From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Willful ignorance and why Lionel is a liar.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 15:33:30 GMT

In article <5142@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.121122@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:
> [lots of things I agree with, exposing the sillyness of the 
>  pigmentation=species theory of one Lionel Tun, but]
>>
>>   I am utterly sure this is a lie.  Please support your stament or retract
>>it, shit head.  A good start on retracting it would be to get a definition
>
     ^^^^^^^^^^
>this type of argument is not quite convincing.

   That's not an argument, it's an insult.  I am aware of the difference.  
If someone wants to have a polite argument FINE!  Lionel blew it ages ago.
 
>  Also, let's reserve the term
> 'lie' for an intentionally false statement.

   Lionel has had everything from classic references to a babytalk version of
the theory of evolution handed to him on a silver platter.  This racist
misinterpretation of his is thus a volitional act.  It is a lie within the
definition of the word.  He intentionally ignored important information
relating to his thesis.

> And let's only use it when
> the intent to deceive has been clearly established.

   Stupidity provides plausible deniability?  Lionel is a liar of the worst
stripe.  He repeatedly ignores facts and logic, presented specifically for his
benifit, in order to push psychotic, hateful views.  If you want to petition to
have him comitted then your view might have some merit.  I think Lionel is an
adult and responsible for intentionally ignoring everything but his own view. 
He is a liar.  He decided to ignore what we've been telling him.  I'm not
demanding he agree with us but rather that he take cognizance of us.  Until 
he does, his statemts of the form 

"Evolution says..."

    or

"There is no evidence..."

are clearly lies.

   Take for example his recent pronouncement

           "There is no scientific evidence for evolutionism"

in the teeth of megabytes of scientific proof posted with his name on the lable
and e-mailed to him personally.  That was a lie or the result of profound
denial of reality.  If he'd even attempted to refute that evidence I might
be unwilling to call him a liar.

>  It's no use calling
> every ignorant [?] a liar.  

   I agree.  Lionel is not "every ignorant".  He's willfully ignorant.

> Same applies to words like `scurrilous'. 
> Why not use `religiously inspired' or `fundamentalist' instead?
> Someone who apparently takes the "humans descended from Noah" point
> of view seriously, should be treated with compassion.

   His choice to remain maliciously ignorant makes him a liar and justifies the
rest of the adjectives and many more beyond.  There are fundamentalists who
take cognizance of our arguments and debate them according to hoyle.  My
brother in law is one.  I debate with him by e-mail, politely.  There are
religiously inspired people who accept the theory of evolution.  Lionel
is a lying shithead _on his own merits, without respect to his philosophy
or classification in the census_.  But don't take _my_ word for it.

> JWN

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU