Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 01:36:18 -0500
From: Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: And they say C is obscure
References: <20170409-035940.754.0@Peabody.ssl.astraweb.com> <6ae9b3ed-f560-4261-a430-76cbff8c7d9f@googlegroups.com> <kfn7f1vyasf.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <0e562728-eeaf-4028-bb43-ed1f7502922e@googlegroups.com> <kfnmvaqv4jb.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <5597f232-de91-40e5-9b62-b4c8c8850173@googlegroups.com> <1btw4xtnf1.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> <c49a7f80-5709-4888-80c3-ef1b40f93d75@googlegroups.com> <oen65i$feh$1@dont-email.me> <89ec64a5-8939-496c-8f67-5be593bd7f4e@googlegroups.com> <kfn60hbuw57.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <a0c429a1-7dc4-4a67-906d-6d0ec423604f@googlegroups.com> <oeuu9s$o0a$1@dont-email.me> <b32674d2-e3c4-4ec1-b5c4-ce43f19ddcdc@googlegroups.com> <oev1j7$3lr$1@dont-email.me> <oev4k0$dtf$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <oev5n7$hhv$1@dont-email.me> <oev9cp$ui0$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <oevbse$7tp$1@dont-email.me> <be921eee-e20c-449f-93ef-31873f560ebe@googlegroups.com> <oevsdt$a4a$1@dont-email.me>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 07:36:17 +0100
Message-ID: <87poff6gta.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tugrjl6AKdQ64ED+ESTOes8yObg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Lines: 19
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-uDPfigb5yeKpUEFmxmgjW1RZixMRAEoI6lcpRM8bcp648SxQ5PRQITKQSCcDKhzcT1Qe/ZWNKYyYUMn!4ixmdmj2DWMC2ElB9fgVMncKIcOnhBHIxy5LLoOORsAYzVq2AYAGlmooBEDfajRONMykEI8=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2860
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:109733

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> So now this "commonsense observation" with "powerful theoretical
> support", is merely something that could possibly be correct, and the
> "powerful theoretical support" itself could be a red herring?

You are asking an understanding of the scientific process from a man who
self-published a book called "12 Common Atheist Argument Refuted" and
whose book on Richard Dawkins is reviewed here:

http://www.lulu.com/shop/malcolm-mclean/the-confutation-of-dawkins-the-god-delusion/ebook/product-18593870.html

Ms Groom seems to have Malc's reasoning style pretty well described:
   "Many of the arguments put forward are flawed in a very obvious and
    school boyish way and much of the 'logic' is anything but logical. Just
    about every page of the preview is littered with statements which do not
    and cannot withstand the test of reason"

And that was 10 years ago.  Does any of that sound familiar?