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

And why are you defending Hart? Cant' he talk for himself?

My use of the term "idiots" was prompted by Angelo DePalma's assertion
concerning Dawkins opinions, although I agree with Mark Houlsby that
"deluded" is the term Dawkins would prefer. In any case, I believed
Angelo's interpretation of Dawkins' position was much too broad and I
suggested a narrower one. Angelo and I were able to have a reasonable
exchange through which we hopefully reached a better understanding of
each others' positions. Liam, on the other hand, prefers to
deliberately misconstrue my position in order to create an absurdity
that he can dismiss without saying anything intelligent.