I believe he once admitted that he machine translates all his posts into another language and then machine translates them back to English.
IIRC, that was someone else saying that his typing reminded them of doing so. Honestly, though, IMO his typing seems to be messed up in a totally different way than bad machine translation.
Oddly enough, a thread that deals with the evolution and society, with Al pretty much here, I found myself agreeing. You can argue whether or not any particular question, or is not a scientific question. For example, I want to see "what is human nature?" As a scientific question, this forum was not until many others. Using science (or is not using science, or scientific use of the opposite), in response to philosophical questions, however, is essentially a tool to be used in any way debater wishes. In fact, my political views in the past by people who witnessed the fall much closer to this thread, for example, psychology is not to hate
...
Oh, rest assured, just think about all the arguments on the subject has been rehashed constantly at one point or another. I have a right to take the history of sexuality class (, dyed-in-the-job social constructivist who is whole, as a poor person granted), and it really helped me realize how utterly intractable constructivists, social and behavioral scientists, there is a break between.
