How odd that you were concerned about the "propriety" of citing Glenn's
review of Peterson's work, especially since your page says quite boldly
that there was no substantive reply to Peterson's work at all on the
Evolution listserv. In fact, you state that you didn't find "anything
that could pass as a rebuttal" from the folks on that list. Since you
admit that Glenn's review was written before you put up the page, and
you admit that it WAS a substantive rebuttal of Peterson's claims, I
would say that the paragraph that I cited could only be considered a
rather obvious misrepresentation of the situation (that's a fancy way of
saying that you lied). There clearly WAS a substantive rebutall of
Peterson's claims made on the Evolution list. It was written before you
put up the page, yet you said that that reply did not exist and that you
encountered nothing but "court jesters" who offered nothing but ridicule
on this list. More importantly, neither you nor Joseph ever responded to
the substance of Glenn's review at all, yet you still put up a page
claiming that those on the list "managed to evade the central issue". I
would suggest that anyone who actually reads the posts on this subject
in the listserv archive would come to the conclusion that the supporters
of Peterson were the ones evading the central issue. If you have a
substantive answer to Glenn's review to offer, I know everyone here
would like to see it. At the very least, you should not say on your page
that no rebuttal of substance was ever offered, especially if you are
going to use the excuse of being concerned about the "propriety" of
mentioning a rebuttal that your page claimed bluntly did not exist. One
would think that you would be far more concerned about the propriety of
lying about the lack of a rebuttal than about linking to that rebuttal.
Ed