I’m tempted to make jokes about points flying over heads and such, but I guess it’s more likely that the people complaining that it’s just semantics didn’t actually read the articles.

Hmm well being as I had already stated that I read Part 1 and STOPPED in Part 2 at the point of what appeared to be nit-picking then yeah I didn’t read ALL the articles. I did read up to the point however, So I assume you are meaning that I just glanced through it, Not true. What was it teachers told us in school about our writing?
“if you didn’t get your point across, who’s fault is it? The readers?”

The caveat of “I was enjoying it until this point” is an attempt to appear open-minded. Some of the commenters here cam directly from PZ Myers’ post, a post which mangles mine to the point that it is unrecognizable. Most of them probably skimmed that, but just came here to leave their 2 cents.

I, and I center on myself here as I am the only one “complaining” on this thread. did NOT come from PZ’s post. I was directed to here from my google+ site. So your making reaching assumption and even accusation at this point, why? You have already decided NOT to answer the inquiries I posed But you feel the need to try to insult and riducle?

Also if PZ’s Post:

mangles mine to the point that it is unrecognizable

Then perhaps his mangling and my “misreading” of your points are a fault of bad writing, not our understanding…

No couldn’t be…

A minor detail regarding Malcolm X. In his autobiography he talks about being a very light skinned black man. It goes along with some discussion of skin tones among blacks. My recollection is that he couldn’t be a male prostitute because his skin wasn’t dark enough. So when Melchiorre said “Malcolm X was a very dark black”, he was making a false statement.

So, with that:

You are presenting yourself as an authority on the issue, or at least have some educated position on the subjects. Yet you argue a point of semantics, which ultimately is what Plait said just paraphrased…

Plait:

“how many of you no longer believe in those things, and you became a skeptic,

(changed your mind)

because somebody got in your face, screaming, and called you an idiot, brain-damaged, and a retard?

(as a result of being called an idiotic retard?)

Dawkins:
“How many of you changed your mind as a result of being called an idiotic retard?”

That is NITPICKING and takes away from your position as an observer with an objective point of view. It then becomes a rant, and since you NITPICKED such a small issue (WHICH Ultimately said the SAME THING,) you pulled you own argument down to a 4th grade I am better than you word play on the playground.

Oh but it didn’t say the same thing? Is that what your saying? I am sorry but it did, running it by a Linguist friend of mine, who said:

“The outcome was the same the word play was on the exact wording of ‘idiotic retard’ which ultimately came across in both statements anyways”

So do you get it now? Let me summerize.
Your initial page (part one) came off a bit preachy but was over all keeping my interest in your point of view, right up and until you brought down the level of your article with 4th grade neener neener bullshit…

Thank you for illustrating my main point.

OK, really!?!?! You want to argue semantics? Sementics as a Problem of “real Skeptics” Versus “Atheist Skeptics”…

Not to mention one could argue the Not true Scotsman issue here..

But over all: You Seemed to have missed MY POINT…

Just saying…

I realized you were arguing semantics

Thank you for illustrating my main point.