On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 12:48:39 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Indeed, as you and Brian both agree, "misprepresent" does carry
>>with it a meaning (IMHO the primary meaning) of *deliberate*
>>intention to *deceive* in the representation of another's views.
>>If evolutionists on this Reflector want to regain their lost
>>credibility (with me at least), they will need to *consistently*
>>stop using such loaded words that imply moral, rather than merely
>>intellectual, error or the part of their creationist opponents.
BH>You have misunderstood what I wrote. "A misrepresentation can be
>made deliberately, it can also be made by mistake." Given that
>misrepresentation does not automatically imply moral fault, the
>very least you should do is ask for a clarification before making
>such a serious accusation.
It was not so much an "accusation" as a *conclusion*:
------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
To: "evolution" <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 98 17:19:13 +0800
Re: I said what? (was "Astronomy" and "Earth" magazine's..
It seem to be standard practice of evolutionist (both theistic and
non-theistic), to assume that creationists are morally wrong (ie.
misrepresent) than merely intellectually wrong (ie. mistake). This
is so pervasive among evolutionists, that I have no alternative but
to conclude that it reflects the adverse influence of evolutionary
thinking."
------------------------------------------------------
My conclusions about what evolutionists mean is coloured by my
(sometimes bitter) experiences on this Reflector. Evolutionists
(particularly the theistic variety) on this Reflector have been
consistently rude and dismissive to me. For example, you yourself
once tried to have me `sent to Coventry' (if not banned) from the
Reflector by calling a snap poll alleging that I was "abusing the
Group", and without the courtesy of a cc. to me so that I could put
my side of the matter. And yet *you* preach to me of the rectitude
of first seeking clarification!
In the light of this experience, I assume that when evolutionists say
I have misrepresented them, they mean *deliberately*, unless the
context indicates otherwise.
But now that Loren has apologised and indicated that he did not
mean the word in its primary sense, if he alleges in future that I
misrepresented him, I will ask him for clarification. But hopefully
he will think of a better word.
BH>On Mon, 10 Feb 97 you wrote:
>
>#If Glenn persists in this continued misrepresentation of what I say
>#on this "boat" topic, I will have no alternative but to regard it as
>#deliberate.
>
>Even though, in your opinion, Glenn had conducted "continued
>misrepresentation" of what you said, you did not regard it as
>deliberate. Why?
In the case in question (as you should well know since you appear to
have all my old mail), Glenn on several occasions kept repeating that
I said something even though I kept pointing out to him (with
evidence) that I hadn't.
Thus he *was* misrepresenting me, but as my post clearly says I did
not yet regard it as deliberate. If he kept it up, despite my
protests, then I would have concluded it *was* deliberate. He didn't,
so I didn't.
BTW, this latest (unsuccessful) attempt on your part to verbally trap
me by posting something I said a long time ago, while omitting the
reasons that led up to me saying it, just further reinforces my
previous conclusions about the adverse effect of evolutionary
thinking!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------