Grim, Davidf & Relda,

Not one of you could address me directly, and that in itself is rude. Dan may have made some claims that offended me before (not that I’m complaining), but nothing he has said has offended me the way you three have with your holier-than-thou manner of speaking about someone that you don’t appear to think even deserves to be addressed directly.

Let’s not forget that none of you have spoken out in condemnation about the blatantly false accusations against myself. Not that I expect anyone to, but fair’s fair. Do you not consider false accusations and ad hominem arguments to be rude?

Speaking of Ad hominems, the Wiki article on ‘personal attacks’, talks specifically about as hominems... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attack, and an ad hominem, as we all know, is attacking the person rather than the issue.

The webpage gives some good examples. One being: “You can't believe Jack when he says God exists. He doesn't even have a job." I’ve never made an accusation like that, because, as Relda said...

“No matter how much any of us might disagree with Dan (or anyone else), an argument can never be settled through personal attack.”

Exactly.

That’s why my posts are packed full of facts and solid reasoning. But no one bothered to mention that part. No, it appears that we’re more interested in gaining the moral high-ground - for the sake of our own egos - whereas I’m willing to put my reputation on the line for the greater good, rather than pussy-foot around with niceties.

I had given Dan the benefit of the doubt at first (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7353#118941). But if one continuously repeats false claims that one knows to be false, then pointing out the dishonesty in the comment is not only appropriate, but admirable when dealing with something as destructive Creationism. Remember too that dishonesty has been at the very heart of Creationism since the “deceitful and odious” Sir Richard Owen founded the Creationism that we’ve come to know since Darwin.

Again... Once is okay; twice is a mistake (or a slip-up); three times is dishonesty.

Continued…

…Continued

My comment that Davidf quoted was not abusive. Harsh? Yes, but appropriately so considering the extremity of Dan’s assertion.

Dan usually uses polite wording, but often has a snide, sneering and arrogant undertone in his posts. I don’t mind that. In fact, it’s one of the things I like most about Dan; it allows for a more rough-n-tumble, no-nonsense, get-to-the-point debate. So to attempt to paint me as a horrid monster, who is viciously attacking a sweet and gentle person is misleading to say the very least.

But what really made me feel physically ill when reading the above posts, was the very thought that I could make any claim, about anyone or anything - no matter how much I knew that claim to be false - so long as I worded it politely. I could misquote anyone; mislead anyone by selectively presenting my data and facts; incite fear and loathing by misrepresenting historical facts and figures - so long as I worded it politely.

Sorry, but that’s wrong.

As appalling as I find such unbalanced criticism to be, it has made me stop and think and consider that not everyone reading (such as Grim possibly) knows the full history here (like Davidf and Relda, who should know better), and if they were to start reading now, it would appear that I was just being nasty. So, I’ll make an effort to tone down my style from now on. Who knows… given some time, I may earn the right to be addressed directly by Davidf and Relda - who have made it so obvious over the last year or so that they refuse to do.

In the meantime, I’ll look forward to some more balanced criticisms from you good people. Having the courtesy to address me directly, instead of acting like a trio of gossiping school children, would be nice too.

Peace.

Dear AJ, I tried to be careful to word my last post as a general comment,applicable to any thread, in the hope of not being accused of making 'personal attacks'.
You can't have it both ways.
Clearly, you are the one who decided 'the shoe fits'...
I think to most objective observers, the use of abusive language is often tantamount to an admission of weakness or insecurity in one's argument.
If you are confident in your argument, -as you have every right to be- it can only be construed as bad manners.
If you enjoy your cut and thrust with another poster, why discourage them from responding?
Do unto others...

AJ,

In a previous post (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784#103223), I made a direct reference to you regarding your arguments against Dan and 'creation-science' – it was rather flattering. But really, this particular debate has been ‘done to death’ here. Dan isn’t likely to change his views and nor are we. I can understand your frustration, however, Waterboy (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121802 ), George (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784#104370) and others have been able to express their views without such personal attack. But, as Sells has even pointed out (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#123424), your tirade against Dan is ‘over the top’.

