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.
This is the crux of the matter.
Steve, you may not have intended this, but being on the receiving end of
this paragraph, it sounds like you are accusing me of dishonesty. I
want you to read the next paragraphs very closely. I am going to try
again to explain myself, since you didn't seem to get my point last
time.
My public opinions and my private opinions are one and the same. Read
carefully. I said "private statements" and "public statements". These
sometimes differ. There is no problem, provided they do not
*contradict*. All of us say things in private that we do not say in
public. This is not dishonesty, it is commonsense and politeness. If
you go to a church service of another denomination, do you make a pest
of yourself by telling everyone where you think they are wrong or
unbiblical (unless of course it comes up in discussion)? If you
privately think a list member if a gibbering idiot, do you publically
say so? Of course not. I similarly try to avoid inflammatory
statements here; I respect the wish of members not to have this list
turn into another talk.origins.
Recall my original posting, in which I said that I considered Gish
"untrustworthy", in the sense that I considered his testimony
unreliable. *It doesn't matter* whether I consider him unreliable
because of intentional dishonesty, unintentional dishonesty, stupidity,
poor research, ignorance, senility, smoking drugs, whatever. Saying
that I find him unreliable is a fairly mild statement (he probably
thinks I'm unreliable too) that is consistent with *any* of the above
reasons. I deliberately didn't make a stronger statement because there
was no need to; it would have been unnecessarily inflammatory, it could
have annoyed other list members, it could have distracted attention away
from my original request for further confirmation of Gish's claim into a
firefight about my statement.
I accept your apology that even inferring the contents of a private
message could be a breach of netiquette. BUT I would also like you to
reconsider your claim that my private and public statements have been at
odds. Different, yes. Contradictory, no.
>> 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.
Thank you.
>> 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.
Thank you again.
-- 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