Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!

Essay talk:Why I eat meat

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Animal suffering does not count where human satisfaction is concerned[edit]

So you have no problems with me torturing kittens (just making a point - wouldn't really, Toast) as long as I'm enjoying it. Bob Soles 18:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that their suffering is morally irrelevant if I am going to eat them later. --Tolerance 18:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow! You really don't care how much the animal suffers as long as you're going to eat them. I'm quite frankly flabbergasted - and appalled. Your morrally OK with causing suffering to defenceless animals just because the Bible isn't animal friendly. Spend a day in a slaughter yard - or visit a battery chicken farm and see if you still agree. Bob Soles 18:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to go one step further. An absolute presupposition of my moral code is that hurting other sentient beings is wrong. Obviously it's not quite as simple as that but it's a good place to start from and has more justification than 'some old book tells me'. So, far from us atheists not having a moral compass, we do have one and, in this case, to my mind it's a better one than 'the Bible says so'. Your book says 'by their fruits ye shall know them' - one moral code is fine with animals suffering, the other isn't. I know which 'fruit' I prefer. Bob Soles 18:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I am honestly Confused. Where does you Moral Code come from?--Tolerance 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
bleeding out by cutting a major vein/artery may not be that bad. watching your herd mates being butchered might not be so nice. Humane killing is better for the killer too. Hamster (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Tastiness[edit]

Shellfish are tasty and your god once had (maybe even still does have!) a problem with you eating them. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As I Said, I'm not sure how far I'd want to take the "Tasty" Justification. For Others it seems Fundamental. --Tolerance 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You have incorrectly stated that such a line of argument "is generally supportive of [your] case". — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I had Thought that the subsection Dead cow = delicious dinner = morally right! was making such a Point. But it is not my main Arguement and not, I admit, the Strongest.--Tolerance 18:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Please admit that the line of argument is not generally supportive of your case, as evidenced by the tastiness of shellfish, which your god had a problem with you eating. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block
I had though that most of the Comments on the Debate Page used this Arguement. But in Biblical Terms, have you not Read the New Testament?--Tolerance 18:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Did your god at one time forbid the eating of shellfish? Are shellfish tasty? Please, two one word answers if you can. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
ahem... — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Yes. Sorry for the Delay, I was working on the Poll.--Tolerance 19:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Tolly, but every bit and tithe of the Old Testament still applies to believers. Please check out John 7:19, chastising people for not following the laws set by Moses, Matthew 5:17, where the statement is made "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets". Further, "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18-19). You don't get off scoot free on the shellfish, sorry, nor any of the other moral outrages in the OT. Javasca₧ What the hELL is that P at the end of my sig?! 19:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The cafeteria crew cites jebus' assisted suicide as the accomplishment. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Even Satan can quote Scripture to His Ends. Do You athiests really think that you Understand the Bible Better than the majority of the Christian Church? --Tolerance 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, now...I'd be surprised if most Christians knew why they blew off the OT, plus I think I got it right anyway. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The Old Testament Covenant with the Jews was replaced with the New Covenant in the New Testament. The Good News (the gospel) of Jesus. His Birth and Resurrection are fundamental to the Christian church which is open to both Jews and Gentiles.--Tolerance 20:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Covenant theology is still pretty fuzzy. If I were a Christian, I think I'd follow OT law just to be safe. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
New covanant with JC ? you mean the one that is in place after he returns and establishes his kingdom? when did that happen, I missed it. Hamster (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The employees of RationalWiki[edit]

I assume that my minor change is okay? --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 18:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not Consider myself to be a Confrontational Person. Simply someone who has Different Ideas. But I think that this site has Guidelines which should be Followed. I wrote "Employees" deliberately as a Joke. But the last time I Stood on Principle and Complained about somebody changing my User Page my Complaint itself became an Issue. So I will let your change Stand - though it was not what I Intended. In future PLEASE discuss all such changes on this page first. Thank You.--Tolerance 18:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You are either an idiot or a troll[edit]

I err towards the second. Time bastard Hoover! 18:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

EC. Thank you. I know that my ideas are not always Welcome. I understand that if you have no Answers then Insults Serve Better. I do not Hold it Against you. --Tolerance 18:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Very Telling That You Didn't Capitalize "you". — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I can never tell. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I vote parodist. -- Nx / talk 19:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm now voting troll. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Tolerance is[edit]

an idiot7Vote
a troll1Vote
a parodist13Vote
all four16Vote

add moar if needed.

