[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I made no characterization of the economist. I merely corrected my statement in mid-sentence. If you are reading your prejudice into the statement instead of what the statement says, I can't be responsible for that.

tw only says that xoxoxoBruce now looks for reasons to attack; even attack The Economist - because tw reads it and quotes from it. Lately xoxoxoBruce has become so emotional as to liberally lace posts even with profanity. So when tw says, "The Economist is an anti-American publication", then it obvious is facetious of xoxoxoBruce's new attitude.

Meanwhile, one who is more interested in learning, grasping, preparing for the future, learning from history, etc would have ignored those details - stop acting like a scumbag lawyer or politician - and deal with the issues.

Point is that xoxoxoBruce now attacks only for personal reasons rather than deal logically with the issues.

Does xoxoxoBruce even remember the post that set him off on a tirade?

Number of supporters for extremists religious leaders is growing - not diminishing. Nothing about geology, anthropology, etc was posted. Why are you jumping to such conclusions?

Darwin has nothing to do with religion. Why then do extremist religious leaders attack Darwinism when it does not affect and is irrelevant to religion? Because Darwin is not irrelevant when religion is to be imposed on all others. Islamic Fundamentalism or Christian extremists. Both share a common agenda. Impose religion on all others. That is an example of satanism. Why is that so difficult, Bruce?

Notice that xoxoxoBruce never even replies to those questions or addressed those issues. Instead xoxoxoBruce went off on a tirade that even included an attack on The Economist. tw simply posted the facetious summary of what xoxoxoBruce is posting. A more logical xoxoxoBruce would have move back to a post maybe 3 pages ago. He did not. He continues to agrue over a post that made fun of his new attitude.

xoxoxoBruce - there is the post before this all broke down into personal attacks. Can you reply to the issues and questions in that post - rather than attack the messenger? IOW can you move forward to things relevant rather than fall back into more tirades and personal attacks?