On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 21:08:09, Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>SJ>My last mail download was 218 messages! It has taken me 3 weeks
>to read and answer them. I apologise for the great batch you will
>receive. Please don't complain that they are late or that there are
>too many - I agree with you and I apologise! :-)
>GM>Stephen, Prior to 3 weeks ago I had always tried to answer your
>notes. But with your last bombing mission of 3 weeks ago, I decided
>that I wasn't going to deal with old discussions which have long
>gone away. Answering statements made weeks ago is simply too
>difficult. One must go back, remember what was said and then reply
>only to have to wait for several weeks before you bless us with
>another bombing mission. Besides, one must try to read an enormous
>amount of material at once which is unfair to us. If you can keep
>up in a timely fashion I would be delighted to discuss things with
>you. But as it is I find that the trains of thought are lost in
>the intervening weeks waiting for your replies.
Once again I apologise to everybody for my "last bombing mission"!
:-) But Glenn seems to be under the impression he has to answer my
responses to his posts. I send them to the Group (not to Glenn) and
anyone can answer (or not answer) them as they see fit.
My download this morning was 362 messages! My batch strategy was
actually to minimise my total messages, but this is not working.
Obviously as this Reflector grows it is impossible to read (let alone
respond) to every message. I am going to adopt a strategy of
responding weekly by: 1. reading and (where applicable) replying to
messages with my name in it; and 2. other messages usually only
responding to the first instance of that thread.
Late news. In only responding to posts with my name in them,
I still have 15 or so replies to the Reflector. It is a catch-22. If
I don't repond, I am accused of dodging the issue. If I do respond
I am accused of a `bombing mission'. The lesser of two evils is to
respond. But I have shortened to response time to a little over a
week, so I should gradually get out of this hole.
>On Wed, 8 Jan 1997 20:41:03 -0500 (EST), Darrin R. Brooker wrote:
>
>DB>I say the following only because I do not want you to become one
>of those Christians you accused of 'overwhelming silence'. Stephen
>Jones has made a lot of good points that I think you need to
>answer....even if they are a little late in arriving.
Thanks to Darrin.
>DB>You can not simply dismiss this by saying:
[...] See above.
>DB>That is too easy a way out. If the truth is your objective, you
>should welcome the material Stephen presents...regardless of past
>differences.
Agreed. Thanks again to Darrin :-)
>SJ>Firstly, we should all keep in mind that Glenn believes that Adam
>was a Homo habilis/erectus who lived 5.5 million years ago, which
>is definitely "about anthropology...totally incorrect." In picking
>fault with Hugh Ross, for being allegedly "about anthropology...
>totally incorrect" Glenn could ponder Mt 7:3: "Why do you look at
>the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to
>the plank in your own eye?" :-)
>DB>Just think we need to keep the rules the same for everyone. I
>don't think you want Jim Bell accusing you of 'overwhelming
>silence'. What could be worse than that!!!!! ;-)
Agreed. I don't think that Glenn is dishonest, but I do think he is
inconsistent. He applies a strict set of rules to Hugh Ross and
other Christian apologists, and a lax set of rules to himself.
Once again, thanks to Darrin for his support, which is much
appreciated.
On Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:35:45 -0500, Bill Hamilton wrote:
>DB>I say the following only because I do not want you to become one
>of those Christians you accused of 'overwhelming silence'. Stephen
>Jones has made a lot of good points that I think you need to
>answer....even if they are a little late in arriving.
>BH>Stephen makes lots of good points, and I'm grateful for his
>cotributions, even though I frequently find him on the opposite
>side in many of the disagreements I have on this forum. But
>Stephen has a tendency to unload huge numbers of messages at once,
>and it overwhelms even those of us who are not directly in the line
>of fire.
>
>Stephen: I for one would be grateful if you would download your
>mail more frequently and endeavor to respond in a timely fashion.
Thanks to Bill. Until I get out of this hole, I will: 1. only
answer those message that have my name in them; and 2. answer
weekly.
>On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 19:58:59, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>Alright, but you must understand that this takes lots of time to
>reply and all I am asking is for Stephen to show courtesy to those
>with whom he wants to discuss things with. I find it discourteous
>to dump 19 posts at once on a person. Once in a while I like to do
>other things.
First of all, I didn't "dump" any "posts...on a person". My messages
responding to Glenn's posts were to the Group as a whole. Glenn is
under no obligation to read them or respond to them. But then he
cannot claim, as he often does, that no one is responding to the
points he makes. Secondly, my 19 posts in 3 weeks is an average of
less than one post a day. If you added up all of Glenn's posts
(many of which are frivolous) in a 3 week period, I would wager they
were at least *twice* my volume.
[...]
GM>You can't accuse me of that because I announced that I didn't want
>to deal with such huge volumes weeks after the fact as if I am
>required to do so. I responded to his posts and that you can't
>deny.
See above. Glenn is not "required" to respond to my posts. But
the same argument could be applied to his posts - he has in the
past berated creationists for not answering his posts. I can
understand Glenn not answering all 19 of my posts, but I would have
thought he could have attempted some.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------