The Fossil Record

[Jukia]

Duh!

As to the hills of CT -have you investigated them all, personally, and can you say -under oath- that there are no fossillized sea creatures on those mountains?

But as to your remarks; have you seen what great moving waves of water do? try looking at the effects of just a tsunami and show me where the evidence of destruction is evenly distributed!

You want to imagine that there should have been a uniform distribution of masses of land animals and of sea creatures that were all caught and buried by the massive mountains of great mud and left high and dry -or low and dry- after the waters receded? -get serious!

First of all, there are no real mountains in CT. CT east of the Connecticut River consists of a low range of hills just to the east, then a series of vaguely rolling forested hills, except along the shore near Long Island sound where the land slopes to the south and the Sound.

But I am trying to make sense out of your claim that the, what did you say "partially fossilized marine animals" (what is partially fossilized?), covered a large area near you. Do you know what these are? Are the soft parts fossilized or just the hard parts? And how do you think they got there? I know Noah and the Flood. But really, how do you connect all these particular dead sea creatures (and in order to fully answer the question I think you do need to know what they are and what exact body parts are fossilized, partial or otherwise) and great moving waves of water, like a tsunami you posited above?
And can you track down some cite to the particular site so the rest of us can check it out.
Thanks for your help.

 

[aharvey]

The "shoot-the-messenger" tactic.

Bob, what do you call it when your response to something you disagree with is 1) not to show that it is wrong, but 2) to accuse that person of not being a "true Christian"? Isn't that a classic example of "shooting the messenger"?

And what do you call it when you then promptly accuse him of engaging in that very tactic?

 

[bob b]

Bob, what do you call it when your response to something you disagree with is 1) not to show that it is wrong, but 2) to accuse that person of not being a "true Christian"? Isn't that a classic example of "shooting the messenger"?

And what do you call it when you then promptly accuse him of engaging in that very tactic?

I'm not sure I have ever used the terminology "true Christian" as a general tactic to support my views.

I have used similar words like "genuine", and perhaps the exact phrase "true Christian" to discuss the characteristic beliefs used historically to differentiate Christians from cultists.

These characteristics revolve around belief in Jesus Christ, who He was and what historical events prove His claims.

Perhaps you should understand better a slightly different topic, how to differentiate between weak Christians and strong Christians as St. Paul did.

Weak Christians are true Christians, e.g. noguru, who believe in the major elements which define a Christian, but waver in their beliefs regarding the authority of scripture. This causes them to be easy prey for the latest scientific speculations, particularly about Origins, which conflict with scripture, causing them to feel a need to "symbolize" scripture so they do not feel foolish in the eyes of the world by rejecting the infallible pronouncements of the High Priests of Truth, i.e. scientists.

I hope this helps you to interpret my postings more accurately.

 

[Jukia]

In other words, bob b, one needs to rely on the authority of the author? Didn't you just criticize me for that on another thread?

And I think what finally turned me off from most fundamentalists I know is the ease with which they judge other Christians.

 

[aharvey]

The "shoot-the-messenger" tactic. [accusation aimed at noguru]

Bob, what do you call it when your response to something you disagree with is 1) not to show that it is wrong, but 2) to accuse that person of not being a "true Christian"? Isn't that a classic example of "shooting the messenger"?

And what do you call it when you then promptly accuse him of engaging in that very tactic?

I'm not sure I have ever used the terminology "true Christian" as a general tactic to support my views.

Check here for noguru's post and your "response". Then perhaps you will be able to actually answer my questions above instead of relying on the evasions below (what does any of this have to do with "shooting the messenger" claims, other than to more fully develop your own use of the tactic?). Indeed, I might ask what you would call answering a question by changing the subject like this?

I have used similar words like "genuine", and perhaps the exact phrase "true Christian" to discuss the characteristic beliefs used historically to differentiate Christians from cultists.

These characteristics revolve around belief in Jesus Christ, who He was and what historical events prove His claims.

Perhaps you should understand better a slightly different topic, how to differentiate between weak Christians and strong Christians as St. Paul did.

Weak Christians are true Christians, e.g. noguru, who believe in the major elements which define a Christian, but waver in their beliefs regarding the authority of scripture. This causes them to be easy prey for the latest scientific speculations, particularly about Origins, which conflict with scripture, causing them to feel a need to "symbolize" scripture so they do not feel foolish in the eyes of the world by rejecting the infallible pronouncements of the High Priests of Truth, i.e. scientists.

