[Stultis]

Don't you think it's time you placed a limit on the amount of spam a person can post in a single thread? People can easily post links to pages for backup without resorting to this. It disrupts a thread.

Seriously, plain talk, did you even read the article at the top of the thread? The subject is Ann Coulter on evolution. Ichneumon's post was entirely focused on exactly that subject. Ah, I see from your #77 in this thread that you are cognizant of the topic.

So how is a completely topical post "spam"? Or is it only "spam" because it offered a relevant, compelling, detailed and documented refutation of your assertion that "Ann did a great job" debunking evolution?

[Axlrose]

His post was 100% propaganda.

[plain talk]

I think I was fairly clear in referring to the volume of material posted not the point of view. Posts including an absurd number of paragraphs disrupt a thread. Backup materials can be placed on another page and referenced via links which is more efficient.

I am surprised that the Robinsons haven't placed some limit on the number of lines that can be placed in a single post. Apparently there is no limit and some people take advantage of that and hijack a thread.

[Gene Eric]

Stultis, you wrote:

>> The subject is Ann Coulter on evolution. Ichneumon's post was entirely focused on exactly that subject.

which is incorrect in two ways:
1) The thread topic concerns Peter Olofsson's view on Coulter.
2) Ichneumon's post was retaliatory and heavy handed.

The real bones of contention involve secularism and Christianity and the weapons of choice are TOE and ID which are not necessarily exclusionary. The 'studity' and Talibanism you point to is unkind, unwarranted, and not something one can prove.