Regarding my dispute with gore3000 about whether experiments that I cited from the 6th edition of The Origin of Species also appeared in the 1st edition:
gore3000 has graciously conceded, in his reply to a private email, that his search of the 1st edition text was hasty and missed relevant parallel passages. He has given me permission in a subsequent email to convey that concession here.
I accept gore3000's explanation, and I withdraw my claim that he was lying about having checked the text, or the result thereof.
Principal preceeding messages:
Gore (repeats) request for "an example of ONE (1) experiment in the Origins".
#3316
I reply with examples.
#3493
gore3000 suggests I used the 6th edition because my examples didn't appear in the 1st edition, and says he checked this.
#3698
I respond with a table laying out relevant passages from 6th and 1st editions side-by-side. I call gore3000 a liar.
#3813
gore3000 had not publicly responded to the preceeding message, but I reply to another freeper mistakenly thinking it was gore3000. I repeat and expand my charge that he was lying.
#3836
It appears to me from gore3000's email that a disagreement remains between us, but I consider it trivial. Nevertheless I should add that gore3000's concession was specifically with respect to the pidgeon experiments. He seems to take the same position as the freeper I mistakenly responded to in the last message linked, that the red clover fertilization experiments should not be said to be present in the 1st edition (presumably because of the differences I flagged in my table). I've already given my position on this in that last (mistakenly addressed) message.
I hope I've been fair to gore3000 with this summary, and request that he respond if I have not.
It has been fair.
Now he needs to realize that whether the discussion is public or private, if you're going to continue to argue a position, you've got to stay as square with all the pertinent facts as you possibly can. That means eating the crow while it's warm.