I would like to assume that people from both sides can discern the difference between legitimate claims and wild assumptions or, at least, not belabor them in a debate. Obviously, this was not the case.
To clarify, you were not the problem. However, leaving just your posts made no sense so your deletions were 'collateral damage' and I apologize.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
I guess in your opinion, deleting his misrepresentations and my corrections at the same time makes it all better. Maybe you should try to look at it from the other side. To understand each others' positions, we need to have a certain level of precision.
I meant nothing personal in these corrections. I do think that there were some typical problems with the way that evolution is reported in the press reflected in his posts. I think that there is some value in terms of educating the readers of your board. For example, the press often does refer to long extinct species by the names of modern species. The 'mice' in the thread were not viewed as mice at all by the scientists. The term is applied to these animals to make it more understandable to the reader. It gives a frame of reference and not a taxonomic description.
This is a trap for someone who does not read such popular press accounts critically and with care.