keebler@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (keebler) (04/08/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ Hey Duby, (don't take this personally) > { From: Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois } > > > { From: Lew Mammel, Jr. } > > > > Ernest Hua referred to "the Duane Gish I would love to mutilate with a > > .44 automag" Just quoting this line would certainly serve your point ... however, I think you should include the article by the supposed Duane Gish and my entire response to it, in case (GOD FORBID) that you might have misin- terpreted it. (But that's impossible, so forget I ever mentioned it.) Kind of easy to draw attention to a silly comment, and make it serious, when you don't include the proper context, ain't it?! Gee, which creationist technique does THIS remind you of?! > > I had already considered posting or mailing a note to Ernest Hua urging > > him to be a little less strident, but this goes way beyond even that level > > of invective. > > > > It's no use protesting that it was meant lightheartedly. To consider such > > a threat as a joke only shows how deeply ingrained the feeling is that > > generated it. > > > > I have a self-serving motive in wanting to distance myself from this sort > > thing, but I would also urge Ernest and anyone else who finds themselves > > harboring such frightful feelings to realize that the bonds that bind us > > are stronger than these airy doctrinal disputes. > > Thanks, Lew. I also find it strange the Hua/Keebler would say such > things after posting an article containing the following: Since you claim to be able to write rational, logical prose as you imply further on in your post (though I have few examples of them, especially ones directed at me ... oh, but you seem to quickly brush them aside be- low, too, so forget I ever mentioned it), how about explaining the rela- tionship that you are desperately trying to squeeze out between my article and the quote below of a previous post of mine. (*) > > [Ernest Hua / Keebler] > > To all scientists: You do > > realize that they use the lowest, slimiest methods of deception possible > > to con the public into thinking that they actually do the kind of work > > YOU do, find the evidence YOU find, use the same logic YOU use, and > > BETTER YET, they have the support of GOD. You do realize that they > > are selfish and narrow-minded enough to want to destroy YOU for their > > own rusty traditional beliefs. You do realize that ... > > The violence of Hua/Keeber's own remarks do him no credit. As one who > has been on the other end of several of his postings I can testify > that it is extremely difficult to frame an even-tempered and rational > reply when you feel like you're continually being kicked in the > teeth. (That is no excuse for failing to make such a reply, of > course. But it's a lot more difficult.) Paul, it's get so that I feel like a damn answering machine. Now, for the last time ... there are certain posts that should be taken lightly, and there are certain posts that should be taken seriously. You know very well that I stress bring out the evidence when making a serious proposition (is this what you call "being kicked in the teeth"?). The article to the supposed Duane Gish (and, of course, his original article) and the article which you quoted from the past has NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE to support any of the conclusions drawn. On this basis alone you should have been able to deduce that they were not worth serious con- sideration for debate. When a few people took the liberty of taking the first article seriously, I simply ignored the replies since they were meaningful replies to a meaningless post. ******************************************************************* Now listen all of you who are offended: For your sake, I express my full apologies for confusing your reading. I think I will simply give up posting obviously unserious posts because there are some of you who simply do not feel that you are obligated to make the ef- fort to distinguish between a serious and an unserious post. ******************************************************************* > As for low and slimy methods, we have seen several articles lately from > Hua/Keebler rebutting personal correspondence received from Larry > Bickford. This personal correspondence has been posted without > permission. A single occurrence of this might be attributed to the > oversight of forgetting to request permission. A whole series of such > occurrences does not lead to this conclusion. To be exact, two. (Not a whole series, as you so exaggerate ... but this is irrelevant.) I'd like you to show me exactly how "personal" these correspondences have been. There are quite a few more that I did not post because they were simply irrelevant statements or per- sonal insults. I do not find it necessary to clutter Usenet with a "series" of strictly personal letters. However, the assertions that were sent to me were and subsequently posted were NOT of a personal nature. (It's kind of difficult to "debunk" personal statements via any media.) I did explain the reason for posting them. In case you missed it (and I wouldn't be surprised if you did so, conveniently), the propositions by Larry had one or two references to items which I did not know about. I was hoping someone might fill me in on it. Unfortunately, someone like you had to abuse my attempt to get some answers into your usual set of unsupportable