whoa, whoa...none of these are mutually exclusive. For instance, I think s/he is all three four. They should be separated so we can vote for each. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I am leaning toward "parodist," given evidence like this, but perhaps Poe's Law is kicking in. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Why, when a Person has a Different Opinion, do you need to attach a Disrespectful Label? I Understand It is Easier to Dismiss people and their Ideas in this Way, but it is simply not Fair.--Tolerance 19:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
See, that's parody trolling. We need multiple votes!!! — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
(EC) It is a very weak idea that cannot withstand a bit of mud-slinging. Consider it a sort of "reality check." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
EC. On a technical Note, I added "Sincere" to the Above and it seemed to have Two Votes intermediately which seemed Strange. I would not want to be Accused of doing something Dishonerable. Although my Motives are always being Questioned, they are Pure. --Tolerance 19:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
But now it has Changed Again. So I am Confused. Where did my Vote Go?--Tolerance 19:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Those two votes belonged to the all four option. You can't rearrange them, you have to add to the end. -- Nx / talk 19:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have Figured That Out Now. I did not wish to Cheat. Thank you for your Explanation.--Tolerance 19:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I did not assume that. -- Nx / talk 19:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Nx. Unfortunately I am used to people putting the Worst Possible Interpretation on my actions.--Tolerance 19:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I, for One, Thank you For providing Some very Nice sunday Entertainment (I only Just found This). ħumanUser talk:Human 19:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"so called "chairman" of the IPCC" = parody. Damn, he's full of surprises. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

she. -- Nx / talk 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You can't say that with any certainty, unless you're talking about the person s/he is parodying. Have they said that "Tolerance" is a female character? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, come now; this is the Internet, where no one can be sure of anything. This has the advantage of greatly decreasing the effectiveness of the ad hominem. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point, especially considering that I am still pretty sure you are a woman. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have not way of demonstrating my Gender, but I am Female. Does it make a Difference?--Tolerance 19:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
It makes a difference with ease of referring to you in the third person. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Then if it's All the Same to You, I would like you to use my real Gender. But if you feel like being Petty I don't Mind if you call me "He". Or for that matter "it". I don't expect, or ask for, too much Respect here.--Tolerance 20:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the best place to say I found the essay to be hilarious. An excellent send-up indeed. So I added some more another choices to the voting above. I would have added more but I didn't want to make too much of a mess. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, fixed my addition, I see you can only add new options at the bottom. Good thing I didn't add all my "both", "all three", "all five" etc. options between the existing ones! ħumanUser talk:Human 19:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And the Answers Are?[edit]

While I am not Surprised, I have seen almost no Objections to the Real Points I have made. Only a response to what I Admitted was the Weakest Argument, the Argument from Tastinesss (which Others had made Before). What I have seen, As Usual, are Personal Attacks on my Sincerity. But as Personal Attacks are easier than Real Responses I suppose that was To Be Expected.--Tolerance 19:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually got you to tacitly admit that the argument from tastiness is not in your favor, but whatev. Troll. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought that You were in favor of That Argument in the Debate?--Tolerance 20:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I don think so, but if I was, my mind has changed after considering your God's (former?) views on shellfish. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You're Right. I Stand Corrected. I cannot see you specifically making that Argument. While Reviewing the Debate I did see you saying:
  • Honestly, I've always wanted to try human (particularly fetus). For some reason, I don't think it'd be very good, though.
Please tell me that was a Joke.--Tolerance 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
That was no joke. I would like to taste human flesh. For some reason, I think a fetus would be tastier (tenderer, juicier, etc). — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Tastes like pork - or so I'm told. I can't recall the bit in the Bible against cannibalism. OK, "thou shalt not kill" but if it's road kill.... Bob Soles 20:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I feel the Parody Vote should not be for me. And I'm still waiting for Real Answers.--Tolerance 20:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what's so hard to believe about the interest in tasting human flesh. It's a simple enough curiosity. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Parodist.--Tolerance 20:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Parodying what? What's so hard to believe? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I frankly Refuse to believe that you wish to Eat Human Flesh. Really I hope that you just wish to Shock or Appear Controversial. If youe any more posts I will not Respond as it is simply too Distasteful and Distressing. I am Sorry. In fact, I must go now as I am too disturbed and unwell. Goodbye. Thank you.--Tolerance 20:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You've got to remember I have no reason to sanctify our species like people with religious convictions do. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I recall hearing about some tribe that made a sort of beer from the dead and got plastered on it as an act of remembrance/honoring. Can't find it at the moment. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Some shamans used to take some heavy herbal dope and then the locals would all get drunk on his evacuations, which had been made psychoactive to a lesser degree. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Moral Issue You consider the Bible to be the sole moral authority, and yourself as the primary interpreter of that authority. It's kind of hard to argue, therefore, that eating meat is wrong. You can decide that it isn't - by bald fiat - and for you, that's so. So there's nothing really to address. It would be similar if I decided that my coffee mug was the sole source of moral authority, and I could interpret its grounds and stains. Incidentally, I disagree and think it's absurd for you to claim that I have no moral code as an atheist, but I will agree that atheists tend to have very divergent moral ideas - mostly because atheists tend to think for themselves and arrive at somewhat different conclusions (I think that's a good thing, by the by).
Suffering If you think animal suffering is irrelevant, it's similarly difficult to present it as an obstacle to meat-eating. If the squalor and agony of a billion screaming animals is meaningless, then why would that suffering stop you from eating meat?
Scientific Relativism In this last section, you essentially propose that science can never make any meaningful statements, because another scientists might disagree. This is a pretty well-known fallacy. It must lead to some interesting situations. When your doctor tells you to take your heart medicine, I assume you ignore him because another doctor can just disagree with him, right? Or perhaps do you recognize that not all scientific opinions and studies are created equal? I suspect the latter. If it's the former, then put me in your will.
So in conclusion... You are the sole arbiter of morality (or "interpreter" of it), so I can hardly make a moral argument. Animal suffering is meaningless, so you don't care that meat-eating causes it. And no possible scientific argument on environmental damage could convince you, because you don't believe in science. So when you have eliminated all possible mechanisms of proof, it's no surprise that you end up just doing what makes you feel good. Enjoy your burger, I guess.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Tom for at least attempting to respond to the Issues I raised. Something which is Lacking from your colleagues Quite Disturbing Posts above. I do not always feel well, and they Paint Images which I would rather not contemplate. I am not now in Correct Conditions to Respond Reasonably to you. Thank you Again for Responding. I will respond Again myself tomorrow. When I feel Better. Thank you. --Tolerance 21:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the Time to Respond Tom. I am Feeling Better so Here are my Responses.
I don't quite follow your first point on Morality. Mine comes from The Bible and it needs no Interpretation. I do not how you Arrive at yours, but that is not my main Point.
I'm afraid that I also don't Follow your second Point.
Science never reaches Final Answers, so it cannot provide Final Answers. So it seems to me that it is anyway Irrelevant to Moral Issues. I really should make no statement about about the utility of science from a Religious basis as this would contradict NOMA
While I would not have used your Language, your Final Conclusion (if I understand it) may have some truth.--Tolerance 16:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Bible[edit]