Perhaps this is something most of us can agree on (although some may take offence at as to who said it), “There is mystery in the universe, beguiling mystery, but it isn't capricious, whimsical, frivolous in its changeability. The universe is an orderly place and, at a deep level, regions of it behave like other regions, times behave like other times. If you put a brick on a table it stays there unless something lawfully moves it, even if you meanwhile forget it's there. Poltergeists and sprites don't intervene and hurl it about for reasons of mischief or caprice. There is mystery but not magic, strangeness beyond the wildest imagining, but no spells or witchery, no arbitrary miracles.” – Richard Dawkins.

AJ:

"Dan usually uses polite wording, but often has a snide, sneering and arrogant undertone in his posts. I don’t mind that. In fact, it’s one of the things I like most about Dan; it allows for a more rough-n-tumble, no-nonsense, get-to-the-point debate. So to attempt to paint me as a horrid monster, who is viciously attacking a sweet and gentle person is misleading to say the very least.

But what really made me feel physically ill when reading the above posts, was the very thought that I could make any claim, …. - so long as I worded it politely."

Dear AJ,

I do not detect any "snide, sneering and arrogant undertone" in Dan. I think that is your subjective judgment. However, it does not add any weight to the corrections of errors and misstatements to use abusive language while doing so. Yes, one is free to say whatever one wants as long as one uses polite language, and others are free to challenge those statements as long as they use polite language. I have disagreed with Dan quite often and will probably continue to do so. However, he should be allowed to speak freely.

JWs have come to my door claiming that the Bible is the oldest book. It isn’t by a long shot. I point out that Plato’s Republic and many other books were written before the Bible. It really doesn’t matter what facts I present. Some religious believers apparently feel they have an essential truth that is impervious to logic or facts. I don’t believe that makes them dishonest. Dishonest people consciously try to deceive. I believe Dan is similar to the JWs and is neither dishonest nor insincere. He is a religious fundamentalist. One doesn’t argue with them by logic or facts.

When a teenage JW told me about Abraham’s test of faith I asked her what she would do if a boy asked her to go to bed with him to prove her love. Her eyes widened, and she blushed. She then said, “I’ll have to think about that.”

Thanks for your responses.

But if you guys consider me to be “abusive”, then we have a different idea of what abusive is, and I would thank you all to stop using terms like “abusive language” and “personal attacks” as I find them purely emotive. In fact, it makes me wonder if any of you have ever really experienced abuse at all.

If I were to become what I consider to be ‘abusive’, then I would be spraying capitals letters all through my posts and adding the occasional expletive. But I wouldn’t dream of doing that because I don’t consider myself abusive. My posts are what I would consider to be quite restrained considering what I’m dealing with.

Several days ago, I subtly challenged George to explain his religious beliefs to me, because, as a former fundamentalist Christian, I’ve always been interested in what exactly he believed. He came back with a clear and well thought-out response, and I was flattered with the effort he went to in responding to me.

I saw what I personally believed to be flaws in his reasoning, but I never brought them up. Instead, I simply thanked him for his explanation and left it at that because I considered it inappropriate to attack such a frank and sincere response.

Now if I really was the monster that I feel I’ve been portrayed as, then I would have launched a full-blown attack at what I personally had perceived to be weaknesses in his reasoning.

Grim,

<<If you are confident in your argument, -as you have every right to be- it can only be construed as bad manners.>>

Thanks for your use of the term “bad manners”. I am far more comfortable with that. It sounds less emotive. But I also believe in a balance - too polite, and no one gets any ware. Admittedly though, I don’t always get that balance right.

<<If you enjoy your cut and thrust with another poster, why discourage them from responding?>>

I don’t want to discourage Dan, and he's very thick-skinned.

...Continued