Intellectual Honesty: SU v. FARMS
 

Here is a true heavyweight battle. Which of these two do you, the CG poster, consider to be MORE intellectually dishonest?

SU's attempts at spiritual subterfuge are more transparent.

spiritual subterfuge?

He's not trying to be spiritual at all. He's basing his claims on quasi-empirical analysis, carefully selecting his points while ignoring others.

It's basically a rhetorical battle for him.

So far, no surprises.

Not all FARMS work is of the same caliber. Once in a while when a FARMS researcher gets an article published in a reviewed journal it tends to be of higher quality. It also tends to not get counted as FARMS work.

Maybe it's just me, but the "you won't answer me; speaks volumes" line has to be one of the most trite and overused I've seen on this board.

Sorry, All-American.

Once again, it's just you.

Speaks volumes.

Seattle leads 10-7. The scared puppies are on his side.

Oh, no, it's dumb indeed. But it's SU's signature line, and every time it is used, it is a jab at SU-- thus, it's triteness is somewhat diminished by its utility.

I note that at present, there are as many people who have used this response by which they make fun of him than there are people who think he is less intellectually dishonest than FARMS.

It speaks . . . well, it says a lot.