He presented some of the same handful of controversial "transitionals" we've all seen before. And threw in some new amphibian I haven't heard of. (Haven't looked yet, but I plan to. Gotta be in the right mood, in case it's another total lie-through-the-teeth job.) This represents what percentage of the species?

Even so, he could score if he could produce even one "transitional" that was clear-cut and uncontroversial. I myself would be impressed by a series, as I explained in my "Cracking Down" thread. But I'm a bit more strict about it than some. Hoping that a prediction might be fulfilled just isn't the same to me as seeing it actually fulfilled.
Like bait & switch? Hypocrisy? Diversionary tactics? Logical fallacies?

Just because I don't employ these does not mean I don't understand them. If you're operating under this assumption, it does explain a lot about your tactical decisions. Of course, I'll have to evaluate further before I can confidently conclude that this is the case, but the insight seems powerfully overwhelming at the moment.

Reminds me of when I first understood that some of y'all think creationists are just better liars than evolutionists. Never occurs to that kind that anyone might actually be telling the truth. So for them it's just a popularity contest.
Will you acknowledge any of the dozens of times I have already done so? Will ANY evolutionist?

Semantic obfuscation? Do you even bother to pay attention to what accusations you're flinging, or do you just close your eyes and draw chits from a hat?

Why can't you acknowledge it when I do? RAZD himself forgot & substantiated my claim that I presented mechanisms in reference to the tanning business. Hopefully he won't be so bitter over that as when I tricked him into explaining the "straight" lines on the graph. You'd think he graphed it that way himself... Hmmm.... Come to think of it, I don't know his identity.

Of course, that tanning talk's still just a distraction, so maybe he'd prefer to focus on it, rather than his failure to support his accusation that evidence is being ignored or cherry-picked. It's just empty mudslinging, of course. Look at that big post of his, and yet he made no attempt to meet the burden of proof. None whatsoever.

I do not find it surprising that you'd prefer me to divert to discussing something else. To tell the truth, I'd be more amused counting the number of false accusations in his last two posts alone. Small wonder your impressed by him; he's quite prolific.

But how does one score links to lists of false accusations? As an evolutionologist, I'm very much interested in how you score yourselves on these matters. You know, like your list of 300 lies about Kent Hovind. Do you get credit for all 300, or half credit of 150, or just one point? Do you get extra credit if one or two are actually true, or do you lose points for honesty/accuracy in these cases?