On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 09:08:42 -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
[...]
I have all deleted Steve's response up to hear since we are starting to go
around in circles and it has been superseded by my response to Glenn.
But the following serious and unfounded charge of Steve needs to be answered.
SC>Below you accuse me of being self righteous but then you direct me to
>reflect on Isaiah 5:20!
Steve needs to read what I said again (I have left it standing at the end of
this message), because it's the complete *opposite* of what he says:
1. *Steve* said *I* was "self-righteous": "SC>...But your self-righteous
indignation detracts from the substance of your message"
2. *I* replied that Steve was a "fine Christian" but who was perverting my
"righteous indignation" into "self-righteous indignation": "SJ>...otherwise
fine Christians like Steve...pervert *real* `righteous indignation'...into
`self-righteous indignation'"
Steve's real problem is in his head. He *perceives* me saying things that he
*wants* me to be saying. In this case he wanted me to be saying that he was
"self-righteous" but in fact it was Steve who was saying that *I* was "self-
righteous"!
[...]
SC>With this, you simply turn my plea to you around to use it as a
>complaint against me--a rhetoric tool of the sophists.
In this case *Steve* has done *exactly* that. *He* called *me* "self-righteous"
and then he claimed that *I* called *him* "self-righteous"!
SC>I conclude that the style and content of your posts has not changed in
>the last couple of years and I will go back to ignoring them.
That's just *fine* by me. From time to time a TE/EC lets everyone know
that he is no longer going to read my posts. I would like to reiterate that I
am not concerned in the slightest if TE/EC's don't read my posts. That is
one reason why I address my messages to the List as a whole and don't
even send a cc's to the sender.
>>SC>But your self-righteous indignation detracts from the substance
>>>of your message. So, grow up!
>SJ>See above. Steve is not concerned that my "tone" "detracts from the
>>substance of" my "message". Steve is *trying* to detract "from the
>>substance of my message"!
>>
>>It says something about the adverse effect of naturalistic evolutionary
>>thinking on otherwise fine Christians like Steve, that they can pervert
>>*real* "righteous indignation" about a very *real* wrongdoing by a fellow
>>TE/EC against a brother Christian who is a creationist, into "self-righteous
>>indignation". Steve should reflect on Isaiah 5:20!
If Steve reads this far he might even publicly admit he was wrong and that
it was *he* who accused *me* of being "self-righteous", and not the other
way around.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------