I hope this helps you to interpret my postings more accurately.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

First of all, there are no real mountains in CT. CT east of the Connecticut River consists of a low range of hills just to the east, then a series of vaguely rolling forested hills, except along the shore near Long Island sound where the land slopes to the south and the Sound.

But I am trying to make sense out of your claim that the, what did you say "partially fossilized marine animals" (what is partially fossilized?), covered a large area near you. Do you know what these are? Are the soft parts fossilized or just the hard parts? And how do you think they got there? I know Noah and the Flood. But really, how do you connect all these particular dead sea creatures (and in order to fully answer the question I think you do need to know what they are and what exact body parts are fossilized, partial or otherwise) and great moving waves of water, like a tsunami you posited above?
And can you track down some cite to the particular site so the rest of us can check it out.
Thanks for your help.

They had to be laid down by water in a flood and they are on hills: on many mountains around the world are fossilized sea creatures in rocks, too, in varying stages of fossilization; and it doesn't take any degree to understand they got there by Noah's flood, but it does take belief in the God of the Bible.

In my own layman's terms (with my limited understanding); to be partially fossilized the sea creatures (or plant life), were trapped under the mud -perhaps by huge volcanic ash deposits that came so suddenly they could not escape (ours does look as if it is encased in a layer of volcanic ash -it is sand like) - and as the body decomposed, the cells were replaced with the minerals from the water passing through the 'mud' on top and around, but not enough pressure -and therefore heat- were applied to fossilize the completely replaced cell structure into 'hard' -fossilized- rock. One can break it apart 'fairly' easily. I don't know the hardness of the rock, but it could be measured with the proper instruments, but it is brittle enough, and breakable.

We can identify clams -of some kind- in a piece my hubby brought home last week when he was on the 'mountain'. -I'll get a digital and post it, if possible. There are no large marine fossils, that we know of, in the deposits, but masses and masses of clams and tubular wormy things..
My daughter and her hubby have known of the massive beds of this particular deposit and have gathered the softer 'fossil' rocks from there, at times (it makes a fun outing), over the years, only about fifty miles, by car, from the site hubby brought home the last piece.
If you want to check a map of the area out, look for John's river in Washington State and for the site of the abandoned nuke plant near Elma Washington. The hills stretch from near Elma to Raymond and beyond and out to the Ocean, near John's River.

I have no idea what CT looks like or what may be found by search or has been found by search there, but we are familiar with our own area.

The following info is taken from http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm

"b. Fossils are found in the Himalayan Mountains. If you will go to the following web site http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology_visual.html you can see pictures of a marine animal called Ammonite which are found in large numbers in the Kali Gandaki river in Nepal. Ammonites were sea animals having shells - either straight or coiled. Some of the fossils are large with a diameter up to 2 meters. These animals are proof that the ocean once covered this area.

c. There are abundant fossil remains of marine life found atop every mountain range in the world. This evidence makes it clear that all the mountains of the world have been under water at some time in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. For example, clusters of hundreds of gigantic (300kg/650lbs) fossilized oysters found atop the Andes Mountains in South America.
See web site: http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology_visual.html "

 

[Jukia]

Thanks, I'll try to find some info on the area you are familiar with.

Do you think that the Flood was higher than Mt. Everest as it is now or was Mt. Everest lower then?

 

[bob b]

Check here for noguru's post and your "response". Then perhaps you will be able to actually answer my questions above instead of relying on the evasions below (what does any of this have to do with "shooting the messenger" claims, other than to more fully develop your own use of the tactic?). Indeed, I might ask what you would call answering a question by changing the subject like this?

On the surface you appear disingenous in accusing me of "changing the subject" when I was simply explaining how I make a distinction between the terms "true Christian" and "weak Christian". Didn't you refer to the term "true Christian" and accuse me of using that term in an effort to apply the "shoot the messenger" tactic against noguru?

When noguru articulated more completely his religious views I was happly to use the term "true Christian" as historically defined to describe him.

On the other hand I then used the term "weak Christian" as a title which correctly describes a Christian who "symbolizes" scripture in an effort to reconcile it with currently popular secular views regarding Origins, many of which have no scientific basis in fact.

