You really are being a good sport to take the time to spell this out. I am not posing as an
authoritative source in saying the following,
but only putting in my two cents:
I like a good friendly chat. It's milder
to be sworn at in print that in voice, as long
as specific slanders are not raised.
In the post above, when you addressed me
as "you," did you mean that I, Mike, have at some time shown "bad" (not just imperfect) manners in the content of my posts to this forum?
If so, please show me where that occurred,
and then briefly I may reveal what was going on in my mind at the time...since manners are being explored.
It seems to me that Harv, as valuable as his
thoughts may be, could deserve some criticism for
assuming a "mother goose" role and patronizingly dismissing a lot of posts without condescending to refute them logically. Are we really in the post post post post Theology Age, where the religions of Newton, Einstein, Ben Franklin, Thos. Jefferson et al. are mere trinkets of quaint superstition? I was prepared to discuss -- or brush by -- these, but was surprised to find the beliefs of these persons were considered by Harv and Alex to be pertinent only as sub-science unless they were quite unreligious. It may be shown to be so, but Harv and Alex did not show it.
Theology can be quite a tangle, and I don't blame scientists for avoiding it, nor think them inadequate if they do, but the name of this forum suggested a conversation was possible.