I dont see how this would make any difference. First of
all a participant on this list does not speak for the
group as a whole, and the ASA members on the list dont
speak for the ASA as a whole either.
Second, as I recall, many of those that made personal
attacks on YECers, are ASA members anyway, but again, that
is no reason for Dembski to paint the entire group with
that brush.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:05:06 -0400
"David Buller" <bullerscience@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've gotten a couple of replies (one offlist, one from
>Iain Strachan)
> pointing out how this list occaisionally *does*
>personally attack YECists
> and IDists. However, my point was that it was wrong for
>Dembski to attack
> ASA based on the actions of some of the list subscribers
>who may not even be
> members of ASA, especially when their actions would not
>at all be condoned
> by ASA. Dembski was attacking ASA as an organization
>for things that ASA
> does not condone as an organization, things that just
>creep onto an email
> discussion group.
>
> That being said, I would agree that there is some truth
>about what was said
> at UcD regarding the list. Things are said here that
>are not representative
> of ASA. Here's an idea. Is there any way that the
>comments of non-members
> can somehow be distinguished from those of members? I
>don't mean to
> alienate non-members, but it might help ASA distance
>itself from perhaps
> some of the more extreme views, while also encouraging
>*members* to remember
> who (and Who, capital W) they are representing to the
>world.
>
> Just a thougth, but just some
>"member/associate/nonmember" signature might
> help avoid some of the misunderstandings that are no
>doubt being amplified
> by UcD.
>
> -David Buller
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Apr 26 11:51:42 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 26 2007 - 11:51:43 EDT