Hello all,

David Wolfe writes:

Ward:
>> David digs himself even deeper into the lie by quite explicitly claiming
>> responsibility for having demonstrated what were in reality ideas taken
>> pretty much straight from the mouth of Phillip Johnson.

David:
> Are these the same ideas you will not address?  Whether they are from
> Phillip Johnson or myself, why do you not address them?

As I mentioned in Part 1 of my examination of David's plagiarism, I am
planning on an addendum summarizing and giving pointers to the critiques
available that rebut the substance of Johnson's arguments in "Darwin on
Trial" (perhaps with a couple of my own thrown in). In my 5-part series on
David's extensive plagiarization, I purposely refrained (which was not
easy! :-\ ) from getting into rebuttals on the issues of the evolutionist/
creationist debate itself so as not to distract from the task of
documenting the plagiarizations. I am currently occupied with work
deadlines for the next week or so, so it will be awhile before I am able to
continue putting together a concluding post, but there is one underway I'll
be posting when I have time, just so people won't be wondering.

Jean-Louis writes:

> I have no problem with Stephen (or whoever hides behind the pseudonym
> "Vicki") being on the list, but I would suggest that if anyone started a
> pseudo-debate on evolution with the idea of proving or disproving that
> humans are vegetarians or omnivores, that no one responds. There is
> already enough material on the subject.

I believe Phillip Johnson's arguments do deserve at least a response
pointing those who are interested to where the critiques can be found along
with summaries of them to give some idea of what they are about. Because
the evolutionist/ creationist debates can be so divisive, however, and I
don't have the time these days, my intention at the moment is not to post
further on the subject after the addendum has been posted here, and simply
let other people take responsibility for following up the pointers and info
if they have further interest.

Ward:
>> Regarding the rest of the paragraph and specifically its concluding
>> sentence, one can only comment here that NFL, or at least David Wolfe,
>> does not seem to have any need of Darwinism to render himself, in his own
>> words, "spiritually bankrupt" (not to mention morally so) if he feels he
>> has to resort to plagiarism to mount a response to criticism. And that is
>> perhaps the most telling commentary that can be made concerning just how
>> much real effect eating a total raw-food diet actually has on a person's
>> mental health and state of consciousness.

David:
> Funny YOU should speak of morality -- a very subjective issue.  YOU are
> the one who put out a "Bob Avery is dead" post earlier this year,
> remember?

Although many here probably already know the circumstances of this past
practical joke, there are undoubtedly some who don't, so I'll address this.
Yes, the "Avery Death Hoax" was something I was involved in which got out
of control and caused people here on the list considerable anguish. Note,
however, I publicly admitted to, and apologized (voluntarily) two different
times here for my part in it on the listgroup, served out my suspension
from the Raw-Food listgroup without complaint, and learned a big lesson.
Everyone makes mistakes. The key is whether you learn something from them,
and attempt to change afterwards.

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>