
know it. As long as it comes from the mouth of an anthropologists
you treat it as gospel--literally.

I think it is becoming more and more obvious that the lack of
thought that comes from you is truly indicative of a lack of
understanding.

.

Relevant Pages