Frostman
Posts: 29 Joined: Nov. 2007
|
Part 4:
Subject: Re: farewell from Frostman From: "Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:03:25 -0500 To: Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
You have misunderstood. In my last email I made clear, or I thought I made clear, that I am unconcerned about the state of my banning. That's not the issue here.
The issue is that you have not done the right thing by publicly explaining the mistakes you made to those at TT, and the unfortunate consequences of those mistakes. Like I said in my last email, "This is the number one issue. My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a separate issue, of which I have no concern at the moment."
Previously you said to me, among other things, "...I deleted the rest because I perceived the situation as a hostile reaction to Bradford's initial decision, for which I apologize to you. This goes for the rest of the deletions as well, all the rest of the deletions were my doing because of what I perceived as a hostile attack on Bradford, an attempt to circumvent his decision. Really you just felt that your posts were unjustly deleted out of existence, I would get mad at that as well."
Why would you continue to hold that information to yourself? When you realized the misunderstanding, why didn't you rush to correct it? Why have you still not corrected it? You may not like me, but obviously that is no excuse. We both know what is right and what is wrong here. Why have you not done the right thing?
Sincerely, Frostman
On Nov 29, 2007 3:16 AM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hello again Frostman, > > > > Unfortunately on this point, I see no out for you. > > That the last sentence in question makes atheists > > uncomfortable is an irrefutable fact. You can see this > > in that none of the critics that have been confronted > > with this lone quote have taken your position (out of > > context). > > > > You also don't see how disingenuous it is to accuse > > someone of such a thing, when the evidence can point > > either way, which means you are willing to do it again > > even if I let you back in. I cannot allow that. > > > > So in conclusion, I must say once again, farewell > > Frostman. It's a shame, you had potential. > > > > Soon banning at TT will become a thing of the past, > > because I've programmed an alternative to the memory > > hole. It's too bad you were not part of this new era. > > Still, I frequently visit anti-ID forums, so perhaps > > this is not goodbye, just a farewell, for now. > > > > Sincerely, > > Guts > > > > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies >> > > quote again. In short, I >> > > believe it was a mistake to use only the final >> > > sentence of that >> > > three-sentence paragraph. The most important part >> > > of any quoting is to be >> > > faithful to the author's intention. As you said, >> > > Bradford was not talking >> > > about Davies' intended meaning. That is by >> > > definition an out of context >> > > quote. And that is exactly the problem here. You >> > > have reinforced my >> > > position on this. >> > > >> > > Calling attention to an out of context quote is not >> > > inherently offensive or >> > > derogatory. It does happen often --- at least more >> > > often than you believe >> > > it does --- and the reason for it happening is >> > > well-known. It does not >> > > involve malicious intent. >> > > >> > > All you have to do is put yourself in the position >> > > of the blogger. Imagine >> > > you are reading an article, and a particular >> > > sentence or passage gives you a >> > > jolt of excitement. In your enthusiasm, it is >> > > possible that you may not >> > > take the surrounding text sufficiently into account >> > > --- you just love that >> > > passage! You are focusing hard on that passage. >> > > And in your focusing, you >> > > may forget about the other stuff. There is nothing >> > > conniving about it. >> > > It's just part of the package of human emotions, >> > > which is our greatest >> > > asset. Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead >> > > us into logical troubles. >> > > >> > > This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally >> > > be taken out of >> > > context, but you see the gist of it. >> > > >> > > And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed >> > > once again! >> > > >> > > This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a >> > > digression from the original >> > > issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is >> > > that a statement hasn't >> > > been made on TT explaining the situation." This is >> > > the number one issue. >> > > My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a >> > > separate issue, of which I >> > > have no concern at the moment. >> > > >> > > When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you >> > > wrote a very contrite email >> > > to me, for which you deserve much credit. I am >> > > grateful that we both stuck >> > > it out long enough to figure out what really >> > > happened. That in itself may >> > > be somewhat rare. If either one of us had been a >> > > little less tolerant, one >> > > party may have stomped away, and the problem would >> > > be left unsolved. >> > > >> > > The thing that bothers me is what happened next. It >> > > took genuine honor to >> > > write that email, but there was no public display of >> > > that honor. I waited >> > > for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear >> > > on the TT thread, but >> > > none did. Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a >> > > false impression of my >> > > actions there. And they still do. With all the >> > > dignity you showed in your >> > > email, you could not muster the strength to clear my >> > > name. >> > > >> > > And then came the email which bowled me over: that >> > > you would disclose the >> > > misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon >> > > certain conditions which >> > > I must fulfill. I will do something, and in return >> > > you will admit your >> > > mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the >> > > unintentional consequence of >> > > wrongfully defaming me. There is a name for that, >> > > and we both know what it >> > > is. >> > > >> > > It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is >> > > to tell a lie. You want >> > > me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a >> > > position which I firmly >> > > believe. I have squarely and successfully defended >> > > this position. >> > > (Remember, my position is that the quote is simply >> > > out of context, not that >> > > Bradford willfully did it.) If I were to disavow >> > > that, I would be lying. >> > > >> > > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing? >> > > What is stopping you from >> > > explaining the situation to the folks at TT? Why is >> > > it contingent upon *my* >> > > actions? My renouncement or affirmation of the >> > > Davies quote is totally >> > > unrelated. As if you need my permission to do the >> > > right thing. >> > > >> > > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this >> > > situation. Why am I >> > > even put in a position of persuading you to do the >> > > right thing? Why don't >> > > you just do it? >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Frostman >> > > >> > > On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso >> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > >>> > > > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the >>> > > > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the >> > > quote >>> > > > out of context". You were clearly making it out to >> > > be >>> > > > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking >> > > quotes >>> > > > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident. >> > > If >>> > > > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you >> > > can >>> > > > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you >>> > > > should apologize for such sloppy use of language >> > > (as I >>> > > > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding >> > > what >>> > > > to do about the broken memory hole). >>> > > > >>> > > > For future reference, perhaps understanding that >>> > > > telling someone that they have taken a quote out >> > > of >>> > > > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is >> > > not >>> > > > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to >>> > > > selectively choose sentences that would clearly >> > > alter >>> > > > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do >> > > it >>> > > > with various phrases from the Talmud. >>> > > > >>> > > > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation >> > > to >>> > > > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not >>> > > > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the >>> > > > reaction from various atheists on the internet to >> > > the >>> > > > one sentence. >>> > > > >>> > > > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at >>> > > > least for using sloppy language and then accusing >>> > > > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts >> > > because he >>> > > > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy >>> > > > language). It would go a long way in putting this >>> > > > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an >>> > > > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can >>> > > > rationally disagree but still engage with >> > > eachother in >>> > > > a civil manner. >>> > > > >>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > > >>>> > > > > We clearly have trouble communicating. Please >> > > bear >>>> > > > > with me again. Again, I >>>> > > > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded. >> > > I >>>> > > > > pledge once more that I am >>>> > > > > acting in good faith. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has >> > > been >>>> > > > > explained thoroughly >>>> > > > > enough. I also hope that, even though you may >>>> > > > > disagree with it, you see it >>>> > > > > is as a position someone could take (albeit >>>> > > > > erroneously). I know that >>>> > > > > others agree with me. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > It is my understanding that participants at >> > > Telic >>>> > > > > Thoughts are allowed to >>>> > > > > disagree. Surely I would have been banned long >> > > ago >>>> > > > > if this was not the >>>> > > > > case, as would a slew of others. >>>> > > > > >> > > > > > >
Subject: Re: farewell from Frostman From: "Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:47:28 -0500 To: Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Though you have not answered yet (been very little time), I feel obligated to address what I suspect your response will be.
You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first, and then I will do the right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused this misunderstanding at TT." Let me emphasize that there is nothing whatsoever preventing you from doing the latter. That is your task, and your task alone: to candidly say publicly what you have candidly said to me privately.
I regret to simply restate what I said in my penultimate (I love that word!) email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored it:
Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing? What is stopping you from explaining the situation to the folks at TT? Why is it contingent upon *my* actions? My renouncement or affirmation of the Davies quote is totally unrelated. As if you need my permission to do the right thing.
We both know what is right and what is wrong in this situation. Why am I even put in a position of persuading you to do the right thing? Why don't you just do it?
Sincerely, Frostman
Subject: Re: farewell from Frostman From: Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:57:05 -0800 (PST) To: Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. First, unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement publically, check out your thread on AE (ironically, although there were many insults flung at TT, they moved the comments to threw it right back, but I bet you won't protest that).
