>> DNAunion: An anti-IDist e-mailed a question to me *privately*. When I
tried to repsond directly to that one person, *privately*, I could not
because he or she had "killfiled" or otherwise blocked me. Therefore, since
I assume the person really did want an answer, I will post my reply publicly
- so that he or she can read it from the Calvin archives - but will refrain
from revealing his/her actual identity.
======================
>>>Huxter: Actually, I de-killfiled you,
======================
DNAunion: Nope, not when I tried to reply to your question: I received an
error message stating that the recipient had blocked e-mails from me. Why
would you ask me questions that appear to inquisitive, and not rhetorical,
and then prevent me from answering?
====================
>>>Huxter: … hoping you would not do something like this - make a spectacle
in an attempt to sound important.
====================
DNAunion: Where did I try to make myself sound important? Was it the part
where I said I don't expect others to accept my word at face value?
I formulated my reply directly to you and tried to send it - your block
prevented that. Assuming you actually were asking me these questions and
were wanting a response, I changed things like "yours" to "theirs" and such,
but otherwise posted it "as is", publicly, with no name associated with the
questioner.
If there are two possible means of communicating with you - privately and
publicly - and you block the private way, and then I respond to a question
you asked me the only other way, why would you accuse me of wrong doing?
Keep in mind that I did not specify you by name even once in my post.
====================
>>>Huxter: I have already 'revealed' my identity.
====================
DNAunion: I know. But the ironic thing is that it is YOU who identified
yourself here as the person who asked me the questions, not me. Anyone could
have been curious enough to ask who I was and what my publications were - it
didn't have to be you. Richard could have asked, or FMAJ, or Chris Cogan, or
SeJones, or Susan, etc… The identity of the questioner was unknown until YOU
replied publicly acknowledging that it was you.
====================
>>>Huxter: I find it most informative that you are wont not to do the same.
====================
DNAunion: How long did you protect your anonymity? Must I reveal my name
the same day you do?
>>>DNAunion: [anti-IDist who blocked me] Who are you and what are your
publications?
=======================
Huxter: This of course was in response to DNAunions silly 'attempt' to find
out if I was someone on another message board. Notice that he did not paste
that part.
======================
DNAunion: I notice that you still don't deny being Pantrog (twice now I have
asked, and twice you have given no response). All you did here was try to
deflect my question by making me look like a bad guy, because I made a "silly
'attempt'" to find out if you were Pantrog. Let's combine your non-answer
here with your other reply to me on this (Huxter: "I'll take that to mean you
have none...."). So lack of an answer is, according to Huxter, an answer in
itself. By his own criteria, since Huxter did not provide me/us with an
answer to my question, we should be able to conclude that he is Pantrog (at
least, if we are allowed to apply the same logic as he did).
Next issue. It was YOU Huxter who did not include that part first, in your
one-line post to me, to which I was replying. Put the blame for this
"omission" where it belongs, Huxter. Besides, had I gone out of the way to
look up that material from a different e-mail and included it, that would
have tied YOU *directly* to the [anti-IDist who blocked me]. I did all I
could to avoid your being directly related to that person (again, Richard
Wein or anyone else on this board might have read my other post to you and
decided to ask who I was or what my publications were. Others couldn't have
known who the "mystery anti-IDist" actually was until you revealed it
yourself).
>>>DNAunion: Just as others here and elsewhere wish to protect their
identity, so do I, so I will not explictly reveal who I am, nor will I do
anything that would identify who I am indirectly. All I will say is that my
two areas of study in college were biology and computer information systems.
I believe my
full qualifications are irrelevant as long as I can back up my statements
with valid scientific material.
========================
>>Huxter: True, to an extent. But I've yet to really see any from you.
'Peabrain' and the like hardly qualify. I will conclude that you began as a
biology major, then became an engineer of some sort. I've seen this sort of
vague 'biosketch' before and that it was happened then. Of course, I expect
a snotty 'rebuttal' saying that I don't what I'm talking about and so on...
========================
DNAunion: I don't need to be snotty, but you are wrong. CIS came first,
then biology; not the other way around.
========================
>>>Huxter: Then again, I am re-kill-filing the anonymous DNAunion after
this.
========================
DNAunion: No biggy. I won't lose any sleep over this.
========================
>>>Huxter: I wonder if Steve Jones will try to 'shame' DNAunion into
'revealing' his true identity, as he tried to do with me? Nahhh - they are
fellow anti-'Darwinists'....
========================
DNAunion: It is immaterial who does the asking, the answer will still be the
same.
>>>DNAunion: Does it really matter if I "flip hamburgers at McDonalds" if I
can present *mainstream* material that shows that enantiomeric cross
inhibition is a real issue for the purely-natural origin of life on Earth?
===================
>>>Huxter: Wow. I'm sure the lurkers are impressed with your accumen. What
non-insulting material you have posted seems to be at most selective and
biased interpretation.
===================
DNAunion: Care to back that up?
===================
>>Huxter: However, since you tend to harp on the origin of life and not
evolution per se, I really have nothing to say to you.
===================
DNAunion: No biggy. I won't lose any sleep over this.
>>DNAunion: I don't expect people to necessarily accept my word for
something (which is one reason I typically quote a lot), as I don't accept
their own if it does not "jive" with what information I have been exposed to.
It is the ability or inability to back up one's position that makes or
breaks the argument, not their identity. (Of course, there are also times
when inference, and not fact, enter the picture, in which case those on both
sides are free to come to their own conclusions). >>
=======================
>>Huxter: I knew there was a reason I had blocked 'DNAunion'. How silly of
me to have forgotten. Bye bye.
=======================
DNAunion: Why leave us hanging? Why not explain how that last paragraph of
mine so utterly infuriates you that you must block me again?
Finally, let us ask what secrets did I let out by posting Huxter's question
publicly? First, it was not I who identified the questioner - Huxter did
that himself. Second, so what? Even then, what did we reveal about Huxter
that should be kept secret? That he asked me a single-sentence question,
"Who are you and what are your publications?"? My goodness, now that we all
know (because of Huxter) that it was he that asked this question, will anyone
be able to read his material the same again!?!?!?!? (tons of sarcasm
intended). There is nothing secretive, revealing, or negative in his post,
and no reason it must have not been posted publicly - keeping in mind that I
did not reveal the identity of the questioner anyway. And again, even if I
had, what real difference would it have made? How would anyone have felt
differently about Huxter because of the simple question he asked?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 17:35:53 EDT