Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-edu1!keebler
From: keebler@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (keebler)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: TO: Paul Dubois (and all offended by automag)
Message-ID: <230@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 7-Apr-85 22:04:56 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-e.230
Posted: Sun Apr  7 22:04:56 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 04:03:05 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 119

___________________________________________________________________________

Hey Duby, (don't take this personally)

> { From: Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois }
>
> > { From: Lew Mammel, Jr. }
> >
> > Ernest Hua referred to "the Duane Gish I would love to mutilate with a
> > .44 automag"

Just quoting this line would certainly serve your point ... however, I
think you should include the article by the supposed Duane Gish and my
entire response to it, in case (GOD FORBID) that you might have misin-
terpreted it.  (But that's impossible, so forget I ever mentioned it.)
Kind of easy to draw attention to a silly comment, and make it serious,
when you don't include the proper context, ain't it?!  Gee, which
creationist technique does THIS remind you of?!

> > I had already considered posting or mailing a note to Ernest Hua urging
> > him to be a little less strident, but this goes way beyond even that level
> > of invective.
> >
> > It's no use protesting that it was meant lightheartedly.  To consider such
> > a threat as a joke only shows how deeply ingrained the feeling is that
> > generated it.
> >
> > I have a self-serving motive in wanting to distance myself from this sort
> > thing, but I would also urge Ernest and anyone else who finds themselves
> > harboring such frightful feelings to realize that the bonds that bind us
> > are stronger than these airy doctrinal disputes.
> 
> Thanks, Lew.  I also find it strange the Hua/Keebler would say such
> things after posting an article containing the following:

Since you claim to be able to write rational, logical prose as you imply
further on in your post (though I have few examples of them, especially
ones directed at me ... oh, but you seem to quickly brush them aside be-
low, too, so forget I ever mentioned it), how about explaining the rela-
tionship that you are desperately trying to squeeze out between my article
and the quote below of a previous post of mine. (*)

> > [Ernest Hua / Keebler]
> > To all scientists: You do
> > realize that they use the lowest, slimiest methods of deception possible
> > to con the public into thinking that they actually do the kind of work
> > YOU do, find the evidence YOU find, use the same logic YOU use, and
> > BETTER YET, they have the support of GOD.  You do realize that they
> > are selfish and narrow-minded enough to want to destroy YOU for their
> > own rusty traditional beliefs.  You do realize that ...
>
> The violence of Hua/Keeber's own remarks do him no credit.  As one who
> has been on the other end of several of his postings I can testify
> that it is extremely difficult to frame an even-tempered and rational
> reply when you feel like you're continually being kicked in the
> teeth.  (That is no excuse for failing to make such a reply, of
> course.  But it's a lot more difficult.)

Paul, it's get so that I feel like a damn answering machine.  Now, for
the last time ... there are certain posts that should be taken lightly,
and there are certain posts that should be taken seriously.  You know
very well that I stress bring out the evidence when making a serious
proposition (is this what you call "being kicked in the teeth"?).  The
article to the supposed Duane Gish (and, of course, his original article)
and the article which you quoted from the past has NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE
OF EVIDENCE to support any of the conclusions drawn.  On this basis alone
you should have been able to deduce that they were not worth serious con-
sideration for debate.  When a few people took the liberty of taking the
first article seriously, I simply ignored the replies since they were
meaningful replies to a meaningless post.

*******************************************************************
Now listen all of you who are offended: For your sake, I express my
full apologies for confusing your reading.  I think I will simply
give up posting obviously unserious posts because there are some of
you who simply do not feel that you are obligated to make the ef-
fort to distinguish between a serious and an unserious post.
*******************************************************************

> As for low and slimy methods, we have seen several articles lately from
> Hua/Keebler rebutting personal correspondence received from Larry
> Bickford.  This personal correspondence has been posted without
> permission.  A single occurrence of this might be attributed to the
> oversight of forgetting to request permission.  A whole series of such
> occurrences does not lead to this conclusion.

To be exact, two.  (Not a whole series, as you so exaggerate ... but
this is irrelevant.)  I'd like you to show me exactly how "personal"
these correspondences have been.  There are quite a few more that I
did not post because they were simply irrelevant statements or per-
sonal insults.  I do not find it necessary to clutter Usenet with a
"series" of strictly personal letters.  However, the assertions that
were sent to me were and subsequently posted were NOT of a personal
nature.  (It's kind of difficult to "debunk" personal statements via
any media.)  I did explain the reason for posting them.  In case you
missed it (and I wouldn't be surprised if you did so, conveniently),
the propositions by Larry had one or two references to items which
I did not know about.  I was hoping someone might fill me in on it.
Unfortunately, someone like you had to abuse my attempt to get some
answers into your usual set of unsupportable denigrations.

Listen, Dube, I would love to begin some real conversations with you
if you will only stop trying to debunk ME.  The topic is NOT me.  This
is not net.keebler; it is net.origins.  There are some understood rules
when discussing in net.origins.  Some include presenting EVIDENCE when
making genuine statements.  Others include sticking to the MAIN TOPIC.
>From your previous responses to my posts, I gather you would rather
sidetrack into oblivion than talking about my main point(s).  (Your
prolific essay/commentary on my shark comment in my second CREATIONISTS
ARGUMENTS post is a perfect example.)  I don't know why, but it seems
that whenever I ask you for evidence of you accusations, you don't seem
to want to respond (or maybe you did, but it just never got posted, or
something ...).  Please look at the paragraph ending with a "(*)" above.
It ended with the kind of question that I want you to answer but you
never seem to get around to.
___________________________________________________________________________

Keebler