>I would like to suggest that until the original video is seen, we have
>no idea whether Gillian Brown is telling the truth. She is sending me an
>audio dub taken from the tape immediately, and a copy of the original,
>unedited video as soon as she can get it converted from beta to VHS (at
>my expense, of course). Until this is actually seen, we have little
>ground for believing that Dawkins was embarrassed by the question. We
>simply have a "he said, she said" situation. If what Ms. Brown says is
>true, then I would say that I don't have much of a problem with what was
>done on the tape. It gives the appearance of impropriety, but I don't
>really think it is too greivous. And, if what she says is true, then I
>agree with you that the focus shifts to why Dawkins had such a problem
>answering it. But let's all reserve judgement against both parties until
>I have the tape in hand (which I will immediately send a copy of to
>Glenn, since it is his review of the tape that started this controversy
>in the first place).
>
>Ed Brayton
Since Ed is what I the additional data I am hoping will clear this up, that
I implied in my message to Brian, I will add another comment about my
concern. One of the things that I was asked not to post in Gillian Browns'
reply to me made me worry that the video showing Dawkins staring dumbly is
not the video that was actually filmed at the time. If Dawkins staring
dumbly is the video of his actual response, not the response to something
else, and if the audio and video tapes verify Brown, then I would agree
with Ed that the behavior is not too bad. And I would then turn my
questions on Dawkins. At the moment the only admission of finagling things
we have is by Brown and we have a Dawkins denial. But if the Dawkins' dumb
stare segment has no relationship to the event in question, then I would
not feel so charitably about the behavior of the editor.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm