This is the substance of a comment (here) in response to the visitor I have taken to calling Q. Given it’s nature it really belongs right here on the front page. So here it is.

Q writes, among other things:"What is even a bigger demonstration of your intellectual dishonesty is that when I do, you then ignore it."

I can't think of a single comment you've ever posted to which I have not responded, usually point by point. Clearly you think I don't succeed. But ignore you? If it has happened, it certainly hasn't been intentional.Intellectual honesty is a pursuit of mine. It's one of the reasons I blog. I read your comments at least twice. If I fail at intellectual honesty that also is not intentional.You know, I can see that you have been angry with me since I linked to the Paul Belien article (here), and then subsequently had the temerity to suggest that Europeans are all a bunch of Paris Hiltons. I don't really think that. In a moment of haste, I had the idea and posted it without giving due consideration to how it would come across. I understand now, especially seeing that you yourself are a former soldier, how insulting that suggestion was. (I'm sure I know how insulting I would find it.) At the time, what I was thinking was "If what Belien says is true, then why should it be?" But to suggest cowardice and "bimbo-ness" so indiscriminately -- not one of my better moments.Sometimes one does, or says, something which seems like a good idea, or seems funny, at the time, but in retrospect really wasn't.I repent. For whatever that's worth to you.

Now that isn’t going to resolve all of the difficulties he and I have. I remain sceptical of the scientific credentials of any theory of origins. He says it’s because I don’t understand science. That’s as it may be. I still think that ‘Scudderite’ is an appropriate (but not unsulting) term to use in reference to Democrats, who, I sincerely believe, are a party whose attitude towards property rights is precisely that they exist at the pleasure of those who do not seize property. It’s not intended as an insult; it’s intended to be decription-by-allusion. I still believe that all people have presuppositions, or pre-rational intellectual commitments. I believe that belief in God is one such commitment; so is dis-belief in God. I also persist in my belief that asserting “Belief in P is presuppositional” is not affirming the consequent.

I admit to being sarcastic. I admit to coming on strong. But I do not view these as sinful, and thereore inconsistent with my profession of Christian faith.

An insult, however, (such as calling the general population of an entire continent a bunch of Paris Hilton’s) is a different matter entirely. I retract the assertion.

Finally, Q seems to be of the understanding that I think once I've posted it here that's the end of it. Any statements of fact I make are incontrovertibly true; any arguments I make (or attempt, however poorly) are irrefutable. Such is not the case.

One asserts what one believes to be the facts as well as one can establish them to best extent possible. Then one awaits correction. One proffers one's best arguments (even if those 'best' are actually the worst). Then one awaits refutation.

The fact that I've written here doesn't mean I believe that's the end of discussion. Quite the contrary, in fact. I merely think of myself as beginning a discussion, or taking up one that is ongoing. If it meant that I wouldn't allow comments to be posted here; and I certainly would not respond to them.

Again: For whatever all this is worth.