>DNAunion: If you, Elsberry, Dawkins, or Orgel, or anyone else can come up
with a valid and detailed explanation for the purely-natural origin of life
here on Earth, go right ahead. In the meantime, "you guys" should not state
as fact that it occurred here on Earth by purely natural means: assumptions
are not the same as facts, no matter how much "naturalists" wish them to be.
>Welsberry: I'll note that "you guys", irrespective of its inclusive common
use, does not include me, despite the fact that I am specifically named.
DNAunion: Now you're getting it! Whenever I refer to "you guys", it is
meant generically AND not to apply to any specific individual(s).
>Welsberry: Unless, of course, DNAunion manages to come up with a statement
by me that says what he imputes to "you guys". I somehow find that outcome
doubtful.
DNAunion: Nope. I already explained in a good bit of detail that when I say
"you guys" (or "you people") - especially when it quotes - that it should not
be taken literally. Just as it was wrong for Archie Bunker to refer to
Lionel and George and Weezy Jefferson and others as youze people - claiming
they were a homogenous group, one just like the other, with no individuality
in personality or beliefs and none any better than the others - it would be
wrong of me to literally lump all people who oppose my position into a single
homogenous lump. "You people" is figurative: it applies to no one in
particular, and just denotes those with opposite views from mine: which would
differ depending which statement I am making at the time.
By the way, I actually thought I was complimenting you, putting you right up
there with the likes of Dawkins and Orgel: two leaders in popularizing
Darwinian theory and in origin of life research, respectively. Of course,
now that I see that my statements could be taken to say that YOU should not
make claims about the origin of life having occurred by purely natural means
(which is not what I intended - what with that "you guys" in double quotes in
there), then I can see that you would NOT take it as a compliment.
>Welsberry: First, publication of private email without permission. (I
haven't noticed any sort of statement of regret, apology, or even an attempt
at a lame excuse yet.)
DNAunion: Then open your eyes and your mind and go back and read the actual
post! I will remind in a second, but first, I notice your choice of words
"an attempt at a lame excuse". Nice ad hom. The use of EXCUSE instead of
REASON, and on top of the that, the qualifier LAME. Is that the only kind of
reason I could give? You weren't holding out hope that I would give a VALID
REASON? Why, because someone as dishonest as me couldn't provide one? All I
am capable of giving is LAME EXCUSES?
Your deliberate choice of words just about does in any explanation I give -
you have set the stage - intentionally - for the readers to view whatever I
say as "A LAME EXCUSE". At least now that everyone knows your trick, perhaps
they will see through your attempt to misdirect their interpretation of and
they will see my "lame excuse" for what it really is, a valid reason.
Here, is what I said in the very post to which you refer: as the very first
words.
>DNAunion: When I originally responded to Welsberry, I did not "reply to
all". The e-mail was put flagged to be deleted, then my computer hung so the
e-mail is gone. Therefore, I cannot post this in the same thread as the
others on this subject.
I did NOT dream up the following "EXCUSE" after Welsberry noted my error: the
"excuse" was in there all along. However, since Welsberry demands more than
my already-made admission of an honest mistake, here is a more-detailed
explanation (I hope he finds this more to his personal satisfaction).
I am not very familiar with this e-mail system of posting. All the other
various sites I have posted at have been discussion boards, where EVERYTHING
that EVERYONE posts via the normal channels is public. I look in my e-mail
account and see responses from people at the site, and I assume (yes, assume,
based on my exposure to other sites, and the fact that as far as I know,
every post to me with the exception of your one was public) they are public.
I also have problems with my computer. I opened your post and replied: it
went back just to you (as it should have). After making a couple more posts,
I logged out of my e-mail system and back in to see what new posts had been
made in the last hour or so, and I did not see my reply to you (remember, I
assumed by default that it was public and should have gone out to everyone).
I assumed that the problem was that I hit the "REPLY" button instead of the
"REPLY TO ALL" button, so attempted to CORRECT what I believed was a mistake.
I opened my reply to you from my SENT folder and copied the text to the
clipboard, then clicked on your original e-mail to open it to paste my
message into to so that the post would fall where it should in the hierarchy
at www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution. But my e-mail system (AOL) hung, so I
had to give the three-fingered salute (CTRL+ALT+DEL). When it came back up,
your original e-mail - the one that was opening when the system hung - was
gone. So I created a new e-mail to everyone and pasted the text from my
reply to you into it and sent it off.
I had no idea that it was a personal (and not public) e-mail until after you
said something. But since I had given what I felt was an explanation for the
error, I did not feel that you would DEMAND that I explain in more detail or
DEMAND that I give an apology for what I already stated was an honest mistake.
Oh, and by the way, I also admitted in a post earlier tonight that I probably
made another error (citing the wrong person for a post) and stated that I
making myself look like a dufus for all the posting mistakes I have been
making. I called myself this derogatory term BEFORE I read your e-mail. I
am not coming up with some "lame excuse" - I have made some honest (though
not inteligent) mistakes, and have admitted them (in one way or another)
BEFORE others have pointed them out to me.
>Welsberry: Now, apparently unfounded characterizations of my stances. I
wonder what might follow...
DNAunion: Gee, I don't know. Perhaps I will go commit suicide because I am
such an evil person: you have shown me the uselessness of my life: I am no
good at anything and only end up messing things up. Boo hoo ; woe is me, woe
is me. NOT!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 02:57:10 EDT