On 11/25/03 11:13 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Gareth,
I asked you to stop calling me "dishonest". I offered the possibility that I had made a mistake.
Yet you persist in your attack on my character.
"Your representation of those figures is flagrantly dishonest."
There's only one thing I can do in retaliation: I'm crossing you off my Christmas card list. So there!
Ed: Gareth made a serious, specific response to your complaint. He did NOT attack your character, he attacked "your representation of those figures".
It's certainly possible that your intentions were good, but your actual actions were bad. Maybe they were mistakes. But that doesn't mean they're not wrong.
And while it's one thing to try to assume the best of people, your "mistakes" regarding global warming have a consistent agenda behind them: that is, making flat assumptions that there is more uncertainty and debate in the scientific community about global warming than is true.
Gareth is calling a duck a duck.
And now *you're* the one engaging in direct, personal attacks, calling him "nasty".
Do you dispute Gareth's specific argument against your portrayal of the survey? Or not? That's the real issue.