On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 10:57:10 -0500 (CDT), SZYGMUNT@EXODUS.VALPO.EDU wrote:
[...]
SJ>I have seen no evidence that Stan is interested in making my "position more
>persuasive". He has *never* AFAIK, ever supported me, either publicly or
>privately. He waits until he attacks me with a post titled "petty, personal
>agendas" to tell me he is really my closet supporter. Give me a break!
>
>I can only conclude, based on the evidence of: 1) Stan's ad hominems
>against me ("petty, personal agendas", "grow up", "whining", "spoiled
>child" and "mean-spirited parent"); 2) muted criticism of Glenn; and 3)
>uncritical support for TE/ECs generally, that Stan is really trying to get
>me to pull my punches, in order to protect his TE/ECs scientific friends from
>criticism.
>
>Maybe Stan has the best of motives in this, maybe not. I cannot tell. But
>I have a right to be suspicious of Stan's `Greek gift', based on the above.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SZ>This response from you is quite typical of your style of "discussion".
>I stated that my concern is to help make your position more persuasive,
>yet for some reason you refuse to accept my statement at face value.
>Instead, you retreat into "I have seen no evidence that Stan is interested
>in making my position more persuasive", which conveniently allows you
>to continue regarding me as your enemy, for the purposes of advancing your
>own agenda. WHY MUST YOU CONTINUE TO DO THIS? To loosely quote your own words
>(which are so voluminous I cannot find the exact reference),
>"If you continue to do so I will be forced to conclude that it is
>deliberate distortion!"
Stan can conclude whatever he likes. But the fact is that he does not deny
that he has *never* shown me any support in the past, either publicly or
privately. If Stan really has all along supported me, why has *never* said so?
Then out of the blue Stan posts a public message titled "petty personal
agendas" with insults like "grow up", "whining", "spoiled child" and
"mean-spirited parent", and he expects me to be interpret it as "help"?
If Stan really cannot see why I am less than overwhelmed by his "help",
then there is nothing more I can say. Except that if Stan really did intend to
help, then I thank him for it.
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research programme-a possible framework for
testable scientific theories." (Popper K.R., "Unended Quest: An Intellectual
Autobiography", [1974], Open Court: La Salle, Ill., Revised Edition, 1982,
p168)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------