When you claim that I cast aspersions on them, then yeah you need to provide evidence that I actually did it. Remember, your original charge was “criticizing book and authors you haven’t read”. Your story on this has changed several times since.
- First it became “implicitly criticized”.
- Then it became “treat active, competent, respected evolutionary theorists as if their views were negligible garbage”.
- Now it’s “implying” they were “not bona fide evolutionary theorists” or “didn’t mean what I thought they meant”. Let’s remember “It’s common for people to confuse “imply” and “infer”, too, but that doesn’t make their usage correct”.
I don’t think you can even keep track of your own fantasies, let alone provide evidence for them.
So what? It is clear to anyone who reads English that I said nothing about them, even by implication, and did not disparage them at all. It is clear to anyone who reads English that you are simply making this up.
What juvenile nonsense. I didn’t mention them because they were literally not what I was talking about. You really are desperate. Completely unable to find any evidence for your claim that I disparaged them, you point to my lack of mention of them, and claim that this constitutes dismissing them as “bona fide evolutionary theorists”.
You’ve done the same to other people here, trying to tell them what their own words mean, simply as a distraction from your own bungling. You did it to @T_aquaticus, who rightly responded “That’s a complete misrepresentation of my position”.
Why do you persist with this pattern of behavior? It’s because you can’t discuss the science. As @Mercer told you, “your approach to scholarship is laughably shallow”. You couldn’t even tell the difference between a comment an an article, and you didn’t even realise you hadn’t actually read the article you were pontificating on.