Rather than intensly scrutiniziung the qualifications or credentials of my link, I just provided it. If you have problems with his credentials and thus think that he is not to be trusted or believed, that is your right. I merely wished for those interested to read his opinions and generate some conversation about it and, in this regard, it has well met my expectations.
Whenever someone presents a point of view in an informal setting, he does so without providing footnotes. Had I known that was a requirement to post something, I might have reconsidered. You can either believe or not believe an essay or article. Or you can believe part of it and disregard the rest. I did not realize that my agenda was discovering truth. I thought my agenda was presenting an interesting idea for discussion. Rick S On Oct 27, 3:11 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<I'm not a scientist and I'm guessing neither are you, does that make > our opinions irrelevant?>> > > On some issues, yes. > > <<Actually, I said that his essay was interesting to me. Even if he > did not have credentials as a scientist, it would not matter if what > he said made sense. )>> > > You said "very interesting essay by a scientist". Since there is no > evidence that he is a scientist, it reveals a bit of a disregard for > accuracy when gathering evidence to support your point of view. That, > in turn, suggests an agenda other than discovering truth. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
