On Fri, 12 Jan 96 09:48:28 MST you wrote:
>JF>...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.
SJ>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).
JF>They were strong, but they did not refer to intentional dishonesty.
How can I answer, without referring further to your private "exact
words"?.
JF>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.
Sorry Jim, but I am not really interested in continuing private
discussions on this topic, because *anything* can be alleged in
private. I am really only interested in evidence on the public record.
Your saying one thing to me privately and another to everyone else
publicly, puts me in a difficult position that I would rather not be
in.
JF>Frankly, if I *did* wish to say privately that the ICR was
>deliberately dishonest, and make a weaker statement publicly, THAT IS
>MY RIGHT.
Fine, but I was not aware that you were operating on these two
levels.
JF>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).]
Fine, but as for me I do not have private opinions on public issues
that are different from my public opinions on public issues, so I find
it difficult to understand when others do.
JF>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).
As I have said to you privately, I am sorry if this was a breach of
netiquette. I thought it sufficient not to quote your exact words,
but I can now see that it could be regarded that simply referring to
privately posted material publicly, may also be a breach of
confidentiality. I apologise and will try to be more careful in
future.
There was no intention to make you "look bad", and I deny that I "did
not even refer to it accurately". You could always post your exact
words, and let Reflectorites judge for themselves.
SJ>Now you are toning it down to mean just "unreliable" and not
>"intentionally dishonest"?
JF>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.
OK. I was wrong as far as your public messages go. In the back of my
mind I was thinking of you "toning it down" from your private message.
Sorry.
SJ>I agree that Gish's argumentation is "shoddy" sometimes, so you
>posting evidience of that is not news, and you could save your time.
JF>I do not and have never intended to post evidence of this.
Good.
SJ>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.
JF>I am not responsible for what other people write. If you disagree
>with other people's claims, take it up with them.
Jim, if you are not willing to substantiate publicly your private
claims to me about the ICR, then I suggest we drop this thread, both
publicly and privately. It will only get us deeper into the mire. I
am genuinely sorry if I have upset you.
Regards.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------