LiamToo wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
No, idiot, he didn't forget. It's just that - quite unlike you - he's
too *smart* /himself/ to characterise Newton and Einstein as idiots. He
was saying that he believes that *Dawkins* considers such people to be
idiots, although, to be fair, it would seem that he applies it only to
the living.

So, because Newton and Einstein are already dead, Dawkins does not
consider them to be idiots, according to Hart?

Not quite. Dawkins has no opinion on Hart, but that's not because
Newton and Einstein are already dead, it's because Dawkins doesn't know
Hart. At least you're correct about Dawkins' having no opinions about
Hart's opinions.


How convenient.

No, ****wit, this is logic 101.

If we go
back to Hart's posting, he didn't define idiot. He said something else.


Ok then... go back to Hart's posting... what else did he say.

And why are you defending Hart?

I'm not defending Hart, I'm merely pointing out that you're a moron
with no logic skills and no literary skills.

Cant' he talk for himself?

No, he can. Oh, and the apostrophe goes *between* the "n" and the "t".

Keep banging those rocks together. ****wit.