On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 09:23:53 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
>SJ>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.
GM>As I have already done once before, I apologize to you for this.
Since Glenn also wrote: "I will stand by what I said", he is only apologising
for any "hurt" it might have caused me.
Reflectorites
On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 09:23:53 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
>SJ>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.
GM>As I have already done once before, I apologize to you for this.
Since Glenn also wrote: "I will stand by what I said", I presume he is
apologising only for any "hurt" it might have caused me.
I thank Glenn for that, but as I said, because it was a false story, that was
easily refuted, "it did not `hurt' me at all", so no apology by Glenn is
required on this score.
I never asked for Glenn's apology for privately posting a false story, and I
still don't. If Glenn doesn't want to apologise for privately telling a false
story about me, that is *his* problem. For me the matter of Glenn's
apology is closed.
But until Glenn either 1. defends publicly his false allegation about me
allegedly driving away "most of the real thinkers away from this list...within
about 3 months of" me "coming aboard"; or 2. retracts it publicly, I reserve
the right to bring it up whenever Glenn tries to make out that some godly
Christian apologist like Hugh Ross or Phil Johnson is guilty of not measuring
up to the high standards of Christian morality that Glenn sets for his fellow
Christians, but not for himself!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a
large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is
difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out
exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus
evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible
lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all
too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already
very well understood." (Crick F., "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of
Scientific Discovery", [1988], Penguin Books: London UK, 1990, reprint,
pp138-139)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------