denigrations. Listen, Dube, I would love to begin some real conversations with you if you will only stop trying to debunk ME. The topic is NOT me. This is not net.keebler; it is net.origins. There are some understood rules when discussing in net.origins. Some include presenting EVIDENCE when making genuine statements. Others include sticking to the MAIN TOPIC. >From your previous responses to my posts, I gather you would rather sidetrack into oblivion than talking about my main point(s). (Your prolific essay/commentary on my shark comment in my second CREATIONISTS ARGUMENTS post is a perfect example.) I don't know why, but it seems that whenever I ask you for evidence of you accusations, you don't seem to want to respond (or maybe you did, but it just never got posted, or something ...). Please look at the paragraph ending with a "(*)" above. It ended with the kind of question that I want you to answer but you never seem to get around to. ___________________________________________________________________________ Keebler
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/09/85)
> [Ernest Hua / Keebler] > Subject: TO: Paul Dubois (and all offended by automag) I wasn't offended; I did find the remark somewhat strange. > Hey Duby, (don't take this personally) Don't worry, I won't. It seems a bit odd, however, that you should take the trouble to address me by a variant of my name (here and also below, and then take the trouble to tell me not to take it personally. So I am left wondering: how should I take it? >> { From: Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois } >> >>> { From: Lew Mammel, Jr. } >>> >>> Ernest Hua referred to "the Duane Gish I would love to mutilate with a >>> .44 automag" > Just quoting this line would certainly serve your point ... however, I > think you should include the article by the supposed Duane Gish and my > entire response to it, in case (GOD FORBID) that you might have misin- > terpreted it. (But that's impossible, so forget I ever mentioned 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. > Kind of easy to draw attention to a silly comment, and make it serious, > when you don't include the proper context, ain't it?! Gee, which > creationist technique does THIS remind you of?! Gratuitous. Attention was drawn to your remark by several respondents prior to my posting and they treated it seriously, as I did. The context was set by the ongoing discussion. >>> I had already considered posting or mailing a note to Ernest Hua urging >>> him to be a little less strident, but this goes way beyond even that level >>> of invective. >>> >>> It's no use protesting that it was meant lightheartedly. To consider such >>> a threat as a joke only shows how deeply ingrained the feeling is that >>> generated it. >>> >>> I have a self-serving motive in wanting to distance myself from this sort >>> thing, but I would also urge Ernest and anyone else who finds themselves >>> harboring such frightful feelings to realize that the bonds that bind us >>> are stronger than these airy doctrinal disputes. >> >> Thanks, Lew. I also find it strange the Hua/Keebler would say such >> things after posting an article containing the following: > Since you claim to be able to write rational, logical prose as you imply > further on in your post (though I have few examples of them, especially > ones directed at me ... oh, but you seem to quickly brush them aside be- > low, too, so forget I ever mentioned it), how about explaining the rela- > tionship that you are desperately trying to squeeze out between my article > and the quote below of a previous post of mine. (*) I have made no claim to literacy, intelligence or consistency. No doubt my blatherings are, to many, a source more of amusement than of edification. Nor do I claim to be ABLE to write rationally - only that I try. "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. >>> [Ernest Hua / Keebler] >>> To all scientists: You do >>> realize that they use the lowest, slimiest methods of deception possible >>> to con the public into thinking that they actually do the kind of work >>> YOU do, find the evidence YOU find, use the same logic YOU use, and >>> BETTER YET, they have the support of GOD. You do realize that they >>> are selfish and narrow-minded enough to want to destroy YOU for their >>> own rusty traditional beliefs. You do realize that ... >> >> The violence of Hua/Keeber's own remarks do him no credit. As one who >> has been on the other end of several of his postings I can testify >> that it is extremely difficult to frame an even-tempered and rational >> reply when you feel like you're continually being kicked in the >> teeth. (That is no excuse for failing to make such a reply, of >> course. But it's a lot more difficult.) > Paul, it's get so that I feel like a damn answering machine. Now, for > the last time ... there are certain posts that should be taken lightly, > and there are certain posts that should be taken seriously. You know > very well that I stress bring out the evidence when making a serious > proposition (is this what you call "being kicked in the teeth"?). What I call being kicked in the teeth is not the content of what you way, but the way in which you choose to say things. I don't mean just that you disagree with me and I'm all aflutter because of that. Disagreement is to be expected. But let me give some examples: > So you still insist on playing cheap debating games?! > since you insist on turning the tables around to confuse the > issue... > I can