If anyone, including noguru or yourself, wish to discuss specific cases of scripture which should be "symbolized" to agree with secular Origins views, I would be happy to participate, but feel a separate thread would be more appropriate than this thread which should properly be focused more narrowly on the nature of "The Fossil Record".

 

[thelaqachisnext]

Thanks, I'll try to find some info on the area you are familiar with.

Do you think that the Flood was higher than Mt. Everest as it is now or was Mt. Everest lower then?

I don't think you'll find any expert who would have a comment on the area I described to you, and mostly they just give out any old -you know -'Barbara Striesand' as a certain person calls it- but if you were inclined to visit the area for yourself, I could direct you to spots where these things are easily investigated: some of the spots are not so easily gotten to, but it is possible. The particular spot hubby brought a piece home from recently is seven miles beyond the nuke plant site, near Elma, Wash, through forest roads. The daughter and hubby go back into the same hills from highway 101, near Westport, for many miles to get to the wilderness area where they collect samples from..

Of course, the flood waters were 'fifteen cubits higher' than the highest mountain, but I don't know how high the pre-flood mountains were; but the Word does say that the mountains were raised (so they existed, it seems, from the wording), and the valleys sank down; which seems to be part of the way the LORD handled the waters of the flood that came down from above the atmosphere -and don't seem to have been put back. -But as to where all the water is, now; remember (you and I had this discussion before), I also believe Dr Walter Brown's theory of the splitting of earth's mantle to release the waters from beneath, and the great crevasses that are now in the ocean bottoms take a lot of water to fill.

 

[Jukia]

I cannot believe that if these fossil beds are as extensive as you say that there would not be someone who has studied them.
Would love to see them but since my youngest moved back from Seattle to Connecticut I dont know if I will get out there in the near future.
In what seems to be a prior life I was a graduate student in biology with an emphasis on marine science. Walt Brown's theory is total nonsense as far as I am concerned.

 

[aharvey]

On the surface you appear disingenous in accusing me of "changing the subject" when I was simply explaining how I make a distinction between the terms "true Christian" and "weak Christian". Didn't you refer to the term "true Christian" and accuse me of using that term in an effort to apply the "shoot the messenger" tactic against noguru?

Yes, because that's exactly what you did!

noguru said that you used an a priori assumption "to support your conclusion that it must have been supernatural, because we do not know how it naturally occured." Your response to this was not to disagree with his charge in any way, but to question whether he was really a Christian. Why is that not "shooting the messenger"?

When noguru articulated more completely his religious views I was happly to use the term "true Christian" as historically defined to describe him.

...while still managing to avoid responding to noguru's original point, that you used an a priori assumption to support your conclusion that it must have been supernatural, because we do not know how it naturally occured.

On the other hand I then used the term "weak Christian" as a title which correctly describes a Christian who "symbolizes" scripture in an effort to reconcile it with currently popular secular views regarding Origins, many of which have no scientific basis in fact.

...while still managing to avoid responding to noguru's original point, that you used an a priori assumption to support your conclusion that it must have been supernatural, because we do not know how it naturally occured.

If anyone, including noguru or yourself, wish to discuss specific cases of scripture which should be "symbolized" to agree with secular Origins views, I would be happy to participate, but feel a separate thread would be more appropriate than this thread which should properly be focused more narrowly on the nature of "The Fossil Record".

...while still managing to avoid responding to noguru's original point, that you used an a priori assumption to support your conclusion that it must have been supernatural, because we do not know how it naturally occured.

In the grand scheme of things, I doubt noguru would even rate this particular argument as especially profound. To me, however, it is an exquisite example of how you routinely use the very tactics that you routinely, and falsely, accuse your opponents of.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

I cannot believe that if these fossil beds are as extensive as you say that there would not be someone who has studied them.
Would love to see them but since my youngest moved back from Seattle to Connecticut I dont know if I will get out there in the near future.
In what seems to be a prior life I was a graduate student in biology with an emphasis on marine science. Walt Brown's theory is total nonsense as far as I am concerned.

I remember; but Brown's is in hydrolics, is it not.

