> On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 23:11:57 Ed Brayton wrote:
> >Pim van Meurs wrote:
> >>
> >> Janet informed me that she does "...not intend to put all this junk on her website".
> >> Although she will still post the URL.
> >>
> >> It's just not a good day for science.
> >>
> >> So where is the evolution archive ?
> >
> >You didn't know this list is archived on the web? Every message you and
> >all of us write can be found at:
> >
> >http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/
> Yes, I understand that of course. But I was
> under the impression that specific postings could
> be given a more exact URL so that callers would
> not have to sift through the whole list.
Janet, why did you respond to my message to Pim pointing out the
location of the Evolution listserv archive as if I had written that to
you, yet not repond to the message that I DID write to you concerning
the rather bold lie told on your web page? I'll reproduce what I wrote
here just to make sure that you got it:
<begin reproduction of ignored message>
Janet Miller wrote:
>
> I really did not mean to slight Mr. Morton
> by not having cited his rebuttal on my new Web
> Page. I was thinking only of the propriety of
> citing a rebuttal that had been written before
> my page was even posted.
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.
<end reproduction of ignored message>
> Although
> I no longer have a copy of the letter someone sent
> me an irate note giving just such a reference to
> Morton's so-called rebuttal to earlier remarks
> that I made. Well, if if it could be done for
> that posting the same thing ought to be possible
> for a new one. Why do you want to make a big fuss
> over it?
First, Morton's "so-called rebuttal" was so-called by YOU in the message
I quoted above, so it is far too late to claim now that you didn't
really consider it a rebuttal. Second, the reason I am making a big fuss
over it is because your web page totally distorted the reality of the
discussion on this list concerning Peterson's book. There were, in fact,
several substantive critiques offered of Peterson's claims and not a
single substantive response given by either you or Joseph. Yet you
present it as if you were nobly battling for truth against a group of
people who didn't have any way of responding to Peterson's claims. That
is, quite simply, a lie, and anyone who actually reads the threads
concerning Peterson's book in the Evolution listserv archive can easily
see that. I'm beginning to think Steve Shimmrich is right, that perhaps
you and Joseph are working for Peterson or the publisher or have some
other stake in seeing his work publicized and given credibility. Why
else would anyone so doggedly defend, without substance, an obscure bit
of pseudoscience that has absolutely no credibility whatsoever?
Ed