also assure you that your latest > article explaining some of your points and making some silly > accusations at evolutionists does not support your position > with any real evidence. You have simply made vague assertions > and proclaimed your righteousness based upon the denigration > if your opposition. Hardly worthy of the high praises others > sang of you. > science?! What BS! > Paul DuBois said that he would sign this, with a minor constraint. > someone else wholehearted agrees with everything here. Okay, you > people that are along the same track as these two ... YES! YOU! ... > are you willing to sign this statement, which contains blatantly > irresponsible passages? > (I do have confidence that you will dig up, and more likely > make up, more inane gripes to waste our time.) Do you see what I mean? > The > article to the supposed Duane Gish (and, of course, his original article) > and the article which you quoted from the past has NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE > OF EVIDENCE to support any of the conclusions drawn. On this basis alone > you should have been able to deduce that they were not worth serious con- > sideration for debate. When a few people took the liberty of taking the > first article seriously, I simply ignored the replies since they were > meaningful replies to a meaningless post. > ******************************************************************* > Now listen all of you who are offended: For your sake, I express my > full apologies for confusing your reading. I think I will simply > give up posting obviously unserious posts because there are some of > you who simply do not feel that you are obligated to make the ef- > fort to distinguish between a serious and an unserious post. > ******************************************************************* 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. >> As for low and slimy methods, we have seen several articles lately from >> Hua/Keebler rebutting personal correspondence received from Larry >> Bickford. This personal correspondence has been posted without >> permission. A single occurrence of this might be attributed to the >> oversight of forgetting to request permission. A whole series of such >> occurrences does not lead to this conclusion. > To be exact, two. (Not a whole series, as you so exaggerate ... but > this is irrelevant.) You are correct. I overstated my position. I apologize. > I'd like you to show me exactly how "personal" > these correspondences have been. There are quite a few more that I > did not post because they were simply irrelevant statements or per- > sonal insults. I do not find it necessary to clutter Usenet with a > "series" of strictly personal letters. However, the assertions that > were sent to me were and subsequently posted were NOT of a personal > nature. (It's kind of difficult to "debunk" personal statements via > any media.) I did explain the reason for posting them. In case you > missed it (and I wouldn't be surprised if you did so, conveniently), > the propositions by Larry had one or two references to items which > I did not know about. I was hoping someone might fill me in on it. > Unfortunately, someone like you had to abuse my attempt to get some > answers into your usual set of unsupportable denigrations. I didn't miss the reason for your posting, but mail is personal, whatever the content. You should know that. If you want to be filled in on some items, you could (i) ask Larry if he minded having his letter posted, as a matter of common courtesy, or (ii) ask in your own words about the topics in which you were interested. > Listen, Dube, I would love to begin some real conversations with you > if you will only stop trying to debunk ME. The topic is NOT me. This > is not net.keebler; it is net.origins. There are some understood rules > when discussing in net.origins. Some include presenting EVIDENCE when > making genuine statements. Others include sticking to the MAIN TOPIC. >>From your previous responses to my posts, I gather you would rather > sidetrack into oblivion than talking about my main point(s). (Your > prolific essay/commentary on my shark comment in my second CREATIONISTS > ARGUMENTS post is a perfect example.) I don't know why, but it seems > that whenever I ask you for evidence of you accusations, you don't seem > to want to respond (or maybe you did, but it just never got posted, or > something ...). Please look at the paragraph ending with a "(*)" above. > It ended with the kind of question that I want you to answer but you > never seem to get around to. I answered it. 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. If you want answers to your questions, you have to listen to the responses. 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. --- By the way, do you have a first name? I asked before, and got no response. Seems like a simple enough question... -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/09/85)
I should mention that not all of the examples of kicks in the teeth that I gave in the last article were directed at myself; I didn't mean to imply that they were, but upon rereading the article, it seems to come across that way. My fault. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/11/85)
[]
> Science is Dead. |
Your science may be, mine isn't.Keebler@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Keebler) (04/12/85)
______________________________________________________________________ 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 }