NP no facts only interpretations

[Doug Millison]

Thanks for clearing that up. No need for anybody to read the article, I
guess. Unless you're interested in a well-written, substantial argument for
the need to examine the articles and catechism of what has become something
of a social constructionist religion...if for no reason other than to shed a
bit of light on a certain style of argumentation that emerges again and
again by one of these two interlocutors (accompanied by the yaps of the
other) in this forum:

"Given the breadth of constructionist ideas, proponents might submit them
tentatively as speculations, hypotheses, or opinions, but in fact, this
spirited confidence phrases them as bare simplicities whose contradiction is
intellectually indefensible, and perhaps politically motivated. The aplomb
turns the issue from the truth or falsity of the premises to the mindset of
the antagonists. Since no enlightened mind would doubt the premises, dissent
from them can only stem from the wrongheadedness of the dissenters. As the
intentions of the other side come under scrutiny, the premises themselves
remain untouched. A philosophical quarrel becomes a psychological
speculation." 
http://www.bu.edu/partisanreview/archive/2001/2/bauerlein.html

"David Morris"
Yep.  No real point made...
"jbor"
A lot of antagonistic blather ...