[sdnativeson]

I am/was under the Dominicans were given that responsibility.

My inference to Spanish nobility – for the sake of brevity; the inquistion in (Spain) was the tool of a paranoid, power hungry king to destroy both those he considered a threat and to gain land and wealth.

A good read on the subject:
Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition, it should be available at most bookstores.

[sdnativeson]

I am/was under the Dominicans were given that responsibility.

My inference to Spanish nobility – for the sake of brevity; the inquistion in (Spain) was the tool of a paranoid, power hungry king to destroy both those he considered a threat and to gain land and wealth.

A good read on the subject:
Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition, it should be available at most bookstores.

[sdnativeson]

I am/was under the Dominicans were given that responsibility.

My inference to Spanish nobility – for the sake of brevity; the inquistion in (Spain) was the tool of a paranoid, power hungry king to destroy both those he considered a threat and to gain land and wealth.

A good read on the subject:
Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition, it should be available at most bookstores.

[sdnativeson]

I am/was under the Dominicans were given that responsibility.

My inference to Spanish nobility – for the sake of brevity; the inquistion in (Spain) was the tool of a paranoid, power hungry king to destroy both those he considered a threat and to gain land and wealth.

A good read on the subject:
Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition, it should be available at most bookstores.

[sdnativeson]

I am/was under the Dominicans were given that responsibility.

My inference to Spanish nobility – for the sake of brevity; the inquistion in (Spain) was the tool of a paranoid, power hungry king to destroy both those he considered a threat and to gain land and wealth.

A good read on the subject:
Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition, it should be available at most bookstores.

[sdnativeson]

Allan, unless you know the ancestry of those that “run universities like Georgetown and Loyola” and that ancestry is primarily that of Spanish nobility, your comment is inaccurate.

[sdnativeson]

Allan, unless you know the ancestry of those that “run universities like Georgetown and Loyola” and that ancestry is primarily that of Spanish nobility, your comment is inaccurate.

[sdnativeson]

Allan, unless you know the ancestry of those that “run universities like Georgetown and Loyola” and that ancestry is primarily that of Spanish nobility, your comment is inaccurate.

[sdnativeson]

Allan, unless you know the ancestry of those that “run universities like Georgetown and Loyola” and that ancestry is primarily that of Spanish nobility, your comment is inaccurate.

[sdnativeson]

Allan, unless you know the ancestry of those that “run universities like Georgetown and Loyola” and that ancestry is primarily that of Spanish nobility, your comment is inaccurate.

[sdnativeson]

ZK, I read your statement of “there were thousands of crackpots who turned out to be… just crackpots” as being arbitrarily dismissive of the process(es) of an original idea from conception to fruition.

Very little, if anything, functions correctly, completely or, as it was imagined on its inception. History has shown that not necessarily even in that indviduals lifetime. If I interpreted you incorrectly, obviously my mistake.

I don’t recall where I was equating any specific theory or discipline to/with anything. My statement is sound in the premise that I did address, original thought.

I am unfamiliar with ‘Irreducible Complexity’ my stance on it is therefore nuetral. Still, it wasn’t the basis of my opinion/statement.

I’ll concede your final comment with the caveat that it works both ways, it might not add any credence but doesn’t necessarily detract any either.

[sdnativeson]

ZK, I read your statement of “there were thousands of crackpots who turned out to be… just crackpots” as being arbitrarily dismissive of the process(es) of an original idea from conception to fruition.

Very little, if anything, functions correctly, completely or, as it was imagined on its inception. History has shown that not necessarily even in that indviduals lifetime. If I interpreted you incorrectly, obviously my mistake.

I don’t recall where I was equating any specific theory or discipline to/with anything. My statement is sound in the premise that I did address, original thought.

I am unfamiliar with ‘Irreducible Complexity’ my stance on it is therefore nuetral. Still, it wasn’t the basis of my opinion/statement.

I’ll concede your final comment with the caveat that it works both ways, it might not add any credence but doesn’t necessarily detract any either.

[sdnativeson]

ZK, I read your statement of “there were thousands of crackpots who turned out to be… just crackpots” as being arbitrarily dismissive of the process(es) of an original idea from conception to fruition.

Very little, if anything, functions correctly, completely or, as it was imagined on its inception. History has shown that not necessarily even in that indviduals lifetime. If I interpreted you incorrectly, obviously my mistake.

I don’t recall where I was equating any specific theory or discipline to/with anything. My statement is sound in the premise that I did address, original thought.

I am unfamiliar with ‘Irreducible Complexity’ my stance on it is therefore nuetral. Still, it wasn’t the basis of my opinion/statement.

I’ll concede your final comment with the caveat that it works both ways, it might not add any credence but doesn’t necessarily detract any either.

[sdnativeson]

ZK, I read your statement of “there were thousands of crackpots who turned out to be… just crackpots” as being arbitrarily dismissive of the process(es) of an original idea from conception to fruition.

Very little, if anything, functions correctly, completely or, as it was imagined on its inception. History has shown that not necessarily even in that indviduals lifetime. If I interpreted you incorrectly, obviously my mistake.

I don’t recall where I was equating any specific theory or discipline to/with anything. My statement is sound in the premise that I did address, original thought.

I am unfamiliar with ‘Irreducible Complexity’ my stance on it is therefore nuetral. Still, it wasn’t the basis of my opinion/statement.

I’ll concede your final comment with the caveat that it works both ways, it might not add any credence but doesn’t necessarily detract any either.

[sdnativeson]

ZK, I read your statement of “there were thousands of crackpots who turned out to be… just crackpots” as being arbitrarily dismissive of the process(es) of an original idea from conception to fruition.

Very little, if anything, functions correctly, completely or, as it was imagined on its inception. History has shown that not necessarily even in that indviduals lifetime. If I interpreted you incorrectly, obviously my mistake.

I don’t recall where I was equating any specific theory or discipline to/with anything. My statement is sound in the premise that I did address, original thought.

I am unfamiliar with ‘Irreducible Complexity’ my stance on it is therefore nuetral. Still, it wasn’t the basis of my opinion/statement.

I’ll concede your final comment with the caveat that it works both ways, it might not add any credence but doesn’t necessarily detract any either.

[Author]

Posts