<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>John,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thanks for your detailed interaction. I think what follows will
help clarify the problems with Eugenie Scott’s talk. Thanks!<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michael Previously Wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> certainly, this is not a debate that can be won by pointing out
some bad <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> science found in a few Creation Science publications,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>John Writes:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Actually, that is exactly how this debate can be settled. Creation
science wants to play in the scientific field, so it should be judged by
scientific standards.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I do agree that it is legitimate to argue for the fact that Creation
science is not good science by giving individual examples of bad science.
But this is only the case if it is done in a clearly argumentative way;
Scott’s method was purely rhetorical. She spent much time getting
folks laughing at a few very isolated examples; the examples given did not form
any sort of coherent argumentative picture at all outside of illustrating what
was supposed to be assumed as the general imbecilic nature of Creation science.
With the little amount of knowledge I have about Creation science, one thing
was certain about her examples: they would not be largely characteristic of the
work done by the many brilliant PhD scientists laboring who identify themselves
with Creation science. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(for those of you who heard the talk: Given the strong rhetorical
method of Scott, I did not find scrutinizing any given example
interesting. However, Dr. <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Gordon Wilson</st1:PersonName>
of New St. Andrews pointed out that the picture of the white and black moths
that Scott could only role her eyes over was actually a very well argued
point. These moths do not spend their time on the bark of trees but under
leaves. If so, Scott did not bother to carefully understand the argument she
was ridiculing. But as Dr. Wilson pointed out, you can find bad science
anywhere if you are just looking for a few isolated examples.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michael Previously Wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> some of which were not even posing as 'scientific publications.'<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>John Writes:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The ID strategy clearly involves trying to pose as science.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>My point was that the examples Scott gave were not found within
publications that were necessarily posing as scientific, academic journals.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michael Originally Wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> Running throughout her presentation were claims regarding the
"incoherence,"<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> "logical fallacies," and "false alternatives"
of the Creation Science and<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> Intelligent Design movements (from here 'ID').These were various,
but they<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> all had a common theme. Roughly, ID proposes Darwinsim or
Tradition,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> Evolution or Creation, Atheism or Scientific Explanation of
origins, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>John Writes:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The false alternative Scott presented was that ID supporters claim that
there are only two possible explanations on the origins of modern life:
evolution or creation. So, according to ID supporters, if you can show that our
current understanding of evolution fails, creationism has been proven. Scott
then argued that this is flawed reasoning. If our current understanding of
evolution is shown to be false, there are many possible alternative explanations,
such as self organized systems, alien inoculation (panspermia), and the many
many different variations of creationism. <snip> and that is good enough.
She explains the strategy of ID by explaining the wedge strategy. What's your
point? <snip> Johnson is indeed arguing for the wedge strategy.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Scott says he is. You say he is. What's the problem?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Ted and I have already addressed this misconception of her argument and
my criticism. To reiterate: Scott claimed that Phil Johnson was guilty of a
‘false dilemma’ or ‘false alternative’ as are many
other folks. This false dilemma is claimed to show up explicitly in Phil
Johnson’s wedge strategy. However, this claim of Scott’s is
erroneous for two reasons. First of all, and most importantly, part of
Phil Johnson’s work is arguing for this very conclusion. He argues for
the fact that the only two viable options are evolution or creation. For
him to commit a false alternative fallacy, he would have to wrongly assume that
these are the only two options. Debates can be won by not leaving all
relevant options on the table. But not only does Phil Johnson not assume
this alternative, this is the very thing he is trying to convince people
of. From what I can recall of the wedge strategy is just this: to give
rational evidence and argument for the fact that evolution and creation are the
only two viable options. Perhaps he is wrong, but he would have to be
interacted with regarding the evidence and arguments he gives for this
conclusion; simply crying ‘false alternative’ is a straw man as
strawy as they come. But given the fact that I became convinced half way
through the talk that Scott was primarily interested in holding an evolutionary
pep rally instead of giving a solid argument, this was not surprising to me. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Secondly, noting other ‘logical possibilities’ does not
entail a ‘false alternative’ as long as the participants in a
discussion are only interested in the proposed limited options. In fact, this
is almost always the way discussion and argument works. The historical
and cultural context of this broad debate very naturally limits the two options
to creationism and evolution. Just because anther option might be a
logical possibility does not mean that this option is probable or interesting
for any given group of people. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michel Previously Wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> But in any case, Scott goes on and concludes with an analysis
explaining <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> why ID gets the categories confused: what ID and associates fail
