> Tut, Tut, young Morton, that offering doesn't quality
> as rebuttal to anything. I'd call it the childish
> ravings of one who's utterly lost control of himself.
> You will have to meet a higher standard than that if
> you hope to earn a place on my Web Page.
That's quite amusing, Janet. You are contradicting yourself once again.
Let me quote what you wrote before:
"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. With Morton's permission
I will go ahead and make a link to that site, but
if he would like to refine his remarks and make
them more responsive to what I now have actually
written I will link to that revision instead.
Maybe he will let me know his choice."
So 5 days ago, you thought that Glenn's message constituted a rebuttal.
And 5 days ago, the only reason you didn't post a link to it was because
you were concerned about the "propriety" of the situation. And 5 days
ago, you said that you WOULD post a link to Glenn's rebuttal, but you
were also offering him the chance to revise it if he wanted to. Now, 5
days later, it suddently is NOT a rebuttal, all concern for propriety
has gone out the window and you feel free to call him "childish"
(projection perhaps?). And 5 days later, you are refusing to post a link
to the message. But there is one fact that just keeps popping up here,
that you can't seem to bury amid all of this flip flopping - his
rebuttal was never responded to. I posted the relevant arguments from
his rebuttal to you again last week and so did Pim. The response?
Absolutely nothing. Rather than actually engaging the substace of those
claims, and explaining why the "4th spatial dimension" doesn't work near
the equator and why it just happens to operate in the exact same way
that mainstream geology predicts (indigenous species, thinning and
changes in composition further from the river, etc), you call people
names. Do you really think this little game is fooling anyone, Janet?
Let us call a spade a spade. You lied when you said that there was no
substantive rebuttal of Peterson's claims on this list. When that review
was posted, you could not respond to it, so you pretended that it did
not exist. Then you lied to those who read your web page and said that
it did not exist. When you were caught in that lie, you tried to be
conciliatory and say that you were just concerned about the "propriety"
of linking to it. And now that that lie isn't working either, you are
lashing out at those who are calling your bluff. And as I said, the one
unmistakable fact that no one can miss in all of this is that you have
never bothered to respond to the substance of that rebuttal. I am now
totally convinced that Steve Shimmrich is correct. You must have some
financial stake in promoting Peterson's work. No one would act this
stupid and dishonest unless they either WERE this stupid and dishonest
or they were being paid for it.
Ed