With deliberate nastiness like this, it’s no wonder this forum is such a one-sided echo chamber. Why would anyone bother?
You call that nastiness? You have led a sheltered life. That was a summary opinion of the quality of your arguments. Nothing against you as a person.
4 Likes
My call here is that John is expressing an opinion, and not a particularly “harsh” opinion as these things go. There might be a lack of understanding about the intent, but that likely started before these comments.
2 Likes
I have seen deliberate nastiness on PS. This is not it. Not even close.
2 Likes
How is this “deliberate nastiness”? It would seem to be a reasonable perspective given:
-
your and Dr Hancock’s relative expertise in population genetics; and
-
the respective depth to which GE and mainstream population genetics have developed their theories.
This could better be attributed to the mental wear and tear of defending the indefensible to a well-educated and skeptical audience on an ongoing basis.
Only the most masochistic of apologists attempt the task.
Most apologists quickly return to apologetics’ forte – preaching to the choir – still “a one-sided echo chamber” – but a more salubrious one.
3 Likes
Please let’s drop this point of discussion. If @UncensoredPilgrims needs to comment on it he can PM me.
1 Like
You win just for using “salubrious.”
1 Like