On Sun, 08 Feb 1998 17:19:00 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
>>GM>I tire of dealing with this stuff and because of a weariness of answering
>>>your constant accusations
>SJ>What "accusations", Glenn?
GM>Like the ones below. You are the only person that I discuss things with
>where we seem to degenerate to this type of conversation.
This is not strictly true. Over the years I have been on the
Reflector I have noticed that you have major problems debating with
other creationists but most of them were too `nice' to stay the
distance!
But in any event, they were not "accusations", they are *questions*.
I am trying to clarify the following:
1. Mon, 19 Jan 98: I referred to a post of yours of 05 Jul 1997 where
you said that on your web page "History of Human Chronology"
(http://www.isource.net/ ~grmorton/dmd.htm), you had the line: "75-
116 kyr rock engraving Jinmium, Australia a. H. s.58". I posted
extracts from a SCIENCE article (Gibbons A., "Doubts Over
Spectacular Dates", Science, Vol. 278, 10 October 1997, p220),
which cast doubts on the Jinmium TL dates, and they could be only
10,000 years old, rather than the 116-176,000 claimed. I suggested
that in view of these doubts about the Jinmium dates, maybe it should
be removed from your list.
2. Sun, 18 Jan 1998: you replied thanking me for this but saying
that "If the dates fail, you can be assured that I will remove it
from my list."
3. Sat, 24 Jan 98: I pointed that "the study casts doubt on *all* the
dates obtained by thermoluminescence" and suggested that "You might
consider some such disclaimer in your list?"
4. Sat, 24 Jan 1998: You responded to the latter suggestion with:
"Stephen, you haven't even looked at the list so you really don't know
what you are talking about here."
5. Thu, 29 Jan 98: I reported that when I looked at your page
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/chron.htm on 28 Jan 97, "I
noticed that you have deleted the Jinmium line. I also noticed that
your visitors' counter had been reset on the 18 January 98, which is
the same day of your above email saying you would not remove it
from your list. Why did you not simply say that you had deleted it,
instead of leaving us all with the mistaken impression that you weren't
going to?"
6. Wed, 04 Feb 1998: You said that: "I didn't remove anything from my
web page. The list you refer to was put on my web page on the day in
question [18 January 98]. Prior to that day, the list of human
technology was not there at all. At the time I placed that on the page,
Jinmium was NOT on the list."
7. Sun, 08 Feb 98: I replied "If the list did not include anything about
Jinmium, then why did you talk about removing it from your list if the
outcome was that the thermoluminescence dates fail"?
[...]
To which you answered:
GM>I am going to answer this and then not deal with your posts anymore.
>This is a silly type of discussion to have on an evolution list.
This seems a bit of an overreaction. Just because I was puzzled about
how you were going to remove the Jinmium line from your web page when
it never was there in the first place, you are not going to deal with
my posts anymore?
GM>I said I would remove them because when I wrote that I thought it was on the
>list. When I pulled up the list, it wasn't there and I was surprised. I
>then placed the list on my web page. Now, Jinmium is in my book and if
>jinmium is discredited I will remove it.
Thank you for this. But why didn't you admit to this simple mistake in the
first place? It would have saved us all a great deal of trouble!
GM>There Stephen. I hope this is the last time we have to play games like this
>silliness.
Glenn, you may have been playing games, but I was not. It was solely within
*your* power at all time to supply the information (which you
have finally done) that would have terminated this thread.
GM>I don't find this to be a good use of my time. So if anyone
>sees something in Stephen's posts that they want a response from me, then
>please call my attention to it. Otherwise I probably won't know about it. I
>fully intend never to engage in this type of gamesmanship again.
If you "intend never to engage in this type of gamesmanship again", then
there is no need to stop responding to my posts!
Also, I note that you have again truncatedm without elipses, your
fairly serious claim (Wed, 04 Feb 1998 19:17:18 -0600) that I
usually post "flames":
---------------------------------------------------
GM>I expect your usual flame to the effect that my stuff isn't
>worth reading either...
---------------------------------------------------
to which I replied (Sun, 08 Feb 98 22:53:34 +0800):
---------------------------------------------------
SJ>Please give even *one* example of a "flame" from me in the two
>years I have been posting to the Reflector.
---------------------------------------------------
I leave it to Reflectorites to draw their own conclusions from your failure
to supply even *one* "flame" from me, in the more than *two years* that I
have been on the Reflector.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------