Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[Tiberius]

And finally, Adrian. Thank you, for the third time in a row, for posting the wiki I assure you I have read (at the very least, 3 times now).

I don't care if you have read it or not. In my first post, I gave the wiki link (not knowing you had read it) to give you something to read that would answer all your questions. The second time, I posted an extract to show you what Dawkins actually said about the experiment. I then explained what he had said in other words for you! The third time was a repost because you failed to even respond to my actual response to you.

In short, you are making this argument out of nothing. The first time I didn't even realize you had read the wiki, and the 2nd and third times I only referenced one quote out of it (which also could be taken as a quote out of the actual book!). Are we not allowed to make references anymore? That could be a problem...

I cannot continue such a discussion, whether or not anyone 'will think any less of me'. You can all think what you want, I will not base my decisions on that. I was taken aback by the brevity and rudeness of your first post. I have been treated to some very un-compelling argument, and immature behavior by you for a little while, and so I decided this was the breaking point. I told you as such, and you chose to act ruder and make a existent, but fickle rebut.

There we go, play the victim yet again. I admit, I was rude in my first post, and for that I apologize. However in my second post (apart from a minor jab at you missing the point of the experiment), I was clear, and not insulting. I apologize (again) for the minor jab in that, but please address the points I made. You say my argument is "un-compelling" and "fickle", yet these are not reasons to not respond. I find your arguments fickle and un-compelling, and these are precisely the reasons I respond to them...because you are wrong in your assessment of the experiment. I should note (without trying to sound insulting) that every time you do not respond to my points, instead trying to play the victim or attack me in some other way, you look more and more like you have nothing to say to defend your view. If you want to discuss this (and you seemed to when you proposed your take on the experiment), then you need to accept criticism and either defend your point or admit your error.

I posed the weasel question as a tiny open thought for us to share what we think. Now I do not want to discuss this, or likely much else with you any longer, as I feel it is a waste of time (for both of us).

Why? I agreed with you at some point in it; it isn't a very good approximation of evolution, but then it was never meant to be, that was my point. If you don't want to discuss things with people, perhaps you shouldn't be on a discussion forum!

I would point out that this is circular. I posted some open ended questions and my personal thoughts, and you replied with disdain and disrespect.

Disdain? Yes
Disrespect? Yes
Posted a link to an article (which I didn't know you had read at the time) that answered all your questions / misconceptions about the experiment? Yes

Admittedly I probably should have written something more at the time, but I thought a read through of the wiki article would be enough to correct your views. Evidently I was wrong, hence my further response.

Then you accuse me, in your most recent post, of not 'discussing' of whining and 'playing the victim'.

Yes, because you were. When you have asked me to respond in more detail, I have done. When I have asked you to respond to my points, you have refused. You cannot deny this, and in doing so, show that I am willing to discuss this, whilst you are not (in fact you admitted this above).

You need to take responsibility for the way people react to your provocation. You tout your 'pure argument' but every post you have posted included the wiki that I assured you in the first place I had read.

No, the first one was a post to the wiki. The second and third used a quote from Dawkins to illustrate my point.

In fact, your last post was the prior one copied and pasted. That is 'pure' argument?

I only copied and pasted it because you didn't respond to any one of the points I raised in it. It was "pure argument" because it was a copy of the second response, where I detailed my rebuttal to your original questions.

I know you will champion yourself as victor of this strange battle, since I resorted only to insults and personal attacks. You won't even see the reality of your own behavior, and how I only responded with similar (but still more polite and respectful). You can act however you like, but when I mirror you own actions, try not to loudly call me on it, it is (in the end) arguing against yourself. That is why I do it, it is a trick.

I'm not a victor here; there has been no discussion for me to be a victor of. I freely admit I was out of order, and I apologized on multiple occasions (I'll even apologize now if you want). Fact is, even when I insulted you, I made points in response to try and get back to the discussion. Whenever I did this, you responded with similar insults and refused to comment on my points. Only one of us was trying to continue the discussion, and it wasn't you.

In short. You started it. Please, don't accuse me of lying, unless you can show solid proof.

You claimed my second post that I wrote "I think pippy is a big idiot" over and over. I did not. I referred to you once at the beginning (calling you ignorant), and from then on I never referred to you at all. I answered all of your points, without once referring to your or your arguments as "idiotic"; I simply stated my objections and reasoned out the response. But please, if you think you can find examples in my response where I said "I think pippy is a big idiot" over and over, present them. I honestly cannot see how anyone can read things into it like that, given that the vast majority of my post was all about explaining the experiment and evolution (nothing to do with you at all).

As far as this discussion, and the train wreck we are forcing upon the others who inhabit this site, I consider it fully closed. Thank you.

I don't consider it closed. I actually think this discussion is interesting, and I'd love to continue it with you. As for a "train wreck", I don't see quite how. People can respond to it if they like; it's not as if we are getting in the way of anything.

And Adrian, let's agree to disagree and not make it so personal? We should try. Myself as well.

Agreed, so let's start over and have you respond to the points I raised in response #2 and #3?