>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
Hey mate,
Bloody strange math you have down under.
>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.
Now you are sounding a paranoid. How in the world do you conclude an
anti-creationist vendetta from Brian's, and other's complaints about your
debating style? Let's see--the logic goes something like this:
1. Brian doesn't like my debating style
2. Brian belongs to the TE camp
3. I debate TEs
therefore, any criticism of my debating style must be part of the TEs
disagreement with me. It also follows that since Brian is a TE, all TEs can
be assumed to believe exactly as he does.
Cheers
steve
____________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
____________________________________________________________