From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:39:31 GMT

In article <f5mL02ducazH00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
Loucks) writes:
> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
> 
> >In article <387s02rJc9fU00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com
(Jim
> >Loucks) writes:
> >> For myself, after hearing Morris' response, I've come to the conclusion
> >> that Morris didn't communicate his motives well enough for the audience
> >> to understand what he was trying to say.
> 
> >   His motives were irrelevant.  His butchering of someone else's material
> >to completely reverse the meaning is _not_ a proper way to show "some
> >scientists think there are problems...".  Jim, you are rationalizing away
> >a knowing, intentional lie by one of your allies.
> 
> In my opinion, motives are never irrelevant and I'm surprised anyone
> would think otherwise.
> 
> Morris was making a point but didn't communicate it well, and I
> misunderstood what he was saying. Big whoop, it happens. To charge
> that Morris intentionally lied is improper as it is to say that I've 
> rationalized the situation. I felt pretty small after posting the
> article and causing such a ruckus, now, with comments such as yours,
> I believe such feelings were wasted.

	Morris didn't communicate what motives well enough?  I am not concerned
at all *why* Morris lied, but only *if* he lied.  Rearranging sentences in
a quotation to create a different meaning than that intended by the author
qualifies as a lie to me.  As a matter of fact, rearranging *anything* and
deleting text from a quotation without indication of such, then attributing
this to someone else, is academically dishonest and despicable.

> >   It is inconcievable that someone could so carefully invert the meaning 
> >of a passage "by accident" no matter what their motives.  The ICR is a 
> >bunch of lying, cheating, assholes and you've decided that your beliefs 
> >are so important to you you would rather accept a halfassed nonexplaination
> >than face the truth.
> 
> If I were you, I'd be careful not to be guilty of libel. I should
> probably send this to the ICR and see what their lawyers have to 
> say about it.

	We're all breathlessly awaiting this to happen.  Formidable evidence
has been presented here that the ICR has lied.  Thus Dan has committed no
libel.  (Or were you refering to the 'assholes' part?  Maybe 'bastards' would
have been better?)  Slapping lawsuit after lawsuit after injunction as a 
harassment tactic has a long and sordid history.  Why don't you (as their self-
appointed representative) show us that Morris did NOT lie or misuote, here on
this forum, and I'm sure Dan will issue a public apology and retraction of his
accusation.
 
> >   You've let me down, Jim.  I thought your sense of justice might lead you
> >out of the snake pit you're in, but instead you've decided you _like_
kissing
> >cobras.
> 
> What can I say, Dan? In chasing the truth I'm bound to run across
> opposition for one reason or another.

	Shit.  You've already accepted the 'truth'.  You just don't want to be
confused with any more facts.
> 
> >Disgusted Dan
> >Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
>  
> -- 
> Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
> {apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks

P.S.  Could someone repost the quote which started this?

Ben
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner          Department of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu             Iowa State University 
                            Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: talk.origins