I'm not at all convinced that you have any detailed knowledge of the Bible. You haven't cited any actual verses, even when making bizarre assertions like "The New Testament expanded the potential smorgasbord" - which would be very easily verifiable if it were true.

And you conclude with "Given that the bible (and therefore God) has no objection to our eating meat there is obviously no moral objection on principal". So you're saying that Christian theology has had no moral qualms about meat? There are quite a few thousand monks & nuns who would disagree with you about this. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not quote Chapters and Verses becasue I felt it would be Not Welcome. I you wish I can Provide them.--Tolerance 15:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure. point us to the bits of irrelevant nonsense you have in mind. Could be good for a laugh: "Here's where some boogieman who never existed tells me what I should put into my body.Praise the non-existent boogieman!!!!" TheoryOfPractice 16:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
If I Post them, Will you accept that That is what The Holy bible says?--Tolerance 16:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
You're missing the point - ToP and Weaseloid don't care what the bible says, Nor do I for that matter. Bob Soles 16:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Weaseloid claims they do not Exist. ToP seems to feel the same. But I want to know if people want them. Otherwise posting them will only Generate more Abuse.--Tolerance 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I shall take any abuse due for posting them. Weaseloid, the New Testament abrogated much of the Mosaic Law (see, e.g., Colossians 2:16, Acts 15:19-20), making it possible to eat such delicacies as pork and shellfish. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, passages supporting your argument exist in the Bible. So what. Really, who cares? Do you always live your life by ancient superstition and mythology? Are you that fucking stupid? TheoryOfPractice 16:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In tee Essay I mention The Bible because it is the Source of my Morality. I Understand that it is not the Source of yours. --Tolerance 16:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
So, how do you stand on the stoning of witches, or the owning of slaves? Or are you a cafeteria Christian? Bob Soles 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
How about equality between men and women? Or homos? Where does your "source of morality" guide you re: the homos? Or jackin' off, there's another one. How 'bout keeping the Sabbath Day holy? Does your presence here these past couple of days clear with that? TheoryOfPractice 16:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Try reading the Bible verses I cited above. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Do those passages say men and women are equal, that the homos are alright, and that we can jack off? TheoryOfPractice 17:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Bible's position on autoerotic acts is sketchy at best. Many of the other claims draw from Old Testament law, which was largely abrogated at the Council of Jerusalem. The positions on women and gays are another matter. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll say there another matter. Christians are all too fast to quote the OT when it comes to queer bashing but, suddenly, when it's inconvenient, there's the new covenant. In addition, I'm not so sure what Paul would think of a girly (Tollerance has said she's female) daring to speak up amongst the men. Bob Soles 17:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The Old Testament is quoted in that case because the sexual prohibitions were one of the few things kept in at the Council of Jerusalem, and the condemnations of homosexuality were reiterated. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
That will be the Council of Jerusalem where the apostles - notably not JC - threw out everything that was getting inconvenient because Christianity was spreading outside Judaism. The things the church will do to stay inclusive - they'll be having women priests next! Bob Soles 17:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I refreshed my memory - I haven't read the bible for forty odd years - and reread the relevant verse - Acts 15:29 - and I'm somewhat blown away. It would appear that the ten commandments are out of the window along with the rest of Noachic law. All us gentiles need to do is
  • Abstain from meats offered to idols
  • Abstain from blood - Oh well, there goes tonight's black pudding supper
  • Abstain from from things strangled
  • Abstain from fornication - and apparently it's not too clear what they meant by that. The exact meaning of the word porneia is less than straightforward
So, apart from the fornication - and that might just mean incest - I'm in the clear.
Bob Soles 18:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
But Jesus said (at least according to Matthew) that the law of the Old Testament should stand without change forever (Matthew 5:17-20). This is one of the areas where the Bible really contradicts itself. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Jesus was preaching to Jews at that point. The law was only abrogated for Gentiles. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
So the whole stoning witches, cotton polyester mix, kosher food and other stupid law stuff only applies to Jewish Christians? Surely there is one, and only one, way to be good. Surely there shouldn't be one rule for this lot and one rule for that lot. As a basis for a moral compass it's seeming more and more weird. Bob Soles 19:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
"Surely there is one, and only one, way to be good." One does not have to abide by the terms of a contract if one did not sign that contract (or in this case, be part of an ethnic group that collectively signed the contract). Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
So, if I were to convert to Christianity the only four laws would be the ones above? I have nothing to do with the contract called the ten commandments, for example. Well, I'm off to covert my neighbour's wife - a little light coveting shouldn't come under fornication - but I'll stay away from the black puddings on my way over. I know this is reductio ad absurdum but, given the weight it has in western society, shouldn't we be scrutinising exactly what this old book does and does not tell us to do? Bob Soles 19:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
"This old book" is not book but many, written in various different periods by various different authors and with various different purposes. Hence all the inconsistencies. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Theologians have been interminably debating just that question. Much of Christian morality was originally made by hermetic speculations (the Seven Deadly Sins, for example), but the Protestants could not have that, thumbing their nose at the Catholic Church as they were, so they started extracting things from the Bible instead. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Groan. Scientific stuff[edit]

