Layman

Unless you can demonstrate that Holding wants his home phone number and wife's identity revealed on the Secular Web then you've got no point. I've told a few people who I am. Others have figured it out by abusing their status as Moderators. Does this mean that I can expect the Secular Web to post articles with my home phone number and family information on them?

Like I said, just one big moral copout on your part.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Oh. None of you "hate" him, you only find him "contemptible" and "dishonest" and worthy of riducule.

How much self-respect are you willing to sacrifice on your latest justifications?

Layman

Shhh. Quiet.

You will upset Volk's self-gratifying and serving portrait of the world.

pug846

I’m disappointed that the II is hosting the article even though they traditionally carry Skeptical Review stories. It’s unfortunate that some people don’t see anything disturbing about posting the man’s personal contact information (including his wife’s name and place of business?!). Whether or not it is available elsewhere after some detective work seems to miss at least part of the point: what’s the reason in posting it in that article? (Although it does fit in with the classless tact Till demonstrated throughout his rant.) Sometimes it’s easy to confuse “can” with “should.”

And trying to place atheists (or Christians) as a class of people who are more or less likely to harass others is short-sighted and incredibly naïve. People are people whether they are religious or not. We are all saddled down by that unfortunate thing we call “human nature.” It would be nice if both sides got off their high horses. I hope you all realize how silly you are when you use the terms “atheist” or “Christian” in such a generalized, sweeping, manner.

MrKrinkles

Layman,

I don't know of any Interent skeptics who "hate" Turkel. I think most skeptics who know about his site regard it as beneficial to their cause.

Anyway, I would not post Turkel's name, phone number and home address on my own site. Nor would I directly link to such information from my site. However, I did post his real name once he was no longer anonymous. I did this only after he posted my rather unique real name-without my permission-on his site.

Now, here is my question again: In light of Steve Carr's post, do you agree that Holding/Turkel is dishonest?

Brooks

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: MrKrinkles ]</p>

MrKrinkles

Layman,

Again: In light of what Steve Carr posted, do you believe that Holding/Turkel is dishonest?

Brooks

Vorkosigan

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/turkel.html" target="_blank">This article from five years ago....</a>

• [Editor's Note: We publish here in its entirety Farrell Till's series of replies to Robert Turkel, the anonymous apologist of Tekton Apologetics Ministries also known as James Patrick Holding. Although the Internet Infidels have known Mr. Turkel's real name for over a year now, he requested that we honor his wish to use only the anonymous name under which he publishes and we always honored that request. Since that time, however, we have learned that Mr. Turkel routinely reveals his real name in his e-mail address when he replies to those who send e-mail to him at his web site. Also, Farrell Till, who is not affiliated with the Internet Infidels, has published this reply on alt.bible.errancy, which has subsequently been routed to usenet servers all over the world. With the genie out of the bottle, the Internet Infidels' new policy is to permit the publication of essays (and to link to off-site essays) that reveal Turkel/Holding's real name.]

Cut the whining, Layman. Holding revealed his identity years ago. It has been out there in corporate filings, in phone books....it's public knowledge.

Vorkosigan

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Layman

It's nitpicking like this that makes me skeptical of you skeptics. Okay, change 'hate' to "hostile towards" and you get the same effect. The point is that Till is just baiting Holding's enemies to call his home phone number. That kind of pettiness undercuts the whole piece.

I did not ask what you would do. I really do not care. I'm more interested in WHY you would not do so. Because its an invasion of privacy? Because its petty and demeans only the author of the article? Why? Is this the kind of information the II should post in its Library?

Well, even though you have not answered my question, I will answer yours.

Given Till's obviously agendized head-hunting, and vitriol, no, the article did not convince me that Holding is dishonest. It did convince me that Till is petty and spiteful, and that the II is too loose with its library policey. And that Volk will desparately justify the obviously out-of-bounds because he pretends that no atheists are hot-heads and only Christians are.

Layman

Let me spell it out to you. I would not object to Till posting Holdings's real name and email address. I do object to Till and the II posting Holdings' family information, home address, and home telephone number in a hit piece designed to stip up the skeptical rabble.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Just give the list of those atheist hotheads, Layman. Holding's name and identity have been out there five years. Has he reported a marked increase in harassment from SebWebbers? I am sure he would have been delighted to mention it by now....so my viewpoint has some justification. But don't worry. I am certain the mention of facts will have absolutely no effect on you.

Should it have been posted? I'm not comfortable with it, as I indicated in my first post. Can it be posted? Well, it's public information, out there for many years....I wouldn't have done it. But the issue is whether open and public information can be posted to the SecWeb. What do you think the answer to that one should be?

Vorkosigan