Kirt:
>> If seeing the same tired misinformation  touted as support for
>creationism, and getting mighty tired of it, makes me arrogant and elitist
>in some eyes, then so be it...

Peter:
>Fair enough. But when somebody or something really gets to any of us there
>is usually more to the picture than meets the eye.  If you said you were
>fed-up or outraged that would be something I could relate to but the
>insinuation expressed in the word "bored" borders on insult and disrespect
>- like how dare the world be full of so many creationist idiots. :-)

Interesting interpretation. I think, though, you may have it backwards.
Perhaps if I was outraged/fed-up/"gotten to" that would mean there is
more to it than meets the eye. Boredom might be boredom, not necessarily
insult and disrespect.

>If we beat our opponents into submission, we will never get
>to understand them, and we will in our rejection inadvertently be creating
>more of what we are trying to change.

Are we talking about the same issue? Who's beating their opponents into
submission? I'm playing cards in the other room and sent a telegram
praising Ward's efforts. ;) And be clear: I am not trying to change
anyone--I am defining myself.

>>Considering the example of  the latter which inspired Ward to undertake
>the work involved in his post(s), I still stand firm that the fallacies
>used to bash evolution are boring

>When you use the word boring you are closing your mind and stopping the
>dialogue - you are no longer curious about what your opponent is trying to
>express or where he or she is coming from. That is "boring" to me. :-)

I'm surprised at how emotionally-laden the word "boredom" is to you. I am
also bored by gems (a subject I know little about) and fusion jazz (a
subject I know much about). Boredom may be a lack of passion not evidence
of a closed mind. But mostly, again, I have no opponent--no creationist
opponent, not gemology(?) opponent, no Kenny G opponent. I don't want a
hypothetical creationist, gem-studded, fusion sax player to change
according to my beliefs at all.

>>That_ is boring year in and year out.

>Your threshold for boredom must have gotten very low or you have been
>hanging out too much on other lists. :-) On this list there have in the
>past only been few debates about evolution.

As I mentioned a couple times, I was referring to how the debate is played
out in letters to the editor columns--and other reading I have done on the
subject--not simply this list. You know, Peter, if it is not an issue
inspiring boredom for you, great, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I
am somehow deficient because the issue is more tired, old, and worn out for
me.

If you are worried that someone will be afraid to post a creationist
rebuttal to Ward's post(s) because I am bored by the issue in general,
perhaps it would help if I assured you that I mostly likely wouldn't even
respond (unless it was NFL who I might be "inspired" by ;)).

>> Ward's posts, however, were so succint and well-written that they were
>anything BUT boring.

>I think that is because he is too passionate about the issue to be bored -
>just like to a good teacher there is never a stupid question only a lack of
>understanding of the plight of the pupil. Of course, moderators are exempt
>from having to live up to these lofty ideals. :-)

Well, I don't think Ward is _too_ passionate, but he does play a very
useful role, as you say. You'll be frustrated, though, if you expect me to
to be a teacher to everyone on every subject. I am a learner first and
foremost ;)

Cheers,
Kirt