The hills are forested, and experts cannot cover every acre of ground in the world; and some seem to think because they haven't covered something, then it just doesn't exist.
Locals who work in an area or hike and explore know more about an area than any outsider.
I looked up the Wynoochee hills, once (which go north and west from Montesano, Wash), and no place can I find that a jasper vein runs through them, yet, daughter and hubby have driven through and collected what does seem to be jasper, for years, from them. They call it 'cinnamon rock', and a large vein runs for miles, exposed in many places in those hills.
Perhaps it isn't really jasper, but I cannot find it listed at all, and a daughter who studies rocks tells me it is jasper. Also, another thing, in the hills there, that no 'expert' has listed -or studied- is a lake formed by a meterorite, (part of earth blown out to space by the breaking up of the great deep at the flood returning home, and it is obvious when one hikes in and studies the terrain.
If you really want to know -ask the locals who are 'awake and aware' of their territory.

and as far as experts go; they know nothing but what they themselves can see and test, really, so I don't believe them just because they are supposed to be 'expert': one can hardly find out anything from seeking it out from 'experts'. For instance: we have a strange slug that we have not identified, in our area -nor would we ask anyone to identify it, as we'd just get our area made off limits for humans because some, so- called, 'rare' excuse has been found to kick out humans; but the slug has a tail that resembles a lizard tail, in being whiplike and pointed (not that the slug whips it, just that it 'resembles' a lizard tail, though short), and a larger 'crest', if that's what one calls it, of sorts, on its head; and it changes colors rather like a chameleon -one being a neon green, and it exudes a neon green slime: frankly, I'm afraid that we brought it to our property from the Wynoochee hills, where daughter and hubby took us chantrelle mushroom hunting, and where these things were first found by daughter. Now we are finding them on our place UGH! -but 'experts' haven't listed them in anything I have seen...but here they are!

 

[Jukia]

I dont care what Brown thinks his hydroplate theory deals with. It is insane. I am aware of NO evidence to support it. However, let that go.
Maybe your slug is the result of the abandoned nuke site?
And if you do not at least look at what "experts" claim why bother to try to understand anything? Seems to me that we look to experts for advice and information on lots of things.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

oops.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

I dont care what Brown thinks his hydroplate theory deals with. It is insane. I am aware of NO evidence to support it. However, let that go.
Maybe your slug is the result of the abandoned nuke site?
And if you do not at least look at what "experts" claim why bother to try to understand anything? Seems to me that we look to experts for advice and information on lots of things.

Now, now, Jukia, I do read what others write, but the point is that because someone says something doesn't make them an expert for saying it; and also, they cannot remark on what they have not investigated, and some who deny the flood are not honest and will not believe any evidence because thier minds are made up and they do not investigate.

Sorry, nope! the nuke plant was never finished, never operational (unions killed it by their stupid 'rules', making it impossible to finish the thing within budget), and mutations are detrimental, from such things, when they do happen; and these are healthy, multiplying slugs, not some harmfully mutated things -daughter thinks they're kinda cute.

 

[aharvey]

and as far as experts go; they know nothing but what they themselves can see and test, really, so I don't believe them just because they are supposed to be 'expert': one can hardly find out anything from seeking it out from 'experts'. For instance: we have a strange slug that we have not identified, in our area -nor would we ask anyone to identify it, as we'd just get our area made off limits for humans because some, so- called, 'rare' excuse has been found to kick out humans;

Let me see if I have this straight: you claim you can hardly find out anything from seeking it out from 'experts,' but you won't ask an expert to identify this peculiar slug (supposedly out of fear that you'd get kicked out of the area), and then you this same slug as an example of how little experts know?!?

but the slug has a tail that resembles a lizard tail, in being whiplike and pointed (not that the slug whips it, just that it 'resembles' a lizard tail, though short), and a larger 'crest', if that's what one calls it, of sorts, on its head; and it changes colors rather like a chameleon -one being a neon green, and it exudes a neon green slime: frankly, I'm afraid that we brought it to our property from the Wynoochee hills, where daughter and hubby took us chantrelle mushroom hunting, and where these things were first found by daughter. Now we are finding them on our place UGH! -but 'experts' haven't listed them in anything I have seen...but here they are!

Incidentally, if you are at all interested in identifying these creatures, I have some small experience in such matters (having described a dozen new species of invertebrates, done identifications for both other scientists and the general public, set up web sites to facilitate the identification of invertebrates, etc.). If they are in fact spreading as you seem to be saying, then it's most unlikely to be endangered enough to inconvenience you in any way (you must know that you can't be "kicked out" for even the most endangered species); indeed, if it is indeed anything out of the ordinary, it's more likely that this is an introduced species from somewhere else that could end up being a real invasive headache.

Now, now, Jukia, I do read what others write, but the point is that because someone says something doesn't make them an expert for saying it;

I'm curious: what do you think does make someone an 'expert'?

and also, they cannot remark on what they have not investigated, and some who deny the flood are not honest and will not believe any evidence because thier minds are made up and they do not investigate.

Is your mind made up on the subject of the flood? Is it fair to say that you will not therefore believe any evidence to the contrary? If so, how can you possibly suggest that having one's mind made up on a subject is a sign of dishonesty?

 

[thelaqachisnext]

Let me see if I have this straight: you claim you can hardly find out anything from seeking it out from 'experts,' but you won't ask an expert to identify this peculiar slug (supposedly out of fear that you'd get kicked out of the area), and then you this same slug as an example of how little experts know?!?

Incidentally, if you are at all interested in identifying these creatures, I have some small experience in such matters (having described a dozen new species of invertebrates, done identifications for both other scientists and the general public, set up web sites to facilitate the identification of invertebrates, etc.). If they are in fact spreading as you seem to be saying, then it's most unlikely to be endangered enough to inconvenience you in any way (you must know that you can't be "kicked out" for even the most endangered species); indeed, if it is indeed anything out of the ordinary, it's more likely that this is an introduced species from somewhere else that could end up being a real invasive headache.

I'm curious: what do you think does make someone an 'expert'?

Is your mind made up on the subject of the flood? Is it fair to say that you will not therefore believe any evidence to the contrary? If so, how can you possibly suggest that having one's mind made up on a subject is a sign of dishonesty?

I'm curious: what do you think does make someone an 'expert'?

An expert is knowledgable in what they actually have handled and studied -not pretending to be so in what they have not handled and studied. i.e, God wrote the book; He's handled and 'studied' (made everything according to His plan); I read His Word and accept His Word over all naysayers.
-Yep! -call me a fundamentalist in Believing what the Word says.

Is your mind made up on the subject of the flood?

Yep! -I met the author of the Book and He is trustworthy -do you know Him?

Is it fair to say that you will not therefore believe any evidence to the contrary?

There is no evidence to the contrary of the flood; all evidence validates the claims of Scripture.

Let me see if I have this straight: you claim you can hardly find out anything from seeking it out from 'experts,' but you won't ask an expert to identify this peculiar slug (supposedly out of fear that you'd get kicked out of the area), and then you this same slug as an example of how little experts know?!?

Yep: and I hardly know anything, myself. I've lived long enough to know that there are not so very many experts in any subject, though there are a few masters of some areas.
Search on about any subject and look at what has changed in what so-called experts say about it over the years -or even in the same years!.
find me an unchanging, undisputed opinion on any subject, please -if you can, that is related to the subjects in discussion: but even in other subjects, like voice, for instance, my daughter had a hard time finding a voice teacher who could actually teach her how to use her voice in areas that she knew she did wrong and did not know how to correct; yet, three teachers never taught her what she needed to know. The fourth one did, and now she is a voice teacher, herself, a master of the art among many experts who cannot teach what they are paid to do.

I trust no one when it comes to species and kinds. I have a plan to build on our property and no, thank you; we'll keep the neon sluggie to ourselves. We live in an area where they tried to kill our local industry by protecting a so called endangered species that multiplies like mad and is not in any danger and never was -and everyone knows it; but that is not what matters at all; only the lies matter after they are told by the left wing environmental nutcases who worship the earth and not the Creator of it, and who deem themselves gods, in His place.

I'm skeptical of you, you see, and do not trust anyone when it comes to the environment, as man is classified as an unnatural intruder and they have taken away our constitutional rights by the bagfuls over supposed 'rare' species.


I have a book written by the University of Washington which identifies all flora and fauna of the Pacific Northwest. The strange slug is not in it, though all others are; nor have we found it online nor do we think that it is rare -just new to us; and I mentioned it specifically to say that man -the experts- knows very little about the world around him.

 

[aharvey]

An expert is knowledgable in what they actually have handled and studied -not pretending to be so in what they have not handled and studied. i.e, God wrote the book; He's handled and 'studied' (made everything according to His plan); I read His Word and accept His Word over all naysayers.
-Yep! -call me a fundamentalist in Believing what the Word says.

