>Huxter: Be wary of imposters and posters using mulitple names to appear
>to have support - nucacids and >DNAunion appear to be the same person, and it
>also appears that 'Mike B. Gene' may be making a >comeback under a different
>name.
> >
> >The ARN discussion board was shut down in part due to the fact that ID
>advocates were posting under >multiple identities which, big surprise, heaped
>accolades on each other (which were in fact themseves!).
> >> Susan: what!? creationists being dishonest?!
> >>DNAunion: What? Atheistic Nazi's not being able to distinguish between ID
>and Creationism!
> >>>FMAJ: That is totally uncalled for and imho very insulting.
>DNAunion: Yes, I agree that Huxter's implications and Susan's comments were
>totally uncalled for and very insulting. As has been shown, Huxter's claims
>about me are totally false.
>Susan did not need to here the evidence - she simply assumed that I and the
>others are guilty.
>Chris: No, she didn't. She merely made a quip, …
****************
DNAunion: No, she made a direct reply to a post dealing with the "ARN
people" which mentions me specifically. The original post did not call the
ARN people or me creationists - Susan made that unsound leap in logic all
herself, and without any knowledge of me or Mike. And had Susan wanted to
merely make a comment about creationists in general she should have either
created a new thread, or saved her comments for another post.
Now Chris, if her comments were not directed at me, then what makes you think
that my comments were directed at her? Another instance of being blind to
the "insider's" crimes and only seeing those of the "outsiders"?
****************
>Chris: based on the historical and fairly blatant tendency of many
creationists to
1. Quote out of context.
2. Quote things that people did not say.
3. Modify quotes to change their meaning.
4. Lie about facts that they could check for themselves (such as physics,
computer science, information theory, chemistry, genetics, biology, etc.)
5. Lie about what evolutionists claim.
6. Grossly and willfully misrepresent (i.e., lie about) evolutionary theory
in order to have a version stupid enough to refute easily -- and then claim
(dishonestly) to have refuted naturalistic evolutionary theory, even though
the theory they refuted is not one that any serious evolutionist holds.
7. Etc.
****************
DNAunion: Yes, those are exactly the attributes she wanted to thrust upon me
and others at ARN without having a shred evidence, and without having to
supply a single shred of evidence. Just the mere implication that we (or I)
are creationists is enough to establish all the above shortcomings of the
opponent's position effortlessly - that is why it is wrong, and generally an
underhanded tactic, to call someone a creationist when you have no idea what
that person or persons actually believes.
>Chris: I will agree with Susan's implication that their actual evidence is
pretty pathetic. If they actually *did* have strong and relevant arguments,
they would not need to bother with such dishonesty.
****************
DNAunion: Actually, from the many discussion I have had, I have found that
theistic evolutionists are just as bad - distorting facts and name calling
and making unfounded accusations and ignoring valid scientific evidence.
However, calling someone a theistic evolutionist does not automatically mark
them as "defective scientist" and so cannot be used as a counter to the
charge of being a creationist - it is like someone giving you a bloody nose
and in return, you flick their arm with your index finger. To make the
counter point clear, the reaction must be at least equal to the original
action.
****************
>DNAunion: And on top of her assumption based on not a single shread of
evidence,
> Chris: She didn't offer any, that's true, but she has no interest in you
to speak of; she was merely using Huxter's post to make a point.
****************
DNAunion: Yes, she did have an interest in me and others at ARN - that was
what she was directly replying to. As I stated above, if she was making a
general statement about creationists and it had no bearing on either me or
others at ARN, then she should have started a new thread or held her comments
for another post. As it stands, she was addressing me and the other ARN
people.
****************
>Chris: However, if she chose to, she could offer *reams* of evidence, from
this list alone, from the sites of creationists, from the books written by
creationists, and so on. There is no dearth of evidence in this area.
****************
DNAunion: You have switched topics. You have gone from her original
statements - that I and the other people at ARN are creationists, which is
the claim that needed supporting evidence - to your interpretation of her
statements as a comment on creationism in general, for which there is a lot
of evidence.
****************
>DNAunion: Susan then adds injury to insult by calling me a Creationist and
dishonest (not to mention her later implication that my/our arguments are
based on ignorance). I am not a Creationist and do not appreciated being
called one as an insult - as Susan obviously intended. Furthermore, I am not
dishonest, and I do not appreciate having such things said about me. Yes,
FMAJ, I agree with you - their unprovoked and unfounded comments were
insulting and uncalled for. Thanks for seeing the truth and not taking the
side of your friends over that of truth (sarcasm intended)
I notice that no one said a word to Susan for her unprovoked insults of me
and the others?
>Chris: This is probably because everyone except you recognized (instantly!)
that her remark was not aimed at you personally.
****************
DNAunion: It was stated in direct response to a post that (1) dealt solely
with me and others at ARN and (2) did not mention creationists at all. So
tell me Chris, how did you immediately recognize that it was not aimed at me
or the others at ARN and was about creationists?
****************
>DNAunion: But when I - the outsider - returned the favor all hell broke
loose.
****************
>Chris: Could this be because, despite the obvious jocularity of Susan's
remark, *your* remarks were anything *but* jocular?
****************
DNAunion: More double standards. When an "insider" makes an uninformed,
unfounded, and incorrect insult of her opponents, then it is just in jest.
But when the "outsider" responds in like manner, then he is being quarrelsome
or abrasive. Is that it?
****************
>DNAunion: You people blindly follow your self-imposed double standards.
Too bad you can't just face your opponents honestly - that you have to resort
to underhanded tactics.
>Chris: Face it: You got upset over a casual quip that was not even aimed at
you, but merely happened to be in a post that mentioned you (through no fault
of hers),
****************
DNAunion: No, you face it. The "casual quip" was meant as an insult. It
was aimed at me and others at ARN. If her insults were not aimed at me and
that others at ARN, then it is her fault for posting them in direct reply to
a post that dealt solely with me and others at ARN.
****************
>Chris: .. and then you responded in a way that was *not* casual and that
*was* personal.
****************
DNAunion: No more so that Susan.
****************
>Chris: If you want to complain, you should be complaining to Huxter,
because *he* was the one who possibly incorrectly suggested that you might be
posing as two people.
****************
DNAunion: Already taken care of.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 03:30:14 EDT