At 07:27 AM 8/26/99 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>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", 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
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>