Yep! -I met the author of the Book and He is trustworthy -do you know Him?

The $64,000 question is why you are so darn convinced of your own intellectual prowess that you understand exactly what he said.

There is no evidence to the contrary of the flood; all evidence validates the claims of Scripture.

That's unfortunately a definitional statement; if you presuppose that both the Bible and your interpretation of the Bible are inerrant, then of course definition no evidence could possibly contradict your interpretation of Scripture, and anything that appears to do so must somehow be wrong. I've never quite understood, though, why one's interpretation of Scripture is never considered a possible source of the spurious contradiction...

Yep: and I hardly know anything, myself. I've lived long enough to know that there are not so very many experts in any subject, though there are a few masters of some areas.
Search on about any subject and look at what has changed in what so-called experts say about it over the years -or even in the same years!.
find me an unchanging, undisputed opinion on any subject, please -if you can, that is related to the subjects in discussion:

I'm always puzzled that y'all think it's a virtue that learning more about something should never change your mind about it. Then what is the point of learning more?

I trust no one when it comes to species and kinds. I have a plan to build on our property and no, thank you; we'll keep the neon sluggie to ourselves.

Yikes. I've never considered myself an environmental activist, but I confess to wincing when people knowingly risk endangering entire species because it might inconvenience their own selfish personal short-term construction plans. I'm sure God'll be proud ("Yeah, I made that slug as kind of a joke anyways").

We live in an area where they tried to kill our local industry by protecting a so called endangered species that multiplies like mad and is not in any danger and never was -and everyone knows it; but that is not what matters at all; only the lies matter after they are told by the left wing environmental nutcases who worship the earth and not the Creator of it, and who deem themselves gods, in His place.

Like I said, you're more likely to have a new invasive species that will overrun your place thanks to your "keeping to yourself." But what's most likely is that this slug, if it even is a slug, is already known to science, just not to you.

I'm skeptical of you, you see, and do not trust anyone when it comes to the environment, as man is classified as an unnatural intruder and they have taken away our constitutional rights by the bagfuls over supposed 'rare' species.

And then to try to rationalize it in terms of protecting your poor widdle vanishing constitutional rights ... Pathetic.

I have a book written by the University of Washington which identifies all flora and fauna of the Pacific Northwest.

No such book exists, I'm afraid. It would be extraordinarily thick and technical well beyond your interest.

The strange slug is not in it, though all others are; nor have we found it online nor do we think that it is rare -just new to us; and I mentioned it specifically to say that man -the experts- knows very little about the world around him.

But all you've demonstrated is how little you know, not the experts. Don't you see the irony?

 

[bob b]

The $64,000 question is why you are so darn convinced of your own intellectual prowess that you understand exactly what he said.

That's unfortunately a definitional statement; if you presuppose that both the Bible and your interpretation of the Bible are inerrant, then of course definition no evidence could possibly contradict your interpretation of Scripture, and anything that appears to do so must somehow be wrong. I've never quite understood, though, why one's interpretation of Scripture is never considered a possible source of the spurious contradiction...

I'm always puzzled that y'all think it's a virtue that learning more about something should never change your mind about it. Then what is the point of learning more?

Yikes. I've never considered myself an environmental activist, but I confess to wincing when people knowingly risk endangering entire species because it might inconvenience their own selfish personal short-term construction plans. I'm sure God'll be proud ("Yeah, I made that slug as kind of a joke anyways").

Like I said, you're more likely to have a new invasive species that will overrun your place thanks to your "keeping to yourself." But what's most likely is that this slug, if it even is a slug, is already known to science, just not to you.

And then to try to rationalize it in terms of protecting your poor widdle vanishing constitutional rights ... Pathetic.

No such book exists, I'm afraid. It would be extraordinarily thick and technical well beyond your interest.

But all you've demonstrated is how little you know, not the experts. Don't you see the irony?

"Shoot the Messenger" Tactic.

Plus "Authority" to boot.

 

[aharvey]

"Shoot the Messenger" Tactic.

Not even close, bob. I wasn't avoiding the subject by unfavorably comparing thelaqachisnext's lack of expertise to that of "expert's." The concept of the limitations of one's knowledge and that of 'experts' was the subject of the entire discussion!

For crying out loud, bob!