Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Atheist Biologist] Dawkins: Evangelist an 'idiot' on evolution
CNN ^ | November 25, 2009 | Peter Wilkinson

Posted on 12/25/2009 11:36:48 PM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode

referring to U.S.-based evangelist Ray Comfort, who argues that the universe and life is the result of an intelligent creator, Dawkins said: "There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot.

"You can't prove there's no God, no fairies, no leprechauns, or that Thor or Apollo don't exist. There's got to be a positive reason to think that fairies exist. Until somebody does, we can say technically we are agnostic about fairies. We can't disprove them, but we think it's a bit of a waste of time trying. And the same goes for God."

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: atheists; darwin; dawkins; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last
This is what the evolution business is all about.
1 posted on 12/25/2009 11:36:49 PM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; GodGunsGuts; tpanther
ping.

What is evolution science? Click here and find out.

2 posted on 12/25/2009 11:39:09 PM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

I like Ray Comfort. He is no “idiot”.


3 posted on 12/25/2009 11:45:10 PM PST by boop (Democracy is the theory that the people get the government they deserve, good and hard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Dawkins said: "There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot.

It takes one to know one......

*Dawkins* is synonymous with *idiot*.

4 posted on 12/25/2009 11:45:56 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

The existence of Dawkins proves that fairies exist.


5 posted on 12/25/2009 11:47:02 PM PST by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-' 96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
"Dan Dennett, the U.S. philosopher said it was the best idea anyone ever had. It explains the whole of life, the diversity, the beauty of life, above all the illusion of design.

I'd just love to know what solid, incontrovertible, scientific reason Dennett and Dawkins have to justify their statements that the universe and life just show the *illusion of design*? How do they know that it's just an illusion? What great insight or revelation revealed that to them?

Dennett and Dawkins have the illusion of being intelligent.

6 posted on 12/25/2009 11:54:31 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

A man came to Earth claiming to be God. During His life, He was seen performing acts that only God could perform. He healed the sick, lame, deformed and blind by the power of His will, both by touch and at a distance; He displayed complete control over wind, waves, and weather; He multiplied matter; He walked on water; He transmuted one substance into another; He predicted future events with 100% accuracy; He passed through hostile crowds in a mysterious manner; He was bodily transfigured into a godlike form; He raised the dead; and, after His own murder, He Himself returned from the dead, after which He was was seen to pass through closed doors and walls, cook and eat food, and ascend into the sky, each act in front of eyewitnesses.

These facts are all part of the historical record.


7 posted on 12/26/2009 12:00:09 AM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

“God is dead.” - Nietzsche

“Nietzsche is dead.” - God


8 posted on 12/26/2009 12:02:34 AM PST by Lauren BaRecall (Merry Christmas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

He said, “Hunches aren’t interesting, hunches aren’t valuable.”

The then said, “Darwin had a hunch.”

And he’s calling someone else an idiot? The man talks in circles.


He also come across as a very bitter and angry person. He must be a joy to be around.


9 posted on 12/26/2009 12:03:56 AM PST by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

These facts are all part of the historical record.


The evidence of Jesus life, death, and resurrection are far greater than the evidence of java man. As it turned out, java man was pretty much a fabrication of these whacko evolutionists.

Science used to laugh at the comparisons the Bible made to the number of grains of sand on our seashores. In fact, only a few hundred years ago one scientist proclaimed there were 1056 stars. Well, after Galileo made an important discovery, it is clear that the Bible was right and science was WRONG.


10 posted on 12/26/2009 12:12:29 AM PST by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Unfortunately, a lot of the people arguing against the atheist position, while not idiots, are waaaaay out of their league.


11 posted on 12/26/2009 12:13:00 AM PST by john in springfield (One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe such things.No ordinary man could be such a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boop
I like my brother-in-law and he is an idiot. My liking him doesn't make any difference.
12 posted on 12/26/2009 12:14:28 AM PST by Misterioso (Common sense is a simple and non-self-conscious use of logic. -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Climate scientists and evolutionary scientists are two sides of the same corrupt coin, both being influenced by money in not-so-good ways.

Both rely on fraudulent data and evidence, both hold monopolies on their respective peer-review processes and journals, both are world views masquerading as “science” to dupe the public out of research funding, and both have a$$clowns like Gore and Dawkins saying their respective “sciences” are “settled” by a “vast majority of scientists” and calling people on the other side “flat-earthers” and “idiots” for not buying the junk they’re pushing.

Dawkins, like Gore, is nothing more than a money-grubbing politician, who makes his living peddling this junk, and their cult-like followers and “true believers” are nothing more than fools for buying it.


