>>DNAunion: 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?
>>Chris: Having read your post, and having examined the initial posts in
Susan's and Huxter's case, I'm not at all sure that you didn't set every one
of the "fires" yourself.
DNAunion: Gee, imagine that - Chris chose their side over mine. What an
unexpected shocker.
>>Chris: It would have been sufficient, in both of these cases, simply to
state that you were not posting under multiple names and that you were not a
creationist (in case anyone reading Susan's post might think you were).
DNAunion: Funny, but before the bad will between me and Richard Wein
emerged, he stated that Huxter was wrong and should consider himself
reprimanded (Of course he didn't state I was guiltless, but he did not say
the same things about me). It is telling that an anti-IDist would cross
"party" lines to take my side over Huxter's; he "must" have felt that I was
justified in my responding to Huxter's unprovoked and unfounded attempts to
discredit me (anything that occurred after that time is irrelevant to the
events that led to this "battle", if you will, between Huxter and me).
And I did deny being a Creationist to Susan multiple times - she didn't
listen, showing that it was not sufficient to simply state I was not one. I
thought that Susan might actually listen to reason, realize her mistake, and
at admit that I was not a Creationist or at least that since she knew nothing
about me at the time, that her charges (plural - don't forget about being
dishonest) should not be taken seriously. But reason did not prevual - no
apology (really didn't expect one), no retraction, and no softening in the
charges: Susan stubbornly insisted to the end that she nailed it on the head.
>>Chris: Turning Susan's wise-crack into an attack on your own honesty was
particularly silly
DNAunion: Turning Susan's *unprovoked attack* on me (and the others at ARN)
around on her pointed out her error and her shoot-first-ask-questions-later
mindset. I would rather that everyone here operate on a level playing field
(a foolish ideal) than for my "reputation" to be spotless.
>>Chris: ... not to mention a little odd from someone who calls people
"numbskull," "brainless," and "stupid."
DNAunion: *Only* very late in the game. I still maintain that the more
central issue is who *started things*. Answer: Huxter and Suan. I already
mentioned above how Richard - an anti-IDist - said that Huxter was out of
line. As far as Susan, well, as one of the anti-IDists here pointed out to a
large degree, the label Creationist - as applied by Susan - carries with it a
lot of negative scientific baggage (manipulative, incompetent, unethical,
dishonest, liar, etc.). And on top of this charge of heres, she made her
explicit charge of dishonesty.
All of this occurred several days *before* she forgot to cover her tracks and
admitted to not knowing my position, even by then!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 11:33:31 EDT