I groan becasue I may be wasting my time on a troll a parodist or something previously unnamed - a "paratroll"?. But there are some things which need to be said about the vast quantity of misinformation and muddled thinking in this essay. Others have challenged you on the moral issues, so I am going down a different route.

  • Science is a work in progress - but it is not generally contradictory in general principles. The fact that there is conflict and debate in science is a strength not a weakness. It does not mean that science is somehow invalid.
  • Following from the above, you attempt to equate Dawkins and Behe so as to suggest that they both present equally valid scientific perspectives. This is not true. Dawkins has published many papers in peer revived journals in favour of his evolutionary ideas. Behe has published nothing in favour of intelligent design. There is no comparison.
  • There is no real scientific debate about the existence of anthropogenic global warming. The main scientific body charged with studying the process has no doubts.
  • Simply waving away studies which show that intensive animal farming contributes to global warming is not an answer. Claiming that you imagine that there are other reports which say the opposite proves nothing. If these reports only exist in you imagination then they are not evidence.
  • Quoting the Oregon Petition (of all things) as counter-evidence with its alleged thousands of signatures is farcical.
  • Dismissing the scientific studies which show the health dangers of eating meat as "obviously wrong" is not really a good response.
  • Claiming that Dr Rajendra Pachaur's views are influenced by his religion and are therefore invalid is such an obvious case of the pot calling the kettle black that I'm not sure how to respond.
  • While the moral "Argument form tastiness" seems to have been initially supported by some contributors to this wiki they were (I hope) arguing in jest.

--BobNot Jim 17:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not Feel you have Responded to the main Issues of my Essay.--Tolerance 16:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
This is known as argument from La la la - I can't hear you.. Bob has addressed a number of points from your essay, whether or not they're not main issues is irrelevant. Bob Soles 16:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I consider this to be Nit-Picking. A deliberate Distraction. NoOne can Doubt these is Disention in Science. --Tolerance 16:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
See Bob's first point - dissension in science is it's strength. However, also see Bob's second point - quoting Behe as a scientist is a joke. Also, for all the dissension in science there is general consensus over anthropogenic climate change. Those that deny are in the minority by a long way. Bob Soles 16:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean I haven't responded to your essay?? More than 50% of the thing comes under your heading "Scientific" objections and I responded to just about every point you made. From now on I've got you on DFTT.
Troll--BobNot Jim 17:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)