On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:57:44 EDT, Biochmborg@aol.com wrote:
[...]
KO>I sometimes wonder if it is worth sparring with Stephen like this, now that
>he refuses to discuss real issues and simply engages in rhetorical attacks.
>To a certain extent I'm too stubborn to let him have the last word, and there
>is the same vicarious thrill that one would get from bear-baiting. Plus
>there are a few on this group who continually write to encourage me to keep
>poking Stephen with sharp sticks. But after awhile the luster fades, and I
>am reminded of what Woodrow Wilson once said about Theodore Roosevelt: "The
>best way to handle an opponent like that is to concentrate on the stars above
>his head."
Kevin's "rhetorical attack" noted!
KO>Even so, every now and then Stephen presents me with little gifts that remind
>me just how much fun he can be at times....
[...]
>>KO>Apparently then Stephen has been "simply ... not seeing" alot of my
>>posts lately, considering how many he has not responded to (he even seems to
>>have abandoned our thermal protein debate); I thought he just didn't like me
>>>anymore.
>SJ>In this case I just ignored Kevin's proliferation of multiple simultaneous
>>posts on the same thread. I was prepared to debate one post at a time
>>regarding Kevin's minority views on so-called "thermal proteins", but
>>not multiple posts at a time.
KO>Wait a minute, let me get this straight. I start the thread by posting a
>single post; Stephen then begins posting multiple sequential responses to
>this post, forcing me to do the same in order to keep up; and now Stephen is
>using that as an excuse to break off the debate without even finishing his
>responses to my original post?
>
>ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
When Kevin picks himself up from rolling on the floor laughing, he should
read again what I said, not what he *wants* me to have said. I said
"multiple simultaneous posts" not "multiple sequential responses". I was
prepared to debate the thread *sequentially* by breaking it into parts with
the same title and numbered #1, #2, #3.... But Kevin posted in *simultaneously*
a number of posts on the same, some with different titles, which made it
hard to work out what followed what.
I suspected that Kevin might be trying to "snow" me and I was not
prepared to be pinned down to spending all my time on Kevin's pet subject.
At the same time I was trying to debate Jonathan and then the Kansas thing
blew up on the other list I am on, as well as on the Reflector. Every couple
of days when I logged on I would get over a 100 messages! If I spent 24-
hours a day I would not have been able to simultaneously answer all those
posts, Kevin's posts and Jonathan's posts. I really regretted not being able
to answer Jonathan's posts.
My problem was previously, and is now, that there are more on the Evolution
side (at least who are active), than there are on the Creation side. I often get
multiple posts from the Evolution side to every post I make. I used to try
to answer everything with the upshot that I used to fall behind and then
post a "bombing run" (to use Glenn's felicitous phrase). In the end I could
not keep up with both the Reflector and the other list I was on, so I gave
up the Reflector. I foresaw this would still be a problem when I returned so
that's why I posted up front, in my first post back, my conditions of debating
on the Reflector:
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199906/0086.html
Re: I'm back!
Stephen Jones (sejones@ibm.net)
Wed, 09 Jun 1999 05:01:34 +0800
[...]
I was a member of this list from 1995 till 1998, when I found that I could
not keep up with the demands of another list that I am on. I am still
extensively involved in that other list, so I probably will not have time to
read all the Reflector messages, or even answer all messages addressed to
me. Also, I like to research issues before making my replies, and include
quotes, so if I do reply I may be late. I haven't got the time to get involved
in long-drawn out, person-to-person, debates (as in the past), so I will post
all my messages to the group. Mostly my involvement will be posting of
articles: a) casting doubt on evolution in general and Darwinism in
particular; and b) supporting creation in general and Intelligent Design in
particular.
[...]
----------------------------------------------------------------
KO>What makes this particularly ludicrous is that he did the same thing with
>another thread he started: he posts a lengthy response to a related but
>peripheral post of mine, I respond with a SINGLE but well detailed post, and
>immediately he abandons the discussion, despite having claimed that he wanted
>to pursue it instead of the earlier multiple-submission debate. I wonder if
>it was simply coincidental that in both cases he broke off after I sounded
>refuted each and every one of his objections? No doubt he will disagree with
>this assessment, but without explaining just how I am supposed to be wrong
>(something he now claims he has no interest in doing), his disagreement means
>nothing.
See above. I explained this at the very beginning and I have repeated it at
least one since then. My capacity to answer Kevin's (or anyone else's) posts
depends on what else is going on at the time on both lists. I regret not
being able to follow these threads through. If things were quieter I would
*love* to be able to debate Kevin's posts through to some sort of
conclusion. I am sure `old-timers' like Brian Harper and Glenn would
vouch for the fact that I used to try to answer *everything* addressed to
me!
KO>Just out of curiosity, though, what does my supposed "minority view" have to
>do with anything?
It means that Creation/Intelligent Design advocates do not really need to
refute Kevin's minority position. Indeed, it Creationist/ID theorists did spend too
much time arguing against Fox's proteinoid microsphere theory, they could be
accused of setting up a straw man!
>SJ>Frankly I have better things to do with my time than debate an origin of
>>life position that (by Kevin's own admission) most mainstream
>origin-of-life specialists reject.
KO>Oh, I see, the old "I don't have to listen to the evidence because everyone
>else thinks its irrelevant" apologetic. Funny, though, about how all these
>people who supposedly reject this "minority view" still feel the need to
>discuss it in the scientific literature and at conferences, and how the
>"minority" isn't really so minor. But then, any excuse to remain blinded to
>the truth is a good excuse I guess.
I *did* listen to Kevin's arguments, and I debated them for a time. I am still
prepared to listen to them, and debate them, but not spend every waking
moment on them like Kevin seems to want. If the issuse comes up again, as
it is sure to, we can pick up where we left off. But if Kevin thinks he can
post a whole lot of posts about the same thing simultaneously, and demand
that I answer them, then he better think again!
But having said that, as I have also recently said, since that time I have
started a web page and I need to spend more time on that, so I give fair
warning to Kevin and all those on the Evolution side that I will have even
*less* time to spend on answering Reflector mail. Those are my conditions,
and if Kevin or anyone else doesn't like it, and attributes my failure to
respond to bad manners, stupidity, ignorance, cowardice, duplicity (or worse!)
then that's just *too* bad! :-(
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not difficult to imagine how feathers, once evolved assumed
additional functions, but how they arose initially presumably from
reptilian scales, defies analysis." (Stahl B.J., "Vertebrate history:
Problems in Evolution", Dover: New York, 1985, p349)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------