Chris
It's not an *assumption* that it is a lie, when it is:
1. Systematic, covering nearly every opposing post and quotation. If it's
just occasional, or marginal, it might be attributed to late-night mental
fog, but when it is the normal and routine way in which the person deals
with opposing views and quotations, then the question of honesty, and if the
argument does not stand on its own merits but only on the basis of misquoted
opinions and statements of others, then the question of honesty must be
raised.
2. Repeated *many, MANY* times after the (innocent?) error has been pointed
out many times. An honest error corrected and not repeated is one thing. An
error repeated over and over and over and over over a period of months, on a
nearly *daily* basis, and after being called on it *many* times (one of the
very *first* posts I came across on this list when I joined several months
ago was one pointing out his already-frequent and virulently biased
misrepresentations of opposing views and arguments!) -- then it is *no
longer an honest mistake.*
It takes effort and some thought to *consistently* warp and invert and
misrepresent opposing views and arguments. At this point, anyone who thinks
this is being done innocently and honestly is simply not paying attention,
*not* comparing what the person attributes to people with what those people
*actually* say.
It is well known that the whoever is responsible for the misrepresented
quotations is unreliable, because it has been pointed out on this list
several times. If this is well known, why continue using those
out-of-context or butchered quotations -- unless, that is, one doesn't
*care* that they are out-of-context or butchered?
3. Obvious that the original poster did *not* say anything like what is
being attributed to him, and that the only plausible reason for the
misquoting or misrepresentation is that the misrepresented is depending on
the reader to be too causal or too slow-witted to notice the disparity
between what the person said and what the misrepresented is saying he said.
As a fairly frequent poster on this list, I have been *frequently*
misrepresented, but only by *two* people on the list, and these
misrepresentations are obvious to anyone who actually checks to see whether
what I said matches what it is *claimed* I'm saying. So, if it's so
obvious, why are the misrepresentations so frequent? Because those doing the
misrepresenting are hoping that the readers of this list will be *so* casual
that they won't notice that my views are being grossly misrepresented. The
idea of such misrepresentations is to make it appear that my views are
idiotic and thus not to be taken seriously. "Well, obviously, if <insert
naturalistic-evolutionist's name> is saying what <insert name of
anti-naturalist> claims he's saying, Chris is *so* ignorant there's no
reason to bother with his views or reasoning."
In short, if it's occasional and random and readily corrected, it may be
honest mistakes. When it is routine, systematic, and the person *refuses* to
change his ways, it's lying, it's deliberate deception. The honest
anti-naturalists, the honest ID theorists on this list should oppose this
sort of intellectual hooliganism as much as we atheistic naturalists should.
I know a few non-naturalists do, but *every* honest person on the list
should oppose it and encourage the perpetrators to stop it. If they can only
defend or support their claims by misrepresenting the facts, the opposition,
and the opposition's views and reasoning, it is not a good sign for ID
theory.
--Chris C
Now is the time for all good people to come to.