Wow…you really are obsessed with this hypothesis/theory thing! I’ve already apologized to you if you were confused and thought that the fraternal birth order hypothesis had as much evidence as the big bang theory. Short of that there is nothing more to say concerning this.
Oh, and I did not mix my terms. You complained about my off the cuff use of the word “theory”. I admitted that I used the layman’s term in that ONE post. I’m fairly certain that you were the only one confused and enraged by this. And I would love to hear how you believe I am being intentionally deceptive…are you accusing ME of suggesting that the fraternal birth order hypothesis is as universally accepted as evolution?
Do you actually HAVE anything to contribute to the scientific discussion other than the exact definition of a theory? I’m not being sarcastic here…you seem to respond to every post I make or every response I receive by calling me deceptive.
One could ask you the same thing considering your unwillingness to honestly represent the position. Your argumentation style has not been above board. You deliberately alter the definitions of words to imply something that isn’t true. And you admit it! But it’s okay because only I was enraged and confused. Well, that’s your goal: confuse the discussion by misapplying terms. And yes, that pisses me off when some guy comes along to a “scientific” discussion and then bastardizes the terms such that the arguments made by real scientists are turned around. The issues are complicated enough without us requiring people like you to add in further noise in the form of intentional deceit.
I respond to every post in which you doing something that is manifestly deceptive with the observation that you are, surprise surprise, being deceptive. The answer would be seem to be obvious: stop that.
What exactly was I implying? How have I been dishonest about my position? Go back to my original post and substitute hypothesis for theory. That is all that is necessary. If you can’t understand this then you are an idiot. If you can understand it but just like to argue for no reason then you are a troll. I’m guessing idiot. Either way, unless you have something of substance to say, I’m done responding to you.
Instead of requiring us to correct your thoughts for you, why not just say what you mean in the first case? I mean, honestly, one word isn’t much harder to use than other. But, since I’ve been invited to alter your definitions or words so as to be true to what you really meant to say in the first case, I’ll replace idiot with ball of sunshine and troll with hottest thing ever to live. And I thank you for the compliments!