I cannot help but note that, despite his repeated insistence that he wanted a deeper discussion on the subject of whether ID is pseudoscience: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], @colewd has been strangely silent on this thread.
If one was being cynical, one might almost think that Bill was simply bringing the issue up as an attempt to distract from the fact that the original thread was finding no evidence of substantive bias in Wikipedia’s ID article, rather than any interest in discussing this topic, with people who had taken the chance to put thought into, and read up on, the mountain of reasoned opinion for regarding ID as pseudoscience.
Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are not as they ought to be.
– Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil’s Dictionary