On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:09:41 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>BH>Right now its split 50/50, but the sample size is rather small
>{2} :).
>SJ>How embarrassing for Brian. Sounds like most people couldn't
>care, one way or the other. Or they see right through Brian's
>transparent attempt to silence dissent.
>BH>Once you have had time to cool down I hope you will take a look
>again at my posts. I tried as best I could to make it clear that I
>was not engaging in any police activity.
I have cooled down by now. But Brian needs to face up to what he has
done. He took the `law' into his own hands-he was by definition
acting as a `net policeman'.
BH>Several had complained about your posting practices and I wanted
>to find out what the group as a whole thought. I thought that if
>the group as a whole thought your practice was abusive then you
>might change voluntarily.
The question is why did *Brian* feel that *he* had to do something
about it? Especially since I had already announced 3 weeks before
that I was only answering posts with my name in them? If he felt
there was a problem, why didn't he, on the Mt 18:15-17 principle,
privately send me an email saying he thought I was "abusing the
Group". If I failed to heed his request, he could then have
complained privately to the List Manager, with a cc. to me.
>BH>Now consider for a moment your statement above "How embarrassing
>for Brian". You are correct that it is embarrassing for me. Since
>I had previously said that I would not be posting a summary, the
>most convenient thing for me to have done was to do exactly that.
>In posting the summary I knowingly and willingly left myself wide
>open for the type of response you gave here.
I can't see that Brian has much option. Posting a "summary" is the
very least he could do, in the circumstances. But because Brian has
set himself up as judge, jury and executioner in this matter, I
for one cannot have full confidence in the result.
>BH>...I did not mean to imply in any way that the list manager
>should step in in this case. I believe in the present case that
>this would only make matters worse.
>SJ>...I wonder what the "list manager" thought of Brian's
>self-appointment to the role of "net policeman"?
>BH>I know what he thought since he told me.
See above. I presume this was *after* Brian's calling of the poll?
>SJ>...Brian's own "straw poll" is arguably itself not a proper
>discussion topic.
>BH>Yes, you are right. One could certainly make a reasonable
>argument that it is not. In fact, I wish I had never brought it up.
>;-)
So do I.
[...]
>BH>I would hate to shock you Steve, but in many ways I've grown
>rather fond of you. I certainly admire your dedication and
>conviction and appreciate your hard work. You are certainly a
>worthy opponent. Now, I might tend to forget all this when in the
>heat of battle. Feel free to remind me.
I thank Brian for his compliments, but I am not fishing for them. It
has become increasingly irrelevant to me what Christian evolutionists
on this echo think of me personally, as this is just a distraction
from the real issue of the truth of Creation and/or Evolution. I
will try to avoid wasting energy defending myself against personal
attacks, but will simply delete them without comment when no
substantive Creation/Evolution issue is involved. I never ask for
apologies from those who insult me, nor do I need them. About 9
months ago I wrote that "I ask no quarter":
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 21:24:05 EDT
From: sjones@iinet.net.au (Stephen Jones)
Reply-To: sjones@iinet.net.au (Stephen Jones)
To: "Evolution" <evolution@calvin.edu>
X-Mailer: Stephen Jones's PMMail v1.1
Subject: Re: Of PhDs, priests and logic
[..]
BTW I have not and am not whining. I ask no quarter. Denis and
Brian can say whatever they like. They only weaken whatever case
they have.
----------------------------------------------------------
When I first wrote "I ask no quarter" I added but then removed "...
and I will give none", because I thought there was still some hope of
forging a consensus. But after Brian's recent effort (and other
things), I now believe that is increasingly unlikely, so now I feel
free to add the "...and I will give none"!
[...]
>SJ>...I therefore call upon Brian to do the right thing and post
>the actual results: a) number of people who finally voted; b)
>number who voted `yes' and number who voted `no'. So that electoral
>justice can be not only done, but seen to be done, ideally the votes
>should be counted by an impartial scrutineer, preferably one who did
>not participate. But I won't insist on it.
>BH>a) 19 b) 11 yes, abusive; 8 no, not abusive.
Considering:
1. that the last time I looked (11 November 1996), there were 129
members of this Reflector, this "a) 19" therefore represents only a
24.5% response. Or to put it another way, the overwhelming majority
(75.5%) of the Reflector did not care one way or the other; and
2. of those who did respond, "11 yes, abusive; 8 no, not abusive" is
only 58%:42%. Or to put it another way, only 11:129 = 8.5% of the
Reflector positively thought I was "abusing the group". Considering
the overwhelming advantage Brian had in his preemptively calling his
snap poll, without me having the opportunity to put my case (eg.
pointing out that I had 3 weeks before the poll stated publicly that
I had decided to reduce my posts by answering only those with my
name in them), or even to vote myself;
I don't think this is all that bad a result. Frankly I expected far
worse in the circumstances. It hasn't done me much (if any) harm,
since I was already voluntarily tackling the issue. But OTOH it
hasn't done Brian's and the TEs position much good, since it has
given me valuable prior warning of what lengths TEs might go to
muzzle creationists.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------