13 posted on 12/26/2009 12:19:33 AM PST by Stingray (Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
"A man came to Earth claiming to be God. During His life, He was seen performing acts that only God could perform. He healed the sick, lame, deformed and blind by the power of His will

I firmly believe that even if Christ descended upon Earth and performed miracles in the presence of all of these atheists..irrefutable evidence that Jesus Christ IS the Son of God, they still wouldn't believe him. To do so would mean that they would need to admit they were wrong all along. And they will take that mistake to the gates of Hell and beyond. As C.S. Lewis once said, the gates of Gell are locked from the INSIDE.

14 posted on 12/26/2009 12:20:40 AM PST by Soothesayer9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: boop

Ray Comfort? He’s the banana man!


15 posted on 12/26/2009 12:29:07 AM PST by bezelbub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Past a certain level of IQ, even given a fraudulent background thesis like evoloserism, it is not possible for a person to spend an entire lifetime without producing anything useful. Two of the people you mention, J.B.S. Haldane and Sir Arthur Keith produced things which are useful in the war against evolution, i.e. the Haldane dilemma (which Haldane himself wrongly assumed would be resolved somehow or other) and Keith's "Evolution and Ethics".

Another gigantic argument against evoloserism which you can attribute at least in part to Haldane and which is supposed to be the main mathematical basis for all evolutionary theory is the question of genetic death.

16 posted on 12/26/2009 12:45:13 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: metmom

This was amusing:

Public faces of Richard Dawkins’ Atheism Campaign Were ... Devout Christian Children
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2391128/posts


17 posted on 12/26/2009 1:18:36 AM PST by donna (Democracy is not enough. If the culture dies, the country dies. - Pat Buchanan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator “ Roman’s 1:18-32


18 posted on 12/26/2009 1:55:56 AM PST by timetostand (Merry Christmas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

19 posted on 12/26/2009 2:02:10 AM PST by 2Jedismom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: boycott

Dawkins brain is shrinking.


20 posted on 12/26/2009 3:35:29 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: boycott
Turns out the Java man's skullcap was clearly not that of an ape. There's a quite lengthy history regarding development of ideas about this particular finding ~ which occurred in the late 1800s when hardly anyone knew anything about early hominids.

I noticed Obama is also taken to this "a century ago" cr*p as if it's all meaningful. Look, the health care system proposed "a century ago" was little more than band aid stations in factories. We created a far more sophisticated and useful health care system separate and apart from that sort of thing.

It's the same here. People figure out better stuff. They've learned how to do dating with more precision, plus, more skeletal materials have been dug up.

Don't get caught lingering in the 19th century when it comes to medicine or paleontology. Don't be just another ignorant Obamista!

21 posted on 12/26/2009 3:46:00 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

And, He is coming back soon!


22 posted on 12/26/2009 5:01:13 AM PST by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Mr. Dawkins prefers to believe that life began out of nothing...just magically appeared. There was no primordial soup before life, there was only inorganic matter, so don’t bother me with that crap. Mr. Dawkins simply does not understand the concept of billions of people knowing God for many millennium. He does not understand that the only purely exact science is conceptual, it is in our minds. From where do our thoughts come from? Gee, maybe they are simply electrical/chemical responses to stimuli...really Dawkins, get a life and get some intelligence that means something.


23 posted on 12/26/2009 5:18:34 AM PST by Wpin (I do not regret my admiration for W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
You can't prove there's no God, no fairies, no leprechauns, or that Thor or Apollo don't exist ...

More proof that atheism itself is a faith. If these things cannot be proven, then how can anyone claim with "scientific certainty" that they don't exist?

24 posted on 12/26/2009 5:21:02 AM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield

“Unfortunately, a lot of the people arguing against the atheist position, while not idiots, are waaaaay out of their league.”

That is true, but we can ramp down to the atheist level for short time periods to explain how absolutely idiotic their positions are...life did not begin from nothing...there was no primordial “soup”...there was no soup at all until after there was life...etc, etc, etc,...


25 posted on 12/26/2009 5:26:03 AM PST by Wpin (I do not regret my admiration for W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: boycott
... it is clear that the Bible was right and science was WRONG.

Don't forget about the rules of cleanliness and personal hygiene handed down in the Bible. The use of handwashing and the drinking of running water were proposed in the Bible and of course, later confirmed to be good ways of staying healthy by science thousands of years after the Bible was written.

26 posted on 12/26/2009 5:32:19 AM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

There’s no proof of evolution, either.


27 posted on 12/26/2009 5:35:00 AM PST by RoadTest (Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boycott

Dawkins is indeed a very bitter and angry person, like most outspoken atheists. Not content to let us “ignorant superstitious peasants” worship as we please, Dawkins rails, curses, and condemns.

Hmmm...I wonder if there is anything in Dawkins’ writings or speeches that would cause the slightest inconvenience to Beelzebub and his minions?

I think not, JMHO.


28 posted on 12/26/2009 5:43:42 AM PST by elcid1970 ("O Muslim! My bullets are dipped in pig grease!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Refute a ‘...theory????” It’s NOT a law.


29 posted on 12/26/2009 5:55:27 AM PST by Doc Savage (SOBAMP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer9
I firmly believe that even if Christ descended upon Earth and performed miracles in the presence of all of these atheists..irrefutable evidence that Jesus Christ IS the Son of God, they still wouldn't believe him. To do so would mean that they would need to admit they were wrong all along. And they will take that mistake to the gates of Hell and beyond. As C.S. Lewis once said, the gates of Gell are locked from the INSIDE.

They can listen to Moses, so to speak.

If they don't choose to believe Scripture, then they wouldn't be convinced is someone rose from the dead.

For all the evos who claim that someone regrowing limbs would convince them, it wouldn't. Their lack of belief isn't do to not enough *evidence*, but their own choice. The *lack of evidence* is just an excuse.

What's really ironic, however, is that they then go on to disparage anyone who uses evidence to support their beliefs saying that true faith doesn't rest on evidence because if you have evidence, you don't have real faith or that your faith is *weak*, because in their book faith is believing in something there's no evidence for.

So where they get off claiming that they would have faith if there were better evidence is beyond me.

30 posted on 12/26/2009 6:36:24 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
There's got to be a positive reason to think that fairies exist.

I rest my case.

31 posted on 12/26/2009 11:24:34 AM PST by KarinG1 (Merry Christmas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Although an "evolutionist," I'm no supporter of Dawkins. He's philosophically wrong (and invidious) in inferring and claiming that science supports atheism.

However, much to my surprise, you appear to be a supporter of Dawkins, seeing as how you are here highlighting a claim where Dawkins is indubitably correct, and even restrained in his language. Ray "Banana Man" Comfort certainly is an idiot.

(Heck. I knew bananas were domesticated, and what wild bananas looked like, back when I was nine years old, just from watching nature films and kids' science books and such. And here are two adults, having specifically chosen the subject as a lecture topic to make a point, and they haven't a friggin' clue. THAT takes good, old fashioned, drooling at the mouth, idiocy all right.)

32 posted on 12/26/2009 12:50:24 PM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946; medved; tomzz; jeddavis; Admin Moderator
Whether or not you post the little image, Ted, you're still bats.

How many times is it you've been banned now?

33 posted on 12/26/2009 5:45:34 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Where is Mr. Dawkins ‘positive’ evidence that one type of animal can ‘Evolve’ into another?

Did Sandy Bergler sneak that out of the National Archives in his pants also?

However, its good to see that Mr. Dawkins admits that it is a waste of time to try to disprove God.


34 posted on 12/26/2009 6:18:13 PM PST by Fichori ('Wee-Weed Up' pitchfork wielding neolithic caveman villager with lit torch. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

You don’t seem to be getting anywhere with that little schtick, do you?


35 posted on 12/26/2009 6:35:46 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Wpin
Ah, good. I'm glad to be answered by a theist who is obviously smarter than all of the atheists.

While I have you here, I would like to have your response to the various points raised in Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification.

What? You've never read it? Hmmm.

36 posted on 12/26/2009 7:22:39 PM PST by john in springfield (One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe such things.No ordinary man could be such a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Wpin
Actually, answer me this:

Have you ever read anything by Michael Martin?

In fact, have you ever heard of Michael Martin?

37 posted on 12/26/2009 7:24:18 PM PST by john in springfield (One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe such things.No ordinary man could be such a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Dawkins is an idiot on religion. So at worst, they’re even.


38 posted on 12/26/2009 7:30:26 PM PST by RichInOC (No! BAD Rich! (What'd I say?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Maybe those space aliens whom Dawkins believes may have seeded earth’s life forms may have been fairies! A silly, bitter man, Dawkins. Bob


39 posted on 12/26/2009 7:35:39 PM PST by alstewartfan (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield

Okay smart guy, answer my questions...exactly how did life begin from nothing? Before there was any organic, any life, how did life begin and where did it come from. Where do your thoughts come from?


40 posted on 12/26/2009 8:06:25 PM PST by Wpin (I do not regret my admiration for W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield

Okay smart guy, answer my questions...exactly how did life begin from nothing? Before there was any organic, any life, how did life begin and where did it come from. Where do your thoughts come from?

Then consider...have you ever contemplated anything? Do you simply read and memorize? Are you capable of thinking on your own? How do you explain billions of first hand testimony to the truth that God exists for millenniums?


41 posted on 12/26/2009 8:07:40 PM PST by Wpin (I do not regret my admiration for W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Wpin
Then consider...have you ever contemplated anything? Do you simply read and memorize? Are you capable of thinking on your own? How do you explain billions of first hand testimony to the truth that God exists for millenniums?

