Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Baptist Board and libel
derwood
Member (Idle past 1866 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 7 (13817)
07-19-2002 2:00 PM


Libel:
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means
************************************************
In this thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000111;p=4
I had written:
"Behe’s personal incredulity is evidence of nothing but the fact that the answers he demands have not been found yet or have not been investigated yet — indeed, Behe has done ZERO research on the areas he claims to have evidence for design in."
I received an email form the BB admin claiming that they would look into this themselves, and that if I had 'slandered' Behe, I would be banned.
This morning, the following message appeared in that thread:
************************************************
This statement drew the response from the Administrator posting that morning that if Page's statement was found to be false, it would be considered slander against Behe and Page would be banned from the board.
The following URL's indicate that Behe is an active research scientiest:
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html
http://www.discovery.org/crsc/fellows/MichaelBehe/
Scott Page will no longer be allowed to make any contributions to this board. This is the only banning we have had to make so far on this board and we hope it will be the last. We understand that the evolution and creation debates cause a lot of intense reactions among some, however lying about others will not be tolerated here. Slander on this board can put us in legal jeopardy as well and will not be tolerated for that reason, too.
Our public apologies to Dr. Behe for what was posted here. We are leaving it up along with this so that Page will not be able to lie about what happened here.
**********************************************
The BB admin claims:
1. that I lied about Behe being a research scientist and
2. that I would lie about what transpired there
That is, they have publicly claimed, in a written form, that I am a liar. This is clearly defamatory and what is worse for them, based on their own stupidity - they misinterpreted what I actually wrote!
Here again what I originally wrote, emphasis mine:
"Behe’s personal incredulity is evidence of nothing but the fact that the answers he demands have not been found yet or have not been investigated yet — indeed, Behe has done ZERO research on the areas he claims to have evidence for design in."
BB admin writes, emphasis mine:
"The following URL's indicate that Behe is an active research scientiest:"
I did not claim or even imply with my statement that he is not a research scientist, rather - and what should have been clear - that he does not and did not do any research on the areas in which he indicates he has evidence for design, namely cilia/flagella, blood clotting cascade, visual cascade.
I am taking this very seriously..

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 07-20-2002 3:50 PM derwood has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 2 of 7 (13861)
07-20-2002 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
07-19-2002 2:00 PM


I don't think you should take it very seriously as I doubt anyone would take the administrator of BaptistBoard very seriously after such a display of both flawed logic and lack of comprehension, but whatever became of this? I saw the message about your being banned yesterday, but when I went back today the message was gone. Are you reinstated?
Kind of ironic that you got banned for a factual and, for you, mildly stated position.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 07-19-2002 2:00 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 07-22-2002 8:25 PM Percy has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 7 (13950)
07-22-2002 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Percy
07-20-2002 3:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
I don't think you should take it very seriously as I doubt anyone would take the administrator of BaptistBoard very seriously after such a display of both flawed logic and lack of comprehension, but whatever became of this? I saw the message about your being banned yesterday, but when I went back today the message was gone. Are you reinstated?
Kind of ironic that you got banned for a factual and, for you, mildly stated position.
--Percy

It appears that BB has issued an apology to Scott. Check it out under the Haldane's Dilemma thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 07-20-2002 3:50 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 07-22-2002 10:02 PM edge has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 5 of 7 (13957)
07-22-2002 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
07-22-2002 8:25 PM


What a poor job of administration over there. First the administrator posts a message saying that Scott lied and that he was banned, and only then does he do some research with an email to Behe, who was gracious enough to respond. But second, the inquiry wasn't about what Scott actually said, but about Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. And third, the administrator then claims that Scott was wrong based on a Behe interview he saw in a TV show. Then fourth, the administrator misinterprets what Scott meant to arrive at an interpretation that puts himself in the best light. And fifth, he does all this on a board where only the administrator can post.
Scott, if you're listening, I wouldn't bother over there. Why don't you email the participants in that discussion and suggest a different venue.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 07-22-2002 8:25 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by edge, posted 07-23-2002 12:24 AM Percy has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 7 (13972)
07-23-2002 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
07-22-2002 10:02 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[B]What a poor job of administration over there. First the administrator posts a message saying that Scott lied and that he was banned, and only then does he do some research with an email to Behe, who was gracious enough to respond. But second, the inquiry wasn't about what Scott actually said, but about Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. And third, the administrator then claims that Scott was wrong based on a Behe interview he saw in a TV show. Then fourth, the administrator misinterprets what Scott meant to arrive at an interpretation that puts himself in the best light. And fifth, he does all this on a board where only the administrator can post.[/QUOTE]
Heh, heh - you've got it pegged. Especially when the administrator(s?) is one of the more active participants in the discussions. They not only filter the posts, they take an active role in the discussion. I'm not actually sure of what I posted over there, but I know that some of my posts were unacceptable in their original form.
I think the board was set up that way so that some of the better known guns in creationism would participate. They didn't want a free-for-all where they might get shown up. But they seem to have dropped by the wayside anyhow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 07-22-2002 10:02 PM Percy has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1866 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 7 of 7 (14227)
07-26-2002 12:28 PM


I saw the half-assed retraction. Unfortunately for them, I put the whole fiasco on a web page (http://geocities.com/huxter4441/baptist.html)
and intend to keep it there as a reminder of what kind of people these religious zealots are.
Even though they were wrong about what I wrote, and foolishly so, they have still banned me.
I believe that they were looking for a way to do it anyway.
What I find to be somewhat too much of a coincidence is that this occurred shortly after I had emailed Helen Fryman and asked her why she tells so many different versions of her conversion to YECism...

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024