[net.origins] The Suspicious Omitted `Seed' interaction

ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (08/10/85)

Since Rich Rosen has requested clarifaction concerning specific lines which
I removed from an earlier article, I humbly resubmit the passage in question
with the omitted lines reinserted. The lines under suspicion were
INTENTIONALLY deleted because they seemed to be unnecessary to the flow of
the ongoing interaction.

Flame as appropriate.

This all began, appropriately enough, in the fertile terrain of net.origins,
as my response to Mr. Dan Boskovich's intelligent though quixotic inquiry:
Why should a person believe in {Evolution = [that the universe might evolve
from essentially nothing]} ?

******[START]******
>Watch this, this is interesting. [Rich]
>
>|>>>> [Rich Rosen]	>> >>>> [me]
******[START OF SUSPICIOUS INTERACTION]
>|
>|>>>> Please note that, if evolution is true [I believe it has much essential
>|>>>> truth], then the present complexity was there from the beginning, only
>|>>>> it was dormant -- exactly like a seed....
******[START OF LINES WHICH I REMOVED]******
RLR>That's not strictly true either, unless you once again define some 
RLR>"planning force" that designed the complexity.  [ROSEN]

ME>   I refer you to the much debated `Design Implies Designer' argument. Both
ME>   sides have been adequately presented, and I have nothing new to add on
ME>   this point.
ME>   Incidentally, it is peculiar to hear the watchmaker argument coming from
ME>   you, Rich. 
******[END OF LINES WHICH I REMOVED]******
>| 
>|>You miss the point.  I was saying that the position above only has meaning 
>|>if you assume a creator who "designed" the complexity.
>| 
>| Then you are saying that the existence of a seed-like proto-universe
>| would imply a Creator?
******[END OF SUSPICIOUS INTERACTION]>
>Wait a minute.  Take a '>>>>' quote from you, then take a '>' quote from me
>that wasn't in response to the '>>>>' quote, and then twist again, like we
>did last summer?  What the hell is going on?
******[END]
******[ME (Not Rich Rosen) AGAIN]

    This was an intended AND innocent omission whose purpose was to refresh
    the reader's memory with regard my earlier remark in question, while
    cutting down on what I perceived to be unnecessary.  It is my usual
    practice to substantially remove cruft, leaving with some visible sign of
    an omission.  Please notice that I did not fiddle with the number of `>'s
    so that the omission was plainly evident to the reader.

    I am sorry if I aroused suspicion. Forgive me.

    SMASH INTOLERANCE!!!!!!!

-michael

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/12/85)

> Since Rich Rosen has requested clarifaction concerning specific lines which
> I removed from an earlier article, I humbly resubmit the passage in question
> with the omitted lines reinserted. The lines under suspicion were
> INTENTIONALLY deleted because they seemed to be unnecessary to the flow of
> the ongoing interaction.  [ELLIS]

Given your penchant for misattributing things to em in your fervor to
save your precious illusions of free will or (apparently) succumb to
a nervous breakdown, I think it wise that I take a look at this.

# >|>>>> [Rich Rosen]	>> >>>> [me]
# ******[START OF SUSPICIOUS INTERACTION]
# >|
# >|>>>> Please note that, if evolution is true [I believe it has much essential
# >|>>>> truth], then the present complexity was there from the beginning, only
# >|>>>> it was dormant -- exactly like a seed....

First off, this was not written by me.  It appears that Michael is using
"subjective experience" or some such stuff to determine who is the author
of certain passages.  And of course, in this world where causality has
become a casualty, he MUST be right...  :-)  (P.S.  I just checked:  this
was written by Mr. Not Rich Rosen himself -- Michael Ellis!!!)

# ******[START OF LINES WHICH I REMOVED]******
# RLR>That's not strictly true either, unless you once again define some 
# RLR>"planning force" that designed the complexity.  [ROSEN]

And this was not said in response to the statement above.

# ME>   I refer you to the much debated `Design Implies Designer' argument. Both
# ME>   sides have been adequately presented, and I have nothing new to add on
# ME>   this point.
# ME>   Incidentally, it is peculiar to hear the watchmaker argument coming from
# ME>   you, Rich. 
# ******[END OF LINES WHICH I REMOVED]******
# >| 
# >|>You miss the point.  I was saying that the position above only has meaning 
# >|>if you assume a creator who "designed" the complexity.
# >| 
# >| Then you are saying that the existence of a seed-like proto-universe
# >| would imply a Creator?
# ******[END OF SUSPICIOUS INTERACTION]>

I was saying that ONLY if you assume "perceived design implies a designer"
does the notion that the universe started as a seed with planned complexity
make any sense.  The seed did not have to have any "planned complexity",
planned by ...

# >Wait a minute.  Take a '>>>>' quote from you, then take a '>' quote from me
# >that wasn't in response to the '>>>>' quote, and then twist again, like we
# >did last summer?  What the hell is going on?
# ******[END]
# ******[ME (Not Rich Rosen) AGAIN]
# 
#     This was an intended AND innocent omission whose purpose was to refresh
#     the reader's memory with regard my earlier remark in question, while
#     cutting down on what I perceived to be unnecessary.  It is my usual
#     practice to substantially remove cruft, leaving with some visible sign of
#     an omission.  Please notice that I did not fiddle with the number of `>'s
#     so that the omission was plainly evident to the reader.

Fiddle is not the word.  Mike, why don't you relaz and return when your
abilities to speak clearly and discuss things (which once upon a time, lately
it's getting hard to recall just when, you had).  Your fabrications,
your misattributions, your random "machines are reality" nonsense, all make
it sound like you are either insane, desperate like a religious believer
to hold on to your faith in the face of contrary evidence, or maybe
just overworked.

>     I am sorry if I aroused suspicion. Forgive me.

"Aroused" is not the word.  If this was foreplay, then your other
articles in recent memory must representing an incredible screwing up
of my positions and of yours for that matter.  Can we resume this when
you've calmed down?

>     SMASH INTOLERANCE!!!!!!!

Hear, hear!


-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr