I thought I had already sent this, but I can find no record of it. Here it
is again, but cut down. Apologies if you get it twice!
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:36:31 +0000 Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
>>>GM>Concerning, my attacks on YEC please tell me where I have
>>>been bitter. (snip)
>>>>I know that Stephen is an old earther.
>SJ>These lines and what follows from Glenn, which Bertvan is replying
>>to, I have not seen before and it does not appear in my received mail
>>folders. Is this a part of a private message that Glenn sent to Bertvan?
>>>GM>But he is the one I really think drove most of the real thinkers
>>away from this list.
>SJ>This is news to me! It is a fascinating example of Glenn revising
>>history in his own favour. Here are the facts:
GM>THis was a private e-mail to Bertvan. Shame on him for sharing it.
Bertvan made a simple mistake. The real "shame" is on the one sending the
false "private e-mail to Bertvan" in the first place!
I have long suspected that Glenn, taking advantage of the internet code of
etiquette, writes false private messages about me to others on the list, but I
could never prove it. Now I *know* he has done it at least once, and the
inference is irresistible (to me at least) that he has done it more than once.
What little credibility Glenn had before this, he now has even less.
GM>....SHame on you Bertvan. The ONLY address on the note when it
>left my machine was to you. You copied it and sent it on.
Bertvan simply made a *mistake* with the return address, as we all have
done. The real "shame" is in the *content* of the message, which was
demonstrably false, and which Glenn doesn't even attempt to defend!
GM>You have no ethics sir. You are scum on the bottom of the ethics
>pool and are NOT to be trusted in any way shape or form.
Glenn's overreaction against Bertvan here is so extreme, out of all
proportion to the simple mistake that Bertvan made.
And this torrent of abuse comes from one who is always criticising godly
Christian apologists like Hugh Ross and Phil Johnson for allegedly failing
to live up to the highest Christian standards!
GM>But since it is public, I will stand by what I said.
Even after I have given my version of events, Glenn doesn't even try to
defend his false allegations, but just chops off my explanation without
comment, and tries to brazen it out.
If Glenn had publicly admitted that he was wrong and apologised for his
message, I would have accepted Glenn's apology because it was a long
time ago and it is possible he could have misremembered. Indeed, I would
*still* accept Glenn's apology on those terms.
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:00:53 +0000 Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>EXcept he didn't do that, Susan. The archive shows NO post by
>Bertvan after the 13th. Instead he sent it to Stephen who also
>acknowledge that it wasn't from his in box from this list! Bertvan
>decided to forward the note to Stephen who said...
>
>Since it doesn't appear in the archives, and I never saw a copy come from
>the reflector either, he didn't simply add evolution@calvin.edu. He sent
>it on to Stephen privately, apparently without any explanation. Bertvan
>didn't even copy me in what he sent to Stephen.
Glenn is simply wrong here. I received Bertvan's post from the
*Reflector*, not "privately". Here is its URL in the Reflector archive for
Glenn to verify for himself:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199908/0080.html
GM>That is a disgusting thing for him to do because it hurt Stephen
I did not "hurt" me at all, because Glenn's false message came to light and I
was able to correct it. The "disgusting thing" was Glenn's passing privately
to Bertvan a demonstrably false story.
GM>strained further our already strained relationship.
It was not Bertvan's simple mistake that has "strained further our already
strained relationship". It is Glenn's *false story* that has done that, and
Glenn's failure to admit he was wrong and apologise.
GM>and frankly, embarrassed me, which is the least of the issues.
Frankly, Glenn *deserves* to be "embarrassed" for what he has done!
GM>If this is the type of activity that Bertvan is interested in doing then
>he has serious problems with his judgement and he is not to be trusted.
*Bertvan* is not the one who "has serious problems with his judgement
and...is not to be trusted"! *Glenn* wrote the false story. All Bertvan did
was write the wrong address.
GM>I will apologize to Stephen for this. I owe that to him after Bertvan's
>lapse of etiquette.
Why is Glenn apologising to me for if: 1) he "stands by what he said" and 2)
he says it was Bertvan's fault?
GM>Bertvan has NO right to stand on a soap box as an ethical judge of
>anyone as he hypocritically does here.
*Bertvan* is not the one standing "on a soap box as an ethical judge...
hypocritically...here"!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reduced to the initial and still crude form in which it is now emerging in
the modern world, the new religious spirit appears, as we have said (cf. I),
as the impassioned vision and anticipation of some super-mankind ... To
believe and to serve was not enough: we now find that it is becoming not
only possible but imperative literally to love evolution." (Teilhard de
Chardin P., "Christianity and Evolution", 1971, pp183-184, in Bird W.R.,
"The Origin of Species Revisited", Regency: Nashville TN, Vol. II, 1991,
p264)
--------------------------------------------------------------------