DNAunion: Great, all my antagonists have decided not to read my posts and
therefore not to reply to them. That means...
(1) Huxter. Huxter will not make any more unfounded and incorrect
accusations about my supposedly posting here under multiple names. Nor will
he make any more unfounded and incorrect accusations about my supposedly
posting under multiple names at ARN. Nor will he present my acknowledged
posting under two names – at different times - at another site that has
no rules against changing from one name to another, or even posting under
multiple names simultaneously (which I didn’t do) - as evidence that I
will do the unthinkable and post under multiple names here. Nor will Huxter
make the unsupported and incorrect claim that the confirmation of IDists
posting under multiple names at ARN was in part responsible for the temporary
shutting down of the discussion board there. NOTE THAT IT WAS NOT I WHO
ORIGINATED THE BAD WILL BETWEEN HUXTER AND ME AT THIS SITE.
(2) Susan. Susan will not call me dishonest (which was definitely uncalled
for at the time she made the charge as she didn’t even know me or my
positions, or those of the others at ARN. Even now, I do not consider any of
my actions as being dishonest – abrasive, yes; dishonest, no). Nor
will Susan again call me a Creationist (her intent in doing so originally and
several times thereafter was clearly to insult). NOTE THAT IT WAS NOT I WHO
ORIGINATED THE BAD WILL BETWEEN SUSAN AND ME AT THIS SITE.
(3) Wesley Elseberry. He will not ask me again to apologize for something
that I had previously stated was an honest mistake. Nor will Wesley
Elseberry again ask me to give a “lame excuse” for something I
had already admitted was an honest mistake. THE BAD WILL AT THIS SITE
BETWEEN WESLEY AND ME INVOLVED THIS ONE INCIDENT, WHICH WAS AN HONEST MISTAKE
ON MY PART. HE THEN REPLIED HUFFILY ASKING WHERE MY APOLOGY AND LAME EXCUSE
WERE, WHEN I HAD ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS AN HONEST MISTAKE ON MY PART.
I DO NOT CONSIDER THAT I ORIGINATED THE BAD WILL BETWEEN WESLEY AND ME AT
THIS SITE, AS HE WAS THE FIRST TO ASSERT (INCORRECTLY) INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING
ON THE OTHER’S PART.
(4) Richard Wein. Richard will not again get huffy at me for pointing out
the obvious fallacy in his ludicrous claim that *his misinterpretation* of
SeJones’ statements was the ONLY possible interpretation: excluding,
according to Richard Wein, the valid interpretation I read from
SeJones’ statements which in fact match what SeJones stated several
times PRIOR to Richard Wein’s posting of his invalid “proof
text”. I did not call Richard Wein any names in my reply to him
– he was the first to assign attributes to the other, stating that I
was no different than the rest of the ignorant(?) IDists (I do not have
access to the actual word he used). I DID NOT ORIGINATE THE BAD WILL BETWEEN
RICHARD WEIN AND ME AT THIS SITE.
(5) FMAJ. FMAJ will no longer dismiss my valid arguments (as when he
dismissed the quote I provided from Darwin himself that showed that
intelligence and design are excluded from NATURAL selection). Nor will FMAJ
continue his accusatory answering of virtually every one of my statements
with unfounded charges of NON SEQUITUR or EQUIVOCATION or STRAWMAN (of
course, unlike these, his charges of my using AD HOMS is incorrect, at least
in the last several of our exchanges). Nor will FMAJ resort to
“irritating psychology” to make his points – that is, once
I pretended that his use of the term “Dear” in relation to me was
offensive, did he stop? No. In fact, he *INCREASED* his usage of the term.
Thus, he was intentionally trying to irritate me (it was a test to see how he
would respond, and he fell into the trap as expected. I already suspected
that he was the kind that once he found something that irritated the
opponent, that he would use it at every chance – he didnR
17;t let me down as his own actions confirmed once and for all my
suspicions). Nor will FMAJ again parrot Elseberry ad nauseam (at least no to
me!). Nor will FMAJ again try to redirect every topic I am involved in, no
matter how unrelated, back to Elseberry’s conclusion that natural
selection is not eliminated by Dembski’s EF as a designing mechanism.
Nor will FMAJ imply, for the “thousandth” time, that my not
answering a question I repeatedly said I would not answer and even stated
that I was not qualified to answer, shows how ID is a failed topic.
SO WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED?
It seems that my early *fervent and valid* objections to Huxter’s
attempts at discrediting me right off the bat, and to Susan’s unfounded
calling me and others at ARN dishonest and Creationists, set the stage for
further developments here. I was responding to invalid attacks on my
character – they started the attacks and I defended: but the
anti-IDists here found me to be at fault (go figure).
From this, Elseberry apparently was predisposed to finding fault in something
I did (apparently longing to join the growing naturalists’
anti-DNAunion bandwagon) and attempted to convince others here that my honest
mistake was instead an intentional violation of the board rules (what I was
supposed to have gained from being so supposedly underhanded - by posting his
personal e-mail to me publicly - is beyond me!). Again, when I responded to
an incorrect charge of blatant wrong doing on my part, I was seen to be the
person in the wrong, not the accuser. The stage was set against me even
more.
Enter FMAJ with his ongoing attempts to irritate and wage an
accusatory/implication attack (see above about his intent to irritate rather
than to simply address matters). As my frustration with FMAJ’s tactics
grew, so did my use of derogatory statements towards him. (Yes, I went
overboard: I can’t deny that).
*DNAunion TURNS OVER A NEW LEAF (?)*
I attempted to leave all of this behind by stating I was dropping ALL the old
discussions and was starting new “non-flame” ones. At that
point, I deleted all e-mails that predated my turning over a new leaf. No
one, with the exception of FMAJ, picked up those old posts are reintroduced
them into the discussions.
A day or two after my "change", FMAJ replied to me in his same old
accusatory/irritating manner in several posts. So, in response to FMAJ - to
FMAJ *ONLY* - I took up right where I (that is, we) left off and responded
with ad homs (of course, in *addition* to normal counter points). Again, if
anyone will look at my replies to my "non-flame" posts, they will notice that
I did not "flame" anyone, even those that disagreed with me.
I don’t claim that my actions at this board are beyond reproach: they
clearly aren’t. But I do claim (contrary to what the others here have
claimed) that I am not “evil” and I further claim that the others
are not “sinless saints” in these matters. I did not *INITIATE*
most of the bad wills on this board between me and the others.
I ask, are not those that set fires just as guilty as those that fan the
flames?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 20 2000 - 13:56:33 EDT