In a message dated 10/21/00 5:10:35 PM Central Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
>>>SeJones: Today I received posts on the List from DNAunion@aol.com with
the titles:
>Chris Cogan: Entropy (Sat Oct 21 2000 - 08:58:58 EDT)
>Could it be that FMAJ finally gets it????? (Sat Oct 21 2000 - 06:20:34 EDT)
>Susan's at it again (Sat Oct 21 2000 - 05:47:26 EDT)
>FMAJ and his outdated support of abiogenesis (Sat Oct 21 2000 - 04:55:48
EDT)
I regard putting fellow Reflectorites names in subject lines as a form of ad
hominem.
Also, it unnecessarily personalises the debate before it even starts. To me
the important thing in the debate is the *positions* held, not the
individuals holding them (I am not saying the individuals are not important
BTW).
I know there is a fine line in this because it is sometimes hard to separate
an individual from his philosophy.
Mostly Reflectorites have avoided this putting Reflectorite names in subject
lines, which makes me think that others agree with me on this.
May I encourage DNAunion, as part of his "turning over a new leaf", to
emphasise the *positions* themselves rather than the persons holding them.
And as part of this, I would therefore ask him (and others) to please don't
put fellow Reflectorites' names in subject lines.
Steve>>>
DNAunion: Okay, I will stop doing it, but I don't view it as an ad hominen.
In fact, at other sites where debaters are allowed to title their posts,
putting peoples' names in the titles is a VERY common practice.
Now, in the past, once I learned a bit about using the e-mail method of
posting at this site, I opened up someone's e-mail in my personal e-mail
account and responded by using "Reply to ALL". This posts the reply directly
under the original post at www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution. But I deleted
all the posts from my personal e-mail system at one point recently (I had
intended to drop out of the site completely, but then changed my mind) so I
had to go straight to the Calvin archive site. When you open a post from
there, there is no way to respond to it from that site (none I could find
anyway), so one must create a completely new post/thread and the REPLY WILL
*NOT* BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ORIGINAL POST. I therefore tried to link my
responses to the original replies manually by giving information about the
original, both in the header and in the body, and in doing so, decided to
give the person's name to whom I was replying and the most important
point/topic of the post and my reply. In the process, I split some long
posts into multiple individual posts and thus changed the titles to better
reflect the contents of the now subtopics of the original.
Let's look at them individually.
>Chris Cogan: Entropy (Sat Oct 21 2000 - 08:58:58 EDT)
DNAunion: How is this in any way an ad hom? How does it say anything at all
negative about Chris? It doesn't say "Chris is too stupid to understand
entropy", nor does it say "Chris must have missed the classes on entropy"
(which would be turning one of Chris's own statements about me back on him).
I see nothing at all wrong with this title.
>Could it be that FMAJ finally gets it????? (Sat Oct 21 2000 - 06:20:34 EDT)
DNAunion: Close, but no cigar (in my opinion). I am saying that FMAJ
finally *understands* my statements, not that he is too stupid to grasp them.
Quite a change, would you not agree :-) This may not be the perfect title,
but it does address one of the most important points of the post - the one
that needs the most emphasis as FMAJ's continually failing to accept my
non-position on Dembski's EF and natural selection, and his reactions to my
non-position, have caused the greatest amount of "attitude" between us.
>Susan's at it again (Sat Oct 21 2000 - 05:47:26 EDT)
DNAunion: Yes, this ties Susan *specifically* to Susan's *personal* and
recurring actions, which is correct: it would have been wrong to say
anything like "anti-IDists are at it again" as I would have been assigning
the actions of single person to a whole group of people - a charge that I
already faced previously (and one that Susan continues to face!). Again,
this may not be the perfect title, but it does reflect the contents of the
post and is verifiable, not an unfounded attack.
>FMAJ and his outdated support of abiogenesis (Sat Oct 21 2000 - 04:55:48 EDT)
DNAunion: This is fact (the 2 supports he offered are outdated), addresses
the main content of the post, and is relevant to the topic. My title doesn't
say "FMAJ knows nothing about abiogenesis" (a non-fact), nor does it say
"FMAJ is a mere parrot" (another issue), nor does it say "FMAJ got a ticket
for speeding" (irrelevant to any topics under consideration). Again, maybe
not the best title but an accurate one nonetheless.
My titles addressed the main points of each of my replies (and so were
relevant to the topics) and were not unfounded. Apparently the important
"error" I made was associating people with their own
statements/positions/actions *in the title*?
How is it wrong to post someone's name in the title if it is not wrong to
post his/her name multiple times in the body?
How is it wrong to associate a person with his/her position or actions in the
title if it is not wrong to do so in the body?
How is it wrong to post the person's name, whose post one is directly
responding to, in the title? This information is hardly secret or to be
hidden.
As I said, I will refrain from doing so in the future, but I don't consider
my actions to have been *badly* out of line.
If people are to be "accused" of wrong doing for not following this
etiquette, it should be included in the "welcome" e-mail that is sent to new
subscribers so that all know the rules.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 22 2000 - 14:21:29 EDT