I think the Selma and Santosh are describing two sides of the same coin. We see this often in science. At least those of us who have been in science for a long time. Selma claims that the CONCEPTS in Kevin's latest theology is nothing new - Very True! (both for the concept and for Kevin's assertions) Santosh insist the EXPLANATION of the concept is a 'new' breakthrough. Very True - (new explanation perhaps for now.) This is like in 1492 when Columbus 'discovered' the "New World" and its people. The people of the New World insisted, that WE were always here. We are not New. Columbus effectively retorts, "You are New, because Now we know your 'latitude and longitude'. This is a New Concept.":=)) The accuracy with which scientist can express themselves is highlighted in Santosh's post below. To quote: "Selma's statement .............. is false. I had merely made a light-hearted comment." He accuses the other person of FALSELY quoting him. Then goes on to explain why the alleged statement was indeed made. How about apologizing for the faux pas, with Alfred Tavares' choice of words: Chuk zali... Moji chukk... Gunaum bogos... Gunaum muzo? How much science and research does that take?
Regards, GL ------------ Carvalho wrote: There you go again Santosh with those words "totally wrong". Of late, you've even begun calling for the pastoral exile of people who you find "totally wrong". ------------- Santosh wrote: She is simply engaging in innuendo and further mischaracterization of my statements. Selma's statement above that I have begun calling for the pastoral exile of people who I find totally wrong is false. I had merely made a light-hearted comment ......... . My comment had nothing to do with whether I thought the person was right or wrong.
