--On Fri, 16 Oct 1998 13:34:10 Ed Brayton wrote:>Janet Miller wrote:>>> 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>
If you were my little boy I'd make you sit in thecorner and read the Beatitudes aloud, over and overagain, until you learned to keep a civil tongue inyour mouth. I have already agreed to post a link to Mr.Morton's rebuttal, but I would like to have itdated after my page was posted. You can probably see the reason why. After I have made that link I intend to point out that Petersen's central theorem can be reduced to four steps of reasoning, and to rebut it one has to show that at least one of those steps is faulty. Then I will ask the reader to try to find where Morton has done that. If Mr. Morton wants to continue to evade the issue by repeating that diarrhea of irrelevancies let him do so with his eyes open.
Janet
-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums