You've been spreading this lie long enough. At the request of the other
members of this list, I took out discussion on this subject off-list, yet
you continued to post distorted versions of what I told you privately on the
list. I never refused to put the money in escrow; had you asked politely
instead of demanded I probably would have agreed. But the real issue is
that you never accepted my challenge, which included the requirement that
you prove your claim that Haeckel committed fraud by providing evidence that
he had been tried and convicted of that crime in a criminal court. Instead,
you counter-challenged by demanding that I provide evidence that such a
trial ever took place. In other words, _you_ expected _me_ to prove your
claim for you! In other words, rather than play fair, you tried once again
to rig the bet in your favor. When I refused, you then began to heap public
scorn on me with lies and innuendo. Tell me, Joseph, is that moral?
"Until you can submit to...politesse,..."
This from the king of insult and innuendo.
"Let's see a reformation and some restitution. Then, let's talk about it."
I couldn't have put it better myself. As soon as you reform and apologize
for all your past bad behavior, we will all be glad to hear from you again.
"For example, is the purposeful falsification of data, like Haeckel did, a
high crime against science?"
Since Haeckel did not purposely falsify his data, the question is
irrelevant.
"A 'yes' or 'no' will do."
Ah, the old "have you stopped beating your wife yet" logical fallacy. If
you are limited to a yes or no answer, no matter how you answer you
incriminate yourself, because implied by the question is an affirmative
answer to the unasked question "do you beat your wife". In the case of your
question, it assumes an affirmative answer to the unasked question "did
Haeckel purposely falsify his data". As such, if I answer only yes or no,
no matter how I answer I incriminate myself. Once again, you have rigged
the situation so that you win no matter what the truth really is. You've
done that in the past, you tried to do it with my challenge and you are
doing it now. You claim to have morality on your side, yet you engage in
the immoral act of fixing the situation to your advantage, despite the
truth. It seems to me that you are the one who cannot be trusted.
Kevin L. O'Brien