On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Should A have the right to "conduct his (or her) most private life according
to his or her own rules?"

Deliberately infecting a person with any disease is illegal around here.
No sex required. This does not address the issue of sexual freedom.
But then you like changing the topic instead of addressing the issues.

However, to answer your implicit question, in the US, the US and state
Supreme Courts are the arbiters of the law, and thus arbiters of "rights."

They cannot arbitrate over that which does not exist. So I ask again -
where are those rights defined?

Galileo and Newton were considered fools by their peers - bogus.

Really? Have you personally interviewed all of their peers?

Have you? You made the claim - you have to back it up. You have not
been able to do so. I have studies a lot about the history of science
and can tell you that there is nothing that suggests that Galileo was
not well respected. Ditto Newton.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.

Sorry, but that was the prevailing belief for a very long time.

By religious nut cases - yes. By the scientists - no. If you can
prove otherwise, do so. Otherwise it remains a bogus claim on
your part.

Height within a species is a sign of a morphological difference - bogus.

Factually speaking it is.

morphology: 2. The form and structure of an organism or any of its parts.

Height is a part of the form and structure, and differences in height are a
morphological difference.

Don't blame me if you used the wrong word.

Perhaps you should look at how scientists use the term and not lexicographers.
We are discussing it in a scientific context. If height was a significant
morphological difference, there would be no morphological similarity between
any members of a species and would make the study worthless.

H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus.

Not a claim I ever made.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

Bull**** again.

Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus

You've yet to post anything which refutes it.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Not a claim I made.

Want me to quote you again? More bull**** on your part.

It's implicit in your statements

And you choose to ignore my _explicit_ statement. You are
still full of ****.

Mike