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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-edu1!Keebler From: Keebler@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Keebler) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: TO: PAUL DUBOIS Message-ID: <233@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA> Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 03:07:56 EST Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-e.233 Posted: Fri Apr 12 03:07:56 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Apr-85 00:10:50 EST Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 151 ______________________________________________________________________ Paul, Some comments: (I assume that you have easy access to the previous article in case you want to refer to it.) > Your attempt to delegitimize my remarks by casting aspersions on > them is less compelling than if you actually demonstrated that I > misinterpreted your own remarks, and how I did so. > ... > Gratuitous. Attention was drawn to your remark by several res- > pondents prior to my posting and they treated it seriously, as I > did. The context was set by the ongoing discussion. Unfortunately, too many people took the remark seriously. I still feel that they should have seen it in the context of the original message by the supposed Duane Gish (whoever it really was). Since it was an alleged April Fools joke (or so I take it), the nonseri- ousness should have been used on any followup. I guess these peo- ple simple didn't see it that way. I have already apologized for causing confusion. I have also promised never to post anything nonserious for the sake of those easily confused. > "Desperately"? No. The relationship was quite clear to me. I thought > of the content of your previous posting immediately when I read the > automag article. The relationship is that you decry "low, slimy > methods" and then make ludicrous statements about automags. You say > it's a joke. It's no joke, and very few have taken it that way, > judging from the responses. I still do not see how one can equal or relate "low, slimy methods" to reference clarification. I used an extremely graphic specifier to make clear the Duane Gish to whom I am referring in the response, distinguished from the actual author of the original post. That is nothing like quoting out of context or adjusting scientific data. As for getting kicked in the teeth ... I am pretty sure that I included justification for making the comments that you listed (and, therefore, you have quoted them out of context); if not, please accept my apologies. (The one addressed to Larry Bickford was a snide remark and not a direct accusation of any kind.) > The remark was not "obviously" unserious, and the reason why is that > your postings are generally quite antagonistic. Perhaps you don't see > them that way. But they seem so to me, and evidently to at least a > couple of other people who have commented on this. Because of that, the > automag remark was not of a character noticeably different than the > general tenor of your writings. So why should I have concluded that > you weren't being serious? Use ":-)" to clarify. The obligation to > make distinctions falls at least partly on those posting the remarks to > be distinguished. You are right about the antagonistic quality of most of my posts, though not all. (And I obviously see them that way.) One of my basic impres- sions of creationists is that they are generally overly righteous and overly self-assured. They are also wrong about many aspects of science. I expect you to be thinking to yourself, "Gee, Ernest is such a hypo- crite." Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending upon your viewpoint), that is not the case. Scientists in general do not accept creationism; you can test it yourself, next time you attend ... say ... a conference of biology teachers. (In fact, there was a big conference just last year in New York City organized and attended by big names such as Gould and Sagan for the sake of fighting creationism.) With this in mind, I see creationists, at best, as something like college applicants. They seek acceptance to some institution whose recognition is significant to their future (or, in this case, the future of their theory). They have gotten to the point where they no longer try the application approach. In fact, they force the scientists to accept them via some stronger in- stitution (read: legislature). Meanwhile, they already claim acceptance despite the overwhelming rejections raised by scientists. (A partial indicator of this may be found in most university and public libraries. One would find few, if any, creationist works though quite a few books debunking creationist works. Incidentally, all biology professors that I have met have given me dirty looks when I asked if they think there is any validity to creationism. Of course, I have not talked to ALL biologists, and I have not been to ALL libraries, so I might simply have encountered a lot of exceptions.) I have also noticed that their target is the public schools system, which reminds me of a quote of Hitler's; something to the effect of "... I don't need your obedience; I now have your children ...", and said when he took control of the public schools. In summary, I see ulterior motives/slimy manipulation/etc ... quite a few strikes against them. It used to be that religion castigated science. Now, it seems that religious people are trying to get recognition from science. At the very least, they ought to be nice about it. I get very upset (though I agree it is quite inexcusable) when I read a creation post that is full of self-assurance when some or all of the obvious flaws are already exposed many times over. Actually, allow me to correct myself ... I am not too sure creationists ever tried the "application approach" at all. > I am not trying to debunk you. I want to communicate with you. > However, I can't do that yet because we approach each other from such > very different perspectives, and also because I am not sure you satisfy > your own criteria for discussion. I think you need to be backed down > on some of your points. For example, when I say that I will answer > some particular question, say X, , you ignore the answer and assert > that I didn't answer Y. Well, of course! I didn't try to. This has > happened at least twice, for instance with my answer to the question of > whether I would sign the CRS statement. I said I would, and explained > my answer; in response, you asked why I didn't answer some other > question. Also, when you asked for evidence of the scissoring > incident, I supplied the documentation. You rejected it (which is your > prerogative), and then, for some reason, observed that I had not > answered some different question. Well, of course not. I didn't say > that I was even trying to. For one thing, my noticing that you did not answer a particular question is not necessarily (and mostly likely not) related to your answering of another question. More apologies, if I did relate or connect them. It is, of course, your choice as to which question, if any, you want to answer. I would prefer that you try to answer the more pertinent ques- tions, though I am glad to see others answered, too. > If you want answers to your questions, you have to listen to the > responses. It is not necessarily the case that the questions answered are the ones which I most wantingly seek answers to. That is not a judge- ment upon those who respond, of course; I have, however, always had the assumption that writers, such as you, would respond to the most pertinent questions raised, if any at all. > So, I think that until such time as it becomes clear that you have > some awareness of these things, the topic IS very much you. If you > think that's too personal, then let's just say the topic is the style > of argument presented in your articles. That's more accurate anyway. Wait a minute! Didn't you say the topic was NOT me? > By the way, do you have a first name? I asked before, and got no > response. Seems like a simple enough question... Sorry ... most likely missed the question. As implied above, and in most of my posts, my name is Ernest Hua. Keebler is one of my nick- names which I find rather amusing. (Ernie is the name of a Keebler elf; I am 6' 1".) > | > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > | > Science is Dead. | Whatever you say ... ______________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }