Hi, Ron.
You wish to discuss "decorum" instead of "style of discussion." Good!
I certainly do not deny that I intend to be, and strive to be, honestly
forthright (forthrightly honest?) with my comments. I note, again, that
you make personal reference to MY decorum, but you have intentionally
ignored Dr. Fox's decorum. I say, again, where were you when Dr. Fox
referred to me as uneducated, irrational, espousing atheistic arguments,
and so on? Perhaps considerations of decorum are one-sided? I do not
care if they are or not - it is certainly your prerogative. I am simply
pointing it out. (Or perhaps you did discuss Dr. Fox's decorum with him
privately, off the forum, whereas you have chosen to discuss my decorum
on the list? I don't know.)
I freely acknowledge that, occasionally, I have met Dr. Fox's decorum
with equivalent rhetoric. (Indeed, I would even point it out when I did
it, stating that I did not agree with that kind of rhetoric but was
"returning it to its owner" in an attempt to show to them the wrongness
of their own rhetoric.) On other occasions, I have "bowed out" of
getting into that kind of "rhetorical slugfest," as I did about three
weeks ago with Dr. Fox, saying that I would respond to him when he
chose to actually discuss the "Moon & Spencer" stuff instead of
rhetorically "dancing around it."
In clear matter of fact, I don't care how Dr. Fox chooses to engage in
discussion, stylewise or any other aspect. Like Jerry Brewer, I believe
in "free reign" in "aggressive discussion" in order to try to make your
points and back up your claims. Personally I don't believe in such
things as "flame wars," while I DO believe in pointing out the styles,
and rhetorical techniques, that people use, along with what they
actually say (such as the technique of making odd claims with no
intention of backing them up, such as the "Moon & Spencer conjecture"
and the alleged "comet mystery"). I am to be faulted for this?
Additionally, why should Dr. Fox be "quiet and reserved"? Have I asked
for this? I have not. I make claims, I give explanations and
clarifications, I give references, I dispute criticisms that I believe
are fallacious showing why I think they are fallacious, and so on. As
Jerry Brewer said, why should it be different? This is the discussion
of two clearly controverting points of view. If this subject is
"familiar territory" to Dr. Fox (and it seems than he and many others
believe it is), then why should he refrain from discussing it? (Noting,
of course, unlike some others here, that I have absolutely no
expectations with regard to time, knowing myself quite well that there
is life outside of "cyberspace.")
Finally, as noted in previous weeks, I have tried to be careful to
"prepend" all of my posts on this topic with "Old Earth Creationism"
or "OEC" so that those not interested can delete or otherwise ignore
them, besides the fact that all can see the author's name (though I
note that over the weeks I have missed a couple on occasion).
But, please note, this discussion is not about me. This discussion is
about the evidence of the old universe and old earth. I have made my
claims. I have explained certain aspects in detail where relevant. I
have provided numerous references for people to "check into things"
further. I am quite comfortable with the fact that I have represented
things in this discussion fairly and accurately.
Regards,
Todd S. Greene
###### Ron Cosby, 9/3/99 ######
[snip]
BTW, Marion and I have talked. His present quietness and reservations in
the face of your continued personal references (no less than 12 in your
last post) have nothing to do with lack of ability or knowledge. It has
a great deal to do with decorum — yours.
Ron Cosby
|