Message from discussion Natural vs Evolved Species (was: Better to be...)

From: "Martin L. Martens" <martin.marte...@ragingbull.com>
Subject: Re: Natural vs Evolved Species (was: Better to be...)
Date: 1999/10/15
Message-ID: <38074B15.7F585E27@ragingbull.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 537110583
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <37d3859e.2103889@news.mindspring.com> <380613EF.A1B5053A@ragingbull.com> <7u5l6n$2uk$1@panix2.panix.com> <380659D8.E19FC1B0@ragingbull.com> <7u79i0$mk7$1@panix2.panix.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sprint.ca
X-Trace: newscontent-01.sprint.ca 940002077 209.148.238.60 (Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:41:17 EDT)
Organization: Friends of Georgi Plekhanov Menshevik Committee
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:41:17 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals

Gordon wrote:
[...]

> 
> "Martin L. Martens" <martin.marte...@ragingbull.com>:
> | Let's see, you attempted to point out that the term is
> | reasonable by taking a concept "punctuated equilibrium" and
> | twist its meaning to fit a definition that you have admit it
> | does not have.
> 
> Martin, go look up _equilibrium_ in a dictionary.  It'll
> probably give a number of synonyms.  Pay special attention
> to those which start with the letter _b_.


Gordon - Go look up the term "punctuated equilibrium" in Gould's
books. Pay special attention to his meaning. Oh wait, you've
already admitted that it does not mean what you are attempting
to make it out to mean.

Your desperate attempt to twist this one is just hilarious
Gordon.  You missed on this one by a mile and can't admit it.  I
thought you were better than that. Now you are being just as
childish as Michael. Next thing you know, you are going to start
calling me a liar.