From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Jim hits a new low.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:30:16 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.

   No imaginable motive excuses his conduct, hence his motives are 
irrelevant.  Unless he can't read he knew he was changing the meaning 
of that passage.  Which is it, illiteracy or malice?


> 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.

   Excuse me:  you are claiming the inversion of meaning was the result 
of YOUR editing?  Nonsense!

> 
>>   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.

   Right.  Another pseudo-scientific pile of nonsensical crap attempts
to resort to lawsuits to silence opposition.  This is beneath contempt
Jim.  If you forward my opinions to the ICR they will loose them; they
know they can't win a libel lawsuit.  I have substantial evidence that 
they lie, so do you, you have seen it in this forum.  The fact you are
rationalizing it away doesn't keep the truth from being a defense 
against allegations of libel.

> 
>>   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.

   Your not chasing the truth.  You are intentionally propagating lies 
through willful ignorance.  Since you have now proved youself beneath 
contempt, I'm not likely to read anything you post.

   We showed you an ICR lie, exposed it carefully, and you promised to
ask them about it.  You come back later with a half-baked rationalization
that doesn't make any sense at all and threaten to have your friends sue 
if we don't accept it.  You are beyond belief, you jerk.  Adio!

 
Very Disgusted Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU