Big Bang Theory Dead? Good riddance

Mad Scientist wrote in
. cable.rogers.com:
Paul Lawler wrote:

I did not make any ad hominem projections.

You do all the time hypocrite. I won't bother being polite to you
anymore, it is pointless.

No, I do not do it at all. Please provide evidence to the contrary. And
you can't not bother being polite to me anymore, as you have not been
polite to me yet. In contrast, Jay and I have been unfailingly polite to
you.

I have repeatedly asked you for ONE post where Jay Windley insulted
you and you have failed to provide it.

Liar. It was provided. Add me to your kook list, vote me onto your
kook list, and then killfile me, PLEASE, because you aren't interested
in debate or discussion, just smearing. Believe me, you and Wally
retard won't be missed.

No, it was not provided. Just because you mumbled something about,
"Well, I didn't like what he said," does not constitute an insult on his
part. It's not my kooklist, and you are already on it.

I AM interested in debate and discussion... however you only occasionally
make an attempt to do so. Just FYI, calling people, "pathetic usenet
kook sociopaths who bark like dogs" does NOT constitute debate or
discussion. Guess which one of us does that? Hint: It's not me.

Perhaps you would also like to deny your
statements about puppet scientists who have no interest in doing
anything but arguing with your new theroies?

Don't you wish you could delete my post which shows how you and the
other retards in here operate? Too bad you can't.

No, I am quite glad for the post that shows how you perceive that I and
the other "retards" (gee... I'm SURE that wasn't an insult since you ONLY
insult those who insult you, right?) operate, since it CLEARLY points out
how you operate.

the Pyramids and are responsible for crop circles'. Bob replies, 'Is
this guy sociopathic or what?'


If the conversations went ANYTHING like you are describing then you
would be justified in taking this attitude.


That is exactly how the conversations with you and the other retards
go.

Then you obviously have not read them. I have NEVER engaged in a debate
with you even CLOSE to what you described. You have, however repeatedly
refused to provide evidence and engaged in unilateral ad hominem attacks.

However, if you read back over the
threads involved, the conversation is much more along these lines:

Example: Bob says, 'The ancient Egyptians were black', Al replies,
'That has not been proven, where is your evidence?'. Bob replies
'It's out there on the web, go look it up.' Al replies, 'plagiarizer
and a fraud needs to quote website

' Bob says, 'hardly, you asked me for a web site as evidence, why
dont you look at it?
Al say, 'you're a kook, killfile him, ignore him, he has nothing to
say'

Bob says, 'insult me some more and you will get it right back'
retard.

I have not insulted you and am not insulting you now.

Twist what I wrote to back up your puerile claims and smears against
me.

I did not make puerile claims or smears against you.

Its more like 'where is the evidence' Oh, well here is one web site
with evidence and analysis on it'. That website is quackery

If, in fact, a web site is quackery, then in a debate I am perfectly
justified in pointing that out. In any debate the quality of the
evidence is more important than the quantity.

--
"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an
argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer
clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they
don't even invite me." -Dave Barry