On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 21:59:15 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
>SJ>Glenn did *not* apologise for his "unacceptable behavior". Glenn said that
>>he stood by his claim that I "drove most of the real thinkers away from
>this list":
GM>I did apologize for this. You are wrong. Here is the note which can be
>found at:
>http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199908/0137.html
>
>I wrote: "I will apologize to Stephen for this. I owe that to him after
>Bertvan's lapse of etiquette. "
As I have pointed out *many* times before, and Glenn has up to now not
contradicted, Glenn's apology above was only for having "hurt" me.
First Glenn wrote: "I will stand by what I said":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:36:31 +0000 mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
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. 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.
>
>But since it is public, I will stand by what I said.
[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then Glenn wrote: "....it hurt Stephen, strained further our already strained
relationship, and frankly, embarrassed me, which is the least of the issues...I
will apologize to Stephen for this":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:00:53 +0000 mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
GM>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. That is a disgusting thing
>for him to do because it hurt Stephen, strained further our already
>strained relationship, and frankly, embarrassed me, which is the least of
>the issues. 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.
>
>I will apologize to Stephen for this. I owe that to him after Bertvan's
>lapse of etiquette. Bertvan has NO right to stand on a soap box as an
>ethical judge of anyone as he hypocritically does here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have assumed all along from the above two posts (and Glenn up till now
has done nothing to contradict my assumption) that:
1. Glenn still "stands by what he said", ie. he is claiming it is *true* that I
drove I "drove most of the real thinkers away from this list... within about
3 months of" me "coming aboard".
2. Glenn is only apologising for the fact that "....it hurt Stephen, strained
further our already strained relationship..."
Now if Glenn is claiming that his apology in 2. above also included 1.
above, and that h eno longer "stands by what he said" (ie. he admits
that it was not true), he needs to say it *clearly* and *publicly*.
GM>And now, Stephen, I will publically ask you to forgive me. Will you
>forgive me?
I do forgive Glenn. But forgiveness and justice are two different issues
entirely. For example, a year ago my 18 year-old car was stolen and trashed
beyond repair-on my birthday! I was devastated and angry because I loved that
old car, but I forgave whoever did it. But that does not mean that I would
advocate that the police not try to catch the wrongdoers and if they ever got caught that I would ask the
courts not to administer justice for the wrong
they did.
Similarly with Glenn, on a personal level I have forgiven him (as I forgive
*everyone* who wrongs me). But that does not mean that I would
advocate that Glenn's wrong be not put right, or worse still, that a wrong
somehow becomes right over time by the wrongdoer doing nothing. I
believe (and Christianity is based on it) that wrongs are wrong *forever*
until they are put right.
And this wrong of Glenn's will not be put right until either Glenn: a)
publicly defends his allegation or b) publicly retracts it.
This is *entirely* up to Glenn. If Glenn replies, publicly retracting his
allegation, well and good. If he doesn't, I won't chase him up on it. I have
forgiven Glenn his wrong against me, and I will now waive my right that I
had previously reserved for me to bring it up again if Glenn made ad
hominems against Christian apologists. I won't bring it up again, unless
someone else does first. Otherwise, for me the matter is closed (again!).
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------