>> On Mon, 8 Jan 96 16:22:24 MST you wrote:
JF>I will get back to you about your private email, with some
>documentation (which, naturally, means it will take me a little
>time). Read "untrustworthy" as synonymous with "unreliable", rather
>than "intentionally dishonest". I consider Gish's argumentation so
>shoddy (see my FAQ for reasons) that I could not accept anything he
>says without further documentation.
>> Sorry Jim, but in private email to me you wrote to me words to the
>> effect that the ICR was intentionally dishonest. (Ethics prevents me
>> from posting your exact words which were stronger than that).
They were strong, but they did not refer to intentional dishonesty. If
you disagree, you may query me *privately*, although I would prefer that
you wait until I have the time to explain myself *privately*. My
justifications are complex enough that I am not going to try to "sound
bite" them down to a sentence or two.
Frankly, if I *did* wish to say privately that the ICR was deliberately
dishonest, and make a weaker statement publicly, THAT IS MY RIGHT.
No-one is required to post all of their private opinions. I will
publicly defend public statements, and privately defend private
statements (or retract them). Even though you did not directly quote
from my private letter, I resent to your referring to material from it
in a public manner that makes me look bad (particularly since, in my
opinion, you did not even refer to it accurately).
>> Now you are toning it down to mean just "unreliable" and not
>> "intentionally dishonest"?
No, it was you who "toned up" my meaning, not me who toned it down. In
my dictionary, "trustworthy" means "worthy of trust, reliable". The
opposite of that was exactly the meaning I wished to originally imply.
There is no implication of deliberate dishonesty, so my meaning is more
correct than the one you tried to put in my mouth.
>> I agree that Gish's argumentation is "shoddy" sometimes, so you
>> posting evidience of that is not news, and you could save your time.
I do not and have never intended to post evidence of this.
>> What I would like to see substantiated publicly on the Reflector (not
>> privately to me) is the frequent claim by evolutionists that the ICR
>> leaders (e.g Morris, Gish, Lubenow and Parker) are "dishonest", ie.
>> that they wilfully claim things to be true that they know to be false.
I am not responsible for what other people write. If you disagree with
other people's claims, take it up with them.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765 I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder