Re: Personal Attacks

Farrell Till (jftill@midwest.net)
Wed, 4 Dec 1996 14:53:56 -0600 (CST)

>At 10:13 AM 12/3/96 -0600, you wrote:
>>> >TILL 12/3
>>> So if you
>>>>want better treatment, get off your pious high horse and show that you are
>>>>able to treat people the way you seem to want to be treated. When you start
>>>>doing that, you might be surprised at the change in my tone.
>>>
>>>Matthew 12/3
>>>Mr. Till, I wanted to thank you privately, as I did not on the system for
>>>your more restrained remarks in "errancy," especially as I know that you are
>>>angry with me. While this may not be evident to you, my only goal is to
>>>improve the quality of the forum so that all may contribute to it in an
>>>un-harassed way. Many on this system look up to you given your many talents
>>>and follow your lead, for good or bad.
>>>
>>>Anyway, I will not proceed as I may say something that will appear negative
>>>when I am trying to thank you.
>>
>>TILL
>>Matthew, I am not angry with you. I just don't understand those of you who
>>think that the vigorous pressing of an argument constitutes anger. I
>>suppose I have been in the debating "profession" for too long, because I am
>>accustomed to attacking an opponent's arguments, fielding his sarcasms,
>>retaliating, etc., and then after the debate perhaps going to dinner with
>>the opponent and maintaining friendly relationships. My honest opinion is
>>that sarcastic barbs can spice up a debate, stimulate audience interest, and
>>inject humor into the discussion.
>>
>Matthew 12/3
>Mr. Till, again, thanks for your more considerate tone.
>
>I think part of the problem is that most of us are not professional
>debaters. This makes it difficult for those who have good thoughts to
>express them when under the pressure that someone like you can exert,
>especially given that you are also the system admistrator. Indeed, some of
>the other atheist try to emulate you and the impact that you can get, and
>they are at best appear to be just nasty. (Granted, this may not be their
>goal, but they do sound that way.)

TILL 12/3
No one on the list should have any reason to fear me because I am the owner
of the list. Long timers can assure Matthew that I tolerated insults from
Xians that were far more abusive than anything he has seen on the list. I
did not unsubscribe any of them, and the only time I ever threatened to
unsubscribe anyone was when John Williston kept responding on list to my
private replies to his "epistemological" postings and ignored my repeated
requests to limit the on-list postings to issues related to biblical
inerrancy. If a subscriber should call me every vile name imaginable, I
would not unsubscribe him. I'm sure I would succumb to the temptation to
demonstrate that I have some talent for hurling insults too, but I would not
unsubscribe him.

MATTHEW
>I agree totally that some spice can add to the debate, can stimulate
>audience interest, and inject humor in the discussion. However, when it
>hurts people, or stifles discussion--from either end of the spectrum--it is
>not always a good thing. Again, you are the administrator of this system
>which is why I have spent so much time trying to make this point to you.
>While you should be able to express your opinion as strongly as you would
>like, it is also up to you to keep a reasonably level playing field for all.

TILL 12/3
For some reason, Matthew seems to be overly sensitive about this, so I will
try to maintain complete civility when responding to him. In turn, I will
insist that he stop posting boasts that he has defeated me and that I know
it and stop implying that I am being dishonest for refusing to admit that I
have been defeated, because as I have explained to him, I absolutely do not
think that he has defeated me or even come close to it. I just read a
posting from someone (John Hamilton, I think) who stated that his
observation has been that I have presented reams of details to support my
arguments but Matthew has ignored the information but said over and over and
over and over and over that I haven't proven anything. So if Matthew wants
respect, he must conduct himself in a way that will command respect and stop
insisting that we make respect just a one-way street.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net