🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <513g0t$me5@phaedrus.kralizec.net.au>,
Brett Phillips <moggy@lisp.com.au> wrote:
>In article <50vsv8$q8q@griffin.itc.gu.edu.au>, s843382@its.gu.edu.au 
>says...
[lots of pro- and anti-creationism stuff on both sides deleted]
>Great arguement Daniel, you have totally convinced me.  Not to follow your 
>view, but to prove your dogmatism.  You really do believe that yours is 
>the only answer don't you?  It ruins a good oportunity to have a decent 
>debate.

The "decent debate" should take place on talk.origins, of course.  The
newsgroup I read this on, bionet.molbio.evolution, is not for endless
creation/evolution debating, and I think I can speak for most of our readers
in asking that this discussion move to talk.origins.  I would have edited out
the other newsgroups to which it was cross-posted except that they look like ones
whose readers would feel the same way.

It is a complete pain to have to wade through a lot of endless (and not novel)
debate about creationism to find the molecular evolution postings.  I think
that we are on the road to a moderated news group if this keeps up.   If
creationist debaters keep ignoring the wishes of our readership by posting to
this group, then let's discuss how we can get it moderated.

-- 
Joe Felsenstein         joe@genetics.washington.edu     (IP No. 128.95.12.41)
 Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Washington, Box 357360, Seattle, WA 98195-7360 USA