I will not tell you who it was from, but I will tell you that it was not
from Glenn. This should be obvious from the fact that Glenn has
subsequently pursued several conversations with you. As for such a
message being unethical, I will only say that the anonymous sender's
accusations toward you have proven right, while your accusations against
Glenn continue to be proven wrong. The list of your fellow Christians
who have chimed in to say that not only has Glenn not engaged in ad
hominems, but that his behavior toward you and others is exemplary is
now up to 4. And not a single person has yet agreed with you, or thinks
that the examples that you have posted are actaully ad hominems. How
many strikes before this accusation is out?
> EB>And what we are debating here is ONLY your accusation against Glenn,
> >which you are refusing to substantiate or retract.
>
> As I have said, I don't have the time to research 2-3 years of Reflector
> messages, to "substantiate" my claim that Glenn has constantly engaged
> in ad hominems. The archives on this list up to August 1997 (from memory)
> are at http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt/mailevolution/. You can read Glenn's
> messages to me for yourself, if you think that researching 2-3 years of
> Reflector messages is not a problem!
But you made the accusation. It is up to you to support it.
> But I don't need to "substantiate" it. Everyone who has been on the Reflector
> any length of time presumably knows it is true (since no one, including Glenn,
> has denied it)! And since it is true, I won't (indeed can't) "retract" it.
If "everyone who has been on the reflector any length of time" knows
that Glenn constantly engages in ad hominems, explain why John Burgeson,
Bill Payne and Calum MacLeod have all stepped forward and publicly
disputed your accusation, and not a single person has supported it? Or
why you still can't come up with a single example of an ad hominem from
him.
> I am sure that other Reflectorites are becomimng bored with this issue of me
> substantiating Glenn's past ad hominems (I know that I am), so unless you raise
> anything new on this point, in future I will just delete that part of your messages.
How convenient. YOU make an accusation, then refuse to back it up, and
now you're bored with being pressed for evidence of the accusation.
There is a term for this, Stephen. It's called "bearing false witness".
It's condemned in the bible. You should read it some time.
> And here's the rub! I could spend weeks listing Glenn's ad hominems and
> you would deny every one of them was an ad hominem! I've got better
> things to do with my time.
But Stephen, everyone who has seen it so far has denied that the
examples you cited are actually ad hominems, including at least one
young earth creationist!
> >>EB>An ad hominem attack is a fairly simple thing to define and identify.
> >>>If in fact Glenn has made ad hominem attacks, they should be very easy
> >>>to point out. Why don't you do so?
> >>
> >>Because I haven't got the time or the inclination. But to keep you happy,
> >>I will start recording them from now on in the FAQ.
>
> EB>If you think that it is a reasonable thing to accuse someone of doing
> >something in the past, refuse to substantiate it, then say that you will
> >point it out in the future, then I'm sure you won't mind when I claim
> >that you have, in the past, repeatedly and flagrantly threatened the
> >life of the Pope. When you respond that you have never done so, I will
> >simply say that I do not have the time or inclination to support my
> >charge, but I will begin a "Stephen Jones' Deaththreats on the Pope FAQ"
> >in which I will point them out in the future.
>
> I can't be bothered even responding to this.
Again, how incredibly convenient.
> EB>Whoops. Perhaps you don't read close enough. Burgy has, in fact, firmly
> >denied your claim, twice. But no one has supported your claim, either.
> >Surely if his use of ad hominem attacks was so blatant and repeated,
> >someone out there should be able to show an example of it, right? Or
> >perhaps you are just wrong?
>
> Burgy has not "in fact, firmly denied" my "claim." All he has said is that
> he has not observed Glenn's ad hominems. I suppose not beeing on
> the receiving end of them, he has not noticed them. Or maybe he and
> I have a different definition of what is an ad hominem.
So far, Stephen, everyone seems to think your definition of ad hominem
is nonsense.
> EB>Actually, I am a great admirer of Jesus. Like Jefferson, I reject the
> >claim that he was divine while admiring many things that he said,
> >especially the basis of his ethical system. But this really is beside
> >the point. I don't think Jesus would make an accusation and refuse to
> >support it.
>
> Why not? On your view "Jesus" was either a fraud or a madman.
Or his message was distorted by his followers. But that really is an
irrelevant discussion.
> EB>No, I deny that his criticism of the men you mentioned is at all
> >destructive. And so have some of your fellow Christians. Then again,
> >perhaps they aren't "real Christians". I'll leave that to you to judge
> >(since you seem to enjoy it so much).
>
> AFAIK, none of my "fellow Christians" have denied that Glenn has
> engaged in "destructively criticising Christian apologists." Burgy
> (for example) has not denied it, because he thought
Because he thought what?
> >>EB> But when your fellow Christians find your attitude embarrassing,
> >>>isn't it time for a little self-evaluation? Wait, let me guess...they're not
> >>>"real Christians"?
> >>
> >>Ed, I try to have a "time for a little self-evaluation" every morning.
> >>
> >>And I've *never* said of anyone who claims to be a Christian on this
> >>Reflector that "they're not `real Christians'".
> >
> >How slippery. Demanding that someone give you their "Christian bona
> >fides" along with "If you don't answer these questions, I will be forced
> >to make the conclusion..." is not claiming that they're not real
> >Christians, but don't you think it is implying the same?
>
> I didn't even say "If you don't answer these questions, I will be forced
> to make the conclusion...". What I said was, "You don't have
> to answer this but I will draw my own conclusions if you don't."
Semantics, Stephen. Nothing but semantics.
> I did not say what my "conclusions" were because I wanted to give
> Glenn the benefit of the doubt. But whatever Glenn's answer, I
> would not conclude that Glenn was not a Christian.
>
> >SJ>No doubt a small number of the more evolutionary minded Christians on
> >>this Reflector may find my pro-creation/anti-evolutionism
> >>"embarrassing", but if they do, that is *their* problem.
>
> EB>It is your behavior toward others that is appalling, not your views.
>
> The more you bluster on Ed, the more I am persuaded that this is
> all a bluff to avoid you answering the really hard question:
And the more you refuse to substantiate your accusation against Glenn,
the more obvious it becomes that you are in the business of character
assassination and not honest evaluation of ideas. And the more obvious
it becomes that you are a dishonest man who thinks it is okay to toss
around accusations at people without backing them up. Frankly, you
should be ashamed of yourself.
Ed