Believe me, I've thought about the issue far more than you have. Hundreds of hours, at a minimum. Quite Maybe even thousands of hours. And probably unlike you, I've actually given "both" sides (it's really more complicated than that, but for simplicity's sake I'll say "both sides") real and serious and honest consideration.

Okay smart guy, answer my questions...exactly how did life begin from nothing? Before there was any organic, any life, how did life begin and where did it come from. Where do your thoughts come from?

You answer mine.

Do you believe that life is too complex to have arisen on its own? Do you believe that the complexity of life is a compelling argument for a Creator? Apparently you do.

42 posted on 12/26/2009 8:14:09 PM PST by john in springfield (One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe such things.No ordinary man could be such a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
However, much to my surprise, you appear to be a supporter of Dawkins, seeing as how you are here highlighting a claim where Dawkins is indubitably correct, and even restrained in his language. Ray "Banana Man" Comfort certainly is an idiot.

My guess is con man, rather than idiot.

43 posted on 12/26/2009 8:43:56 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
He predicted future events with 100% accuracy;

Why didn't he tell us about the fine structure constant? If he had, people wouldn't need to threatened with hell in order to get them to believe.

44 posted on 12/26/2009 8:49:06 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Dawkin’s is both a bigot and a statist who would have the state take your children from you if he could for introducing them to your faith. I would say that makes him the idiot. Others may get different mileage but if they do I’d suggest a carburetor overhaul.


45 posted on 12/26/2009 8:56:28 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Why didn't he tell us about the fine structure constant?

He doesn't HAVE to tell you anything but He has. Some just pick and chose what they want to believe. Doesn't work that way - it's all about faith. No one is threatening anyone w/hell, it's just the alternative - lest anyone try to say, 'they didn't know'.
46 posted on 12/26/2009 8:58:39 PM PST by presently no screen name ( Elected officials are WELFARE RECIPIENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield

The only thing you have shown is that you are foolish with your thinking.

What relevance is there on the complexity of life regarding the initial creation of life? Let’s add another one, since you obviously are too dogmatic to point out that no atheist, whether they are a scientist or not...can explain the creation of life. So, let’s make it easier...how do you explain away Billions of individuals personally witnessing God for many millennium? And last of the easy ones, at what point did you decide that science has 100% knowledge of everything?


47 posted on 12/26/2009 9:10:37 PM PST by Wpin (I do not regret my admiration for W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso

“I like my brother-in-law and he is an idiot. My liking him doesn’t make any difference.”

Hmmm, so because you like your brother in law and he is an idiot...that the other poster you are replying to who likes someone and does not think he is an idiot, that indeed he must be an idiot? Are you confused with your logic? Or, simply did not think it through. Or, were you trying to say that the two can be mutually exclusive, which is true, but in reality it doesn’t HAVE to be mutually exclusive...sorry, just noticed the flaw and am having fun.


48 posted on 12/26/2009 9:17:48 PM PST by Wpin (I do not regret my admiration for W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Why didn't he tell us about the fine structure constant?

For the same reason He didn't tell us about plate tectonics: irrelevant to His mission.

If he had, people wouldn't need to threatened with hell in order to get them to believe.

No one is threatened with hell in order to get them to believe. The only people who go to Hell are those who choose to go of their own free will.

49 posted on 12/26/2009 10:56:32 PM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946; Gumlegs; Admin Moderator
You don’t seem to be getting anywhere with that little schtick, do you?

I usually don't pay any attention to these side arguments and false identity accusations. But in this case it's too obvious to ignore. Gumlegs has nailed it. You ARE Ted "medved" Holden. Either that or you're a friend, wife, daughter whose account Holden uses, or you're a big time Holden groupie. But I think you ARE Ted.

It isn't just the linking to an otherwise obscure Holden page in the present instance.

Even just glancing at your posting history, there are numerous circumstantial similarities, e.g. common interest in archery, same view of neanderthals. And then there's far more telling stuff like this post of yours (wendy1946) and this page at Ted Holden's site.

In that case you reproduce, not only without referencing, but without even linking the Holden page, a very long quote from the obscure Velikovskian Gunnar Heinsohn, EXACTLY as it appears on the Holden page.

EXCEPT THAT, tellingly, you (wendy1946) leave off the last few sentences, starting with Heinsohn's quote of Velikovsky. That would have been too much of a give away, if you were medved, and trying to hide your identity. But maybe you (wendy1946) are not medved (Ted Holden) and just happened to stumble on this obscure Holden page, and cut and pasted, and just coincidentally left off the last few sentences of a long quote you otherwise copied in full, and just never mention that this is all from Holden's site, and was a personal communication to Holden from Heinsohn.

EXCEPT THAT, you (wendy1946) happen to know that Heinsohn is at the "Univ. of Bremen," something which Holden never mentions on his page.

No. You're Ted Holden alright.

50 posted on 12/26/2009 11:19:20 PM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson