> Andrew: <<Here is yet another example of non-Christians being
> dishonest (we've learned from Clinton and his supporters that
> many Liberals, usually Evolutionists, don't have any moral
> objection to dishonesty, oh well).>>
>
> Andrew, you are giving Christianity a very bad name here. Are
> your arguments that weak that you have to go for ad hominems and
> rantings ?
Andrew: <<Imagine that. I make a solid arguement along with a gratuitous
remark and the only thing you reply to (and quote) is the gratuitous
remark.>>
How ironic eh ? But it is the gratuitous remark which is the most worrysome one. In general one does not use gratuitous remarks when one has a solid argument.