>Reflectorites
>
>On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 20:00:42 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>CC> We fully debated that at the time. Susan was simply wrong. The words I
>>> omitted with ellipses were not relevant to the particular argument I was
>>> making. I said at the time I would be happy to reinsert the omitted words
>>> and debate the point, but Susan declined.
>
>>CC>There was no need; *she* had already given the full quotation, showing how
>>his deletions did in fact change the apparent meaning of what Gould had
>>said.
>
>This is incorrect. Susan did not give "the full quotation" but still left
>some
>of my omitted words out. And as I said, I was (and am), happy to put *all*
>the words back and debate the point, but Susan (and Chris) declined.
I certainly didn't quote the entire essay, what difference does that make?
The essay did not pertain to the discussion on variation that you were
having with Chris at the time. The essay is on the topic of punctuated
equilibrium. The words you deleted obscured that fact and made Gould seem
to agree with you.
>As I have said before, and I say again, it is simply *irrelevant* whether
>Chris or Susan thinks I am "dishonest". Their perception is along the same
>sort of `party lines' one sees in politicians, and has as much truth value. I
>regard it as primarily a rhetorical device to avoid dealing with the *real*
>issues. So I am not going to waste my time responding to such accusations
>and in future I am just going to ignore them. What matters is the truth or
>falsity of what I say, not Chris or Susan's opinion of my character.
the evidence of your character is on the web in the evolution archives. The
accusation wasn't made without supporting evidence. I wasn't just "calling
names." I didn't say "Don't listen to Stephen, he's a liar." I said "Here
is what Stephen quoted, and here is what he deleted."
The obvious solution to this is for you to stop quoting evolutionists or do
it more sparingly. Debate using your own words. Only use quotes if the
*entire context* actually supports your argument. This quotation-heavy
debate method of yours *isn't working* it's time to try something else.
Also I think I shall begin to be a bit more rigorous in supporting what I
say with facts. But I must also tell you that if I have access to the
entire text of something you quote, and your quote is out of context, I
will provide the context for the list without comment and people can make
up their own minds about your "character."
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 26 2000 - 17:41:54 EDT