Second, in that thread , I have *already* explained what happened with numerous posts indicating what had occured. However, the fact remains that your accusation of out of context quotation was inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. Thats it.
--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Though you have not answered yet (been very little > > time), I feel obligated > > to address what I suspect your response will be. > > > > You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first, > > and then I will do the > > right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused > > this misunderstanding at > > TT." Let me emphasize that there is nothing > > whatsoever preventing you from > > doing the latter. That is your task, and your task > > alone: to candidly say > > publicly what you have candidly said to me > > privately. > > > > I regret to simply restate what I said in my > > penultimate (I love that word!) > > email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored > > it: > > > > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing? > > What is stopping you from > > explaining the situation to the folks at TT? Why is > > it contingent upon *my* > > actions? My renouncement or affirmation of the > > Davies quote is totally > > unrelated. As if you need my permission to do the > > right thing. > > > > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this > > situation. Why am I > > even put in a position of persuading you to do the > > right thing? Why don't > > you just do it? > > > > Sincerely, > > Frostman > >
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
Subject: Re: farewell from Frostman From: Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:01:41 -0800 (PST) To: Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Actually one last thing,
The offer still stands as to lifting your ban. You can send me an apology to Bradford, which I will post as a Blog Entry, along with my apology to you. I think two paragraphs is enough.
--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Though you have not answered yet (been very little > > time), I feel obligated > > to address what I suspect your response will be. > > > > You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first, > > and then I will do the > > right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused > > this misunderstanding at > > TT." Let me emphasize that there is nothing > > whatsoever preventing you from > > doing the latter. That is your task, and your task > > alone: to candidly say > > publicly what you have candidly said to me > > privately. > > > > I regret to simply restate what I said in my > > penultimate (I love that word!) > > email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored > > it: > > > > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing? > > What is stopping you from > > explaining the situation to the folks at TT? Why is > > it contingent upon *my* > > actions? My renouncement or affirmation of the > > Davies quote is totally > > unrelated. As if you need my permission to do the > > right thing. > > > > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this > > situation. Why am I > > even put in a position of persuading you to do the > > right thing? Why don't > > you just do it? > > > > Sincerely, > > Frostman > >
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Subject: Re: farewell from Frostman From: "Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:42:23 -0500 To: Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
This is an ethical question for you to ponder on your own time. You have wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not set the record straight in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred. You know what is right, and you know that you have not done what is right. It's really that simple.
You have already agreed with me that the Davies quote was taken out of context. You have already said, "Bradford was not talking about Davies' intended meaning." The most important part of any quoting is to be faithful to the author's intended meaning. It's really that simple.
Regards, Frostman
On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. First, > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement > > publically, check out your thread on AE (ironically, > > although there were many insults flung at TT, they > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I bet > > you won't protest that). > > > > Second, in that thread , I have *already* explained > > what happened with numerous posts indicating what had > > occured. However, the fact remains that your > > accusation of out of context quotation was > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. Thats > > it. > > > > > >
Subject: Re: farewell from Frostman From: Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:55:46 -0800 (PST) To: Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Now you're just being stupid. What difference does it make where I do it.
I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of context, I said your position that it was taken out of context was irrational.
I've wasted enough time with you.
--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on > > your own time. You have > > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not > > set the record straight > > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred. > > You know what is right, > > and you know that you have not done what is right. > > It's really that simple. > > > > You have already agreed with me that the Davies > > quote was taken out of > > context. You have already said, "Bradford was not > > talking about Davies' > > intended meaning." The most important part of any > > quoting is to be faithful > > to the author's intended meaning. It's really that > > simple. > > > > Regards, > > Frostman > > > > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. > > First, >> > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement >> > > publically, check out your thread on AE > > (ironically, >> > > although there were many insults flung at TT, they >> > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I > > bet >> > > you won't protest that). >> > > >> > > Second, in that thread , I have *already* > > explained >> > > what happened with numerous posts indicating what > > had >> > > occured. However, the fact remains that your >> > > accusation of out of context quotation was >> > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. > > Thats >> > > it. >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Subject: Re: farewell from Frostman From: "Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:33:07 -0500 To: Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
It makes a difference because the persons you inform of the wrongdoing should be the same persons who witnessed the wrongdoing. TT readers should be informed, not AE readers.
Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation in front of you. You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that obligation.
You know what the right thing to do is. Yet you will not do it.
Kind Regards, Frostman
On Nov 29, 2007 5:55 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Now you're just being stupid. What difference does it > > make where I do it. > > > > I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of > > context, I said your position that it was taken out of > > context was irrational. > > > > I've wasted enough time with you. > > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on >> > > your own time. You have >> > > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not >> > > set the record straight >> > > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred. >> > > You know what is right, >> > > and you know that you have not done what is right. >> > > It's really that simple. >> > > >> > > You have already agreed with me that the Davies >> > > quote was taken out of >> > > context. You have already said, "Bradford was not >> > > talking about Davies' >> > > intended meaning." The most important part of any >> > > quoting is to be faithful >> > > to the author's intended meaning. It's really that >> > > simple. >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Frostman >> > > >> > > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts >> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > >>> > > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. >> > > First, >>> > > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement >>> > > > publically, check out your thread on AE >> > > (ironically, >>> > > > although there were many insults flung at TT, they >>> > > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I >> > > bet >>> > > > you won't protest that). >>> > > > >>> > > > Second, in that thread , I have *already* >> > > explained >>> > > > what happened with numerous posts indicating what >> > > had >>> > > > occured. However, the fact remains that your >>> > > > accusation of out of context quotation was >>> > > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. >> > > Thats >>> > > > it. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >
Subject: Re: farewell from Frostman From: Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:36:24 -0800 (PST) To: Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
TT readers were already informed by my multiple posts in the thread in question. Any moderate lurkers reading the AE forum now have a clear indication of what truly occured. All is well.
--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It makes a difference because the persons you inform > > of the wrongdoing > > should be the same persons who witnessed the > > wrongdoing. TT readers should > > be informed, not AE readers. > > > > Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to > > the ethical obligation > > in front of you. You require nothing from me in > > order to fulfill that > > obligation. > > > > You know what the right thing to do is. Yet you > > will not do it. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Frostman > > > > On Nov 29, 2007 5:55 PM, Guts > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > Now you're just being stupid. What difference does > > it >> > > make where I do it. >> > > >> > > I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of >> > > context, I said your position that it was taken > > out of >> > > context was irrational. >> > > >> > > I've wasted enough time with you. >> > > >> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >>> > > > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on >>> > > > your own time. You have >>> > > > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will > > not >>> > > > set the record straight >>> > > > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing > > occurred. >>> > > > You know what is right, >>> > > > and you know that you have not done what is > > right. >>> > > > It's really that simple. >>> > > > >>> > > > You have already agreed with me that the Davies >>> > > > quote was taken out of >>> > > > context. You have already said, "Bradford was > > not >>> > > > talking about Davies' >>> > > > intended meaning." The most important part of > > any >>> > > > quoting is to be faithful >>> > > > to the author's intended meaning. It's really > > that >>> > > > simple. >>> > > > >>> > > > Regards, >>> > > > Frostman >>> > > > >>> > > > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts >>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> > > > >>>> > > > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. >>> > > > First, >>>> > > > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement >>>> > > > > publically, check out your thread on AE >>> > > > (ironically, >>>> > > > > although there were many insults flung at TT, > > they >>>> > > > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but > > I >>> > > > bet >>>> > > > > you won't protest that). >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Second, in that thread , I have *already* >>> > > > explained >>>> > > > > what happened with numerous posts indicating > > what >>> > > > had >>>> > > > > occured. However, the fact remains that your >>>> > > > > accusation of out of context quotation was >>>> > > > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. >>> > > > Thats >>>> > > > > it. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > >> > > > >
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Subject: Re: farewell from Frostman From: "Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:15:53 -0500 To: Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
TT readers have not been informed of what truly occurred. Some TT readers may also read AE, but many do not. The honest course of action is to tell them.
Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation in front of you. You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that obligation.
You know what the right thing to do is. Yet you will not do it.
