On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 22:43:20 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
[...]
BH>I guess I'm going to climb on this bandwagon also. Last time
>around I gave several detailed replies but I'm starting to think
>maybe I'm wasting my time. I've more or less given up on the idea
>of ever having any reasonable discussion with Steve, so when I reply
>it is generally with others in mind.
That's funny, because I feel the same way about Brian's posts! He
and I see to be on different planets, so wide apparently is the gulf
between his way of thinking and mine. Mosts of my posts these days
are to the Group, not to individual TEs. It is becoming
increasingly evident to me that reconciliation between TEs and the
vast majority of Christians who are creationists is probably
impossible, so great is the influence of what Johnson calls theistic
naturalistic ways of thinking among TEs:
"What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is
that the conflict is not over "facts" but over ways of thinking.
The problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian
science, but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian
scientists employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had
actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen
a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded
in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted
as evidence of God's use of secondary causes to create. But
Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that. What
they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that
purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological
creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was
available. They have defined their task as finding the most
plausible-or least implausible-description of how biological
creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific
answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but
the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the
answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking
that generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate
term for the accommodationist position is not "theistic evolution,"
but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name, it is a
disastrous error." (Phillip E. Johnson, "Shouting `Heresy' in the
Temple of Darwin", Christianity Today, October 24, 1994, p26)
BH>So, as with Glenn, let me say that if someone expresses an
>interest in what my reaction might be, I'll be more than happy to
>give a public or private response.
>
>BJ>Now let me turn to another question. What recourse do we have
>when an un moderated group is abused in this fashion? Of course,
>there may be some or even many who don't view this as an abuse.
Indeed. I obviously don't think that trying to cut down on
Reflector traffic by accumulating the responses to a topic,
researching the topic and responding with one bulk response a
some weeks later is an "abuse". I would have thought the flood
of frivolous messages that one particular TE indulges in, whose
total traffic volume exceeds mine, is a real "abuse".
BH>To check out how people feel I'd like to conduct a little straw
>poll. Send me a private e-mail giving your opinion on whether
>Steve is abusing the group with this policy. No need to give your
>reasons, a simple yes or no will do. I am particularly interested
>in hearing what lurkers think about this. All replies will be held
>in confidence, though I will post the overall results back to the
>group.
I thank those "lurkers" who sent public and private messages
dissenting from this tactic of Brian's. Maybe being unable to
answer my points, Brian seeks to embarrass me into silence (as
others of his ilk have tried to do and have failed)? Such
intimadatory tactics, while I do not enjoy them, only serve to
strengthen my resolve.
BH>In reviewing the brief guidelines for new subscribers on the web
>site, the only thing related to this situation that I could find
>was the following:
>====================================================
>The group will be self-policing with respect to propriety of
>discussion topics and the spirit in which discussions are
>conducted. Only in extreme cases will the list manager step in.
>=====================================================
Hmmm. Judging by the "spirit" (lower case capital `s') of some of
the TEs attacks on the messenger, as opposed to the message, I would
have thought the "list manager" should have "stepped in" a while
back.
But nothing in the above policy says anything about bulking messages
on the same topic togther and being late with responses. I am
completely within the rules of this Group as they exist at the
moment and of course if the rules change I will abide by them.
BH>Perhaps some type of consensus view on this matter may result in
>kind of self-policing.
Brian represents the long-noted phenomenon of a self-appointed
`list- policeman'. Many mailing lists warn members of this
tendency. My old fidonet echo had as Rule #1:
----------------------------------------------------------
RULES
=====
1. Leave moderation to the moderator. Self appointed "echo
policemen" will be shot!"
----------------------------------------------------------
Not being able to cope with dissent and unable to carry the day by
logic of argument, these `democrats' try the next best thing -
suppress or remove the dissenters (in the name of `protecting the
group' of course)!
I will be interested in seeing the results of Brian's "poll". Of
course it would have been better if: 1. he had allowed me to put my
point of view before `voting' took place; and 2. someone other than
Brian was the `returning officer'.
But in any event, as already advised, I had already decided to
change my "policy" of bulking messages on similar topics together
and posting weekly. Now I will respond mainly to posts that
have my name in them (hint: say `St*phen J*nes if you don't
want me to see them!) and post every 1-2 days if possible.
The real problem, as I have said elsewhere, is that the Reflector is
`evolving' (!) into a newsgroup and it is no longer always possible
to have in depth personal "discussions" on an individual basis.
These are regrettable and painful to those of us who have been on it
`in the old days' but it is inevitable, and I well remember it being
discussed as a distasteful possibility when the Group changed from
Phil Johnson's `members only' listserv to the semi-open forum it is
today. Evolutionists, of all people, should adapt to this changing
environment! :-)
On Sat, 01 Feb 1997 10:15:08 -0600, Steve Clark wrote:
[...]
SC>I appreciate your sensitivity to the various positions that
>reflectorites may take regarding the way that Steve Jones uses this
>forum. As I have stated, I personally do not appreciate the way he
>has decided to contribute. I see two alternatives to your question.
>The first is that Steve voluntarily cease his sporadic, but
>inclusive contributions. He would obviously be welcome to make
>timely posts on a limited set of discussions.
See above. I will post more often which will automatically mean less
"sporadic, but inclusive contributions". However, I will reserve the
right to respond to any messages, especially those that mention my
name.
SC>If this doesn't happen, then I suggest that the regular
>contributors to this forum ignore his posts. A couple of us have
already decided to do this and I hope that Steve will honor our
>requests.
Also see above. As stated on a number of occasions, I have no problem
if Reflectorites ignore my posts, indeed I had already suggested
some time ago for those who do not like answering older messages.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------