Actually, with the change in the system, I accidently posted a confidential
note to Kevin R. on this system and ( have already asked his foregiveness
for having done so).
I will assume that you made an error much like mine, but I would encourage
all to keep private communications from the overall system, unless both
parties agree.
To forum participants: Any comments below were aimed at posing concerns
with the list off-line. As you know, many posts were made in this area on
the system, this series of notes was off-line in order to make sure that we
had an understanding of the views of others without it being a show, as it
sometimes appear on the system. If in this note, any of my comments are
offensive to you, please understand that they were offered in this vein.
>>>> >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 12/2
>>>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 12/3 (before Till 12/3)
>>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.
Matthew 12/4
Mr. Till, yes, I am very sensitive to maintain civility, not necessary
complete civility, but civility yes.
Clearly we are going to differ in our understanding of data and of our
interpretations. Starting as far removed as we are, this is inevitable.
Yet, if the only way we can convey our message is by ridiculing and name
calling our "opponents," then the message must not be very good or it could
stand alone without such remarks. Since I believe that the forum has been
tilted in this way, I have argued for a more even playing field. Only Mr.
Till can provide this; otherwise, we will never have it.
In Christ,
Matthew