Sincerely, Frostman
On Nov 29, 2007 6:36 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > TT readers were already informed by my multiple posts > > in the thread in question. Any moderate lurkers > > reading the AE forum now have a clear indication of > > what truly occured. All is well. > > > >
Subject: Re: farewell from Frostman From: "Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:49:34 -0500 To: nanosoliton@yahoo.com, nucacids@wowway.com
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=86519
Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished, Frostman
Subject: Hello again from Frostman From: "Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:52:15 -0500 To: nucacids@wowway.com
Hi Mike,
I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding my banishment from TT.
Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my comments permanently, against TT policy. These comments were not saved for later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested. Guts has apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather profusely) to me in email. Guts has not apologized to the TT community, however.
A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90
My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has told me.
At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of context. This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for my banning.
Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of a free exchange of ideas. You should be fully aware that TT does not support such a free exchange.
Kind Regards, Frostman
Subject: Re: Hello again from Frostman From: "Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:21:31 -0500 To: nucacids@wowway.com
Hello Mike,
Your failure to address or acknowledge unethical behavior at Telic Thoughts can only be damaging to the blog's reputation.
With the new year upon us, will make a new commitment to allow a free and open exchange of rational ideas at Telic Thoughts? As I have outlined previously, such a free exchange currently absent at TT.
Perhaps you believe nothing unethical actually happened, in which case I am prepared to hand over this temporary email account to you, so that you may read in full detail Guts' threats and subsequent apology to me. This will provide ample evidence for all statements I have made on this matter.
That this situation has not been mentioned anywhere at TT is quite significant.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=120
Kind Regards, Frostman
On Dec 17, 2007 6:52 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Mike, > > > > I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding > > my banishment from TT. > > > > Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my > > comments permanently, against TT policy. These comments were not saved for > > later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested. Guts has > > apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather > > profusely) to me in email. Guts has not apologized to the TT community, > > however. > > > > A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here: > > > > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90 > > > > > > My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has told > > me. > > > > At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a > > particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of > > context. This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for > > my banning. > > > > Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of > > a free exchange of ideas. You should be fully aware that TT does not > > support such a free exchange. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Frostman > > > >
Subject: Re: Hello again from Frostman From: "Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 04:39:51 -0500 To: nucacids@wowway.com
Still no comment? Curious :)
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry92466
On Jan 6, 2008 3:21 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello Mike, > > > > Your failure to address or acknowledge unethical behavior at Telic > > Thoughts can only be damaging to the blog's reputation. > > > > With the new year upon us, will make a new commitment to allow a free and > > open exchange of rational ideas at Telic Thoughts? As I have outlined > > previously, such a free exchange currently absent at TT. > > > > Perhaps you believe nothing unethical actually happened, in which case I > > am prepared to hand over this temporary email account to you, so that you > > may read in full detail Guts' threats and subsequent apology to me. This > > will provide ample evidence for all statements I have made on this matter. > > > > That this situation has not been mentioned anywhere at TT is quite > > significant. > > > > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=120 > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > Frostman > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2007 6:52 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > Hi Mike, >> > > >> > > I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions >> > > surrounding my banishment from TT. >> > > >> > > Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my >> > > comments permanently, against TT policy. These comments were not saved for >> > > later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested. Guts has >> > > apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather >> > > profusely) to me in email. Guts has not apologized to the TT community, >> > > however. >> > > >> > > A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here: >> > > >> > > >> > > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90 >> > > >> > > >> > > My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has >> > > told me. >> > > >> > > At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a >> > > particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of >> > > context. This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for >> > > my banning. >> > > >> > > Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit >> > > of a free exchange of ideas. You should be fully aware that TT does not >> > > support such a free exchange. >> > > >> > > Kind Regards, >> > > Frostman >> > > >> > > > >
Subject: Re: Hello again from Frostman From: "Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:16:42 -0500 To: nucacids@wowway.com
Perhaps it will be easier if I simply ask you a direct question:
Guts offered to lift my ban if, in exchange, I would renounce my position that a certain quote which appeared on TT was taken out of context.
Do you believe Guts' behavior here is ethical?
And do you want Telic Thoughts to be the sort of place where particular rational positions are not allowed to be expressed?
As I have mentioned, I am prepared to give you this email account so that you may view the correspondence with Guts yourself.
You have a clear ethical problem in front of you.
Kind Regards, Frostman
Subject: Re: farewell from Frostman From: "Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 03:57:39 -0500 To: nanosoliton@yahoo.com
Checkmate.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry92466
Regards, Frostman
|