to <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> recognize is the distinction between Methodological Materialism
and <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> Philosophical Materialism. Science is all about Methodological
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> Materialism and not about Philosophical Materialism at all. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>John Writes:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>This is not what Scott said. As I've said above, she mentioned that
according to ID there are only two explanations for the origins of modern life:
evolution and creationism. She argues there are many many more possible
explanations. So, demonstrating evolution is false does not demonstrate
creationism is true. ID supporters pretend evolution is the only explanation
for the origins of modern life in the natural realm. They then try to attack
and disprove evolution to prove a supernatural origin of life. This is a flawed
strategy, because there can be many more natural explanations other than
evolution. Lamarckism, for example, was one such alternative explanation.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>This idea has been proven wrong, but it was not a supernatural one.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I think you are confusing two things that Scott herself kept
separate. Distinguishing between Philosophical and Methodological
Naturalism was a very separate and clearly articulated point. In fact, I
think it would be a very fruitful point to make. I think this is an
important distinction, and much care needs to be taken in understanding the
difference between these to stances. The problem however, is that Scott
was trying to show that limiting the discussion in the classroom to the
physical world of scientific study is in no way meant to deny the existence of
God. She said that Christians were still allowed to believe in God and
that a purely Methodological Naturalism does not entail a Philosophical
Naturalism. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Now, much could be said about this distinction, but none of it is
really needed since Scott went on and presented not a thesis of Methodological
Naturalism, but rather a thesis of robust Philosophical Naturalism. Therefore,
her argument did not only not work, she fails precisely where she claims to
win. Scott agrees that it is very important to NOT be a Philosophical
Naturalist; to do that would to embrace assumptions antithetical to a theistic
worldview. And then she goes on and demonstrates that she demands nothing
short of a Philosophical Naturalism in the science classroom—scientism
101 of the beastly and tyrannical kind. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michael Originally Wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> And if there are any doubts in your mind about this, let me tell
you what <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> happened after. In the brief question and answer period that
followed, one <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> gentleman posed a question regarding the mystery of how human
psychology and <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> the physical body inter-relate-no doubt a question generated by
the <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> Philosophical Materialist thesis asserted by Scott. Scott's
response was <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> quick, resolved, and emphatic: There is nothing mystical or
mysterious about <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> the mind. Period. Scott admitted that some people like
to say that the mind <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> is mysterious, but this is not true. The Mind can be studied
entirely within <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> the methodology of science.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>John Writes:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Indeed. And there is nothing wrong with this statement. The human mind
is routinely studied scientifically, without a need for the paranormal.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>This is not my argument. Methodological Naturalism is naturalism
‘only in practice.’ For the sake of a limiting methodology, we
practically ‘assume’ the only items of interest to be those items
of physical science. When we rule out paranormal or normal non-physical
causes or explanations (such as experience), this makes us work hard at finding
as many physical, scientific explanations as possible; it keeps us honest and
within the sphere of physical models. Since this sort of naturalism is only
methodological, we can put up our hands and reference non-physical entities or
causation at anytime we feel it is necessary. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>However, Philosophical Naturalism is the thesis that all there is in
the world to know can be fully knowable via Naturalistic explanation.
There is nothing in the world that does not permit scientific
understanding. This is why Scott shunned the idea that there was anything
we “just can’t know” via science. This is what was so
important about how she answered the question regarding the mystery of the
human mind. She was clear that the mind is not mysterious; there is
nothing about the mind that cannot be understood through science and natural,
physical explanation. This is an explicit and clear statement of what is
called Philosophical Materialism, or to use her terminology, Philosophical
Naturalism. When the mystery of the Mind is proposed, of essential
reference is not just the nervous system and neurons, but human experience,
subjectivity, individuality, intentionality along with those items of reality
that seem to attach themselves to all this, such as beauty, love, morality, and
‘meaning.’ All of these things, according to Philosophical
Materialism, can be fully explained, and therefore ‘reduced’ to
physical description via scientific explanation. This is a point of view
at war with a Christian view and even plain old folk-traditional thought.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I don’t think the reasons Scott would make this kind of mistake
are difficult to imagine, and it did seem as though she was confusing
“natural world” with “physically explainable
world.” But regardless, she did reveal that her paradigm was
reductionistic, begging the very question she was attempting to answer regarding
the relationship between theism and the science classroom. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>John Writes:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> There is no conspiracy!<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Correct. Just good old institutional politics. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thanks!<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michael Metzer<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>