SJ>Agreed. Abuse *is* "ineffective". Why don't you realise this and
SJ>either answer Laurie properly or ignore him? There may be are others
SJ>reading the exchanges (like me) who could benefit from evolutionists
SJ>calmly responding factually.
WRE>[...]
WRE>On the whole, I believe that "calm, factual responses" pretty
WRE>well characterizes my correspondence to Laurie Appleton. Stephen
WRE>is welcome to document any lapses, if he would care to claim otherwise.
SJ>How? As I pointed out previously, you were not on the
SJ>Fidonet echo when I was on it with Laurie. My comments wer
SJ>about those evolutionists who were. I have no other personal
SJ>knowledge of other forums that Laurie inhabits.
I can speak to my experience, and you to yours. That is *my*
point. Your comments beginning "Why don't *you* realize
this..." (emphasis added) were not about those other
evolutionists, but were directed to me. They can *only* be
sustained if you do have knowledge of the interchanges between
Laurie and myself, and that knowledge you have admitted that
you lack. As to how you might document lapses, well, that is
rather a poser... as I had intended it to be. It is not *my*
problem that you do not have the wherewithal to support the
commentary directed at me that is in question.
Stephen also wrote:
SJ>It is interesting that the standard response of
SJ>evolutionists on CVSE to Laurie's quotes was that they were
SJ>"misquotes", "out-of-context", "selective", etc, etc. It was
SJ>like a mantra!
[...]
WRE>Let me illustrate two quotes in one paragraph of Laurie's that
WRE>did not withstand scrutiny.
SJ>Read what I said again Wesley. I do not deny that *some* of
SJ>Laurie's quotes on the Fidonet echo CVSE (which you were not a
SJ>member of while I was there) may have been out-of-context, but
SJ>not all of them were. I checked up on many of them and they
SJ>were OK.
Stephen made two claims, not one. That there may exist a quote
by Laurie Appleton that does not suffer from any of several
faults is unobjectionable. However, I was addressing the
"mantra-like" claim made by Stephen by giving an example and my
testimony as to my own experience, intending to demonstrate
that such a characterization did not apply to me personally.
That's why I also said:
WRE>I quite often pointed out problems with the quotes that Laurie
WRE>employed, either in the actual quote, the omission of context,
WRE>or even the inapplicability of the quote in question to the
WRE>topic under discussion.
It is possible that Laurie engaged more frequently in misquotation
in the forum where I am familiar with his postings than where
Stephen saw his examples, which would be one way in which our
perceptions could be harmonized.
Wesley