I also ask Till's forgiveness if my reply here is off-topic, but the list is
slow, so I hope the offense is not great.
_____________________________________________________________
Lenny Santee 5/1, Challenge list:
> April,
>
> Typical, Typical, Typical. You make a statements and then offer nothing
> to prove it,but I'm too busy.
Izz
A sarcastic/mocking beginning to an abusive letter that Jerry typically lets
by if the author is Christian.
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hughes writes:
I never commented on your posts to the lists concerning the
disagreement between you and Jerry. For one thing as far as I was
able to see (and as much of it that I read) I did not see you
implying falsehood. You sent the posts, you stated your opinion
concerning Jerry's actions.
Izz
Well! Just when I was starting to think all Christians were blindly unfair.
I am glad that you feel I have posted no falsehoods. I try very hard to be
correct in all that I say.
Michael:
Personally I think I would have suggested to both Bill and you *in
private e-mail* that you both were at least borderline. I don't
think I would have taken it to the list however.
Izz
That certainly would have been more fair than what Jerry did, which was
to publically announce that Bill was blameless, and that I for no good reason
attacked him. Also, if he had simply let me post my rebuttal, I would have
been willing to go on and drop the matter. But no, he insisted on posting
his letter containing new accusations, and would not let me respond in public
to his public criticism, and that was too much for me.
Michael:
I have been on lists and news groups for several years, both
moderated and non-moderated. I have found moderators to sometimes be
fair, sometimes not, but always human capable of error and
mishandling. I have been *censored* and indeed even kicked off of
moderated lists (on one occasion for expressing my disagreement in
private e-mail to the moderator).
Izz:
Sounds amazing, but I guess there is no limit to irrational behavior.
Michael:
That kind of thing is going to
occur on occasion especially when the topic is as emotionally taut as
are the topics on both Errancy and Challenge. My suggestion is (for
what little it is worth) that you have expressed your disagreement
with the moderator, now go ahead and move on.
Izz
I fully intend to. I will no longer post to Jerry's list, so there will
never be a repetition of his actions towards me. I see however, that he is
still ignoring the attacks that Christians are making on those others who do
post.
Michael
Hopefully the moderator will show even-handedness and do his best.
Experience tells me that if this is not the case then the list will not last
anyway. :)
Izz
Sounds reasonable. I expect that Jerry will be quite arbitrary in his
manner of dealing with what he objects to. This means that at times he may be
very tolerant of those he dislikes. Arbitrary enforcement of rules is
probably deeply ingrained in Jerry. It is the technique the military uses to
keep people in line. That way you can have the appearance of legitimacy while
in fact exercising tyranny.
Michael
BTW, the ad hominum comments that you refer to seem to have only
been from Bill Carrell's own admittedly ad hominum comments. While I
have not read *every* post to Challenge or Errancy, I think the
*friends* that you refer to actually consists of only this one
incident.
Izz
Oh, no, that is not what I meant at all. Even in this short space of
time, I have seen more ad hominem attacks, comments of a personal nature, and
violations of Jerry's rules. I do not think that Jerry would recognise an ad
hominem coming from a Christian if it walked up and bit him. A few examples:
Paul 4/29
> If you
> cannot give explanation for first cause and support every detail in
> every step of the way, and knowing why it was done that way, then you
> are promoting a system of unbelief that dangerously influences others to
> simply live for the present because you are not sure that God exists.
This is a violation of Jerry's rule 6.
6. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on
him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them.
It also is a false argument, implying that the truth of an idea is determined
by how one feels about its consequences. Jerry's rule 7 prohibits
"sophistry".
Another violation, from the same letter:
Paul
>Now I would like to hear YOUR explanation in detail for the first
> cause, and then demonstrate in detail every step of the creation>
Violates Jerry's Rule 3:
3. Unless it is for emphasis, all capital letters are forbidden as this is
equivalentto shouting. If you use all caps for emphasis you must put in
parenthesis behind the word (emphasis).
Daniel:
"The atheist MUST do one of two things: Either 1) Confess to the world
> that he is the one who decides what is right and wrong for everyone; or
Another violation of rule 3.
Bill Carrel:
". . . For one thing, the basic foundation of atheism assume
something you can't possibly know -- that God DOES NOT exist. This is an
incredibly stupid philosophical position to take! To know this, you
would have to know everything. For unless you do, the one thing you
might not know is that God does exist."
Izz
Violation of rule 3.
Violation of Rule 1, part 3 .
Violation of Rule 8
Bill calls atheism "incredibly stupid", violating Rule 8: "Since there may
be atheists on the list, Christians need to remember to treat them with as
much regard as we treat each other."
This next excerpt by Bill is full of rule violations:
> I suggest we avoid as much as possible questions such as this and the
other
> one they are trying so hard to get in, namely "What is stealing?" Also
what
> is the Bible definition of rape? Does the Bible condemn slavery? There
is a
> proper place for these questions, but they are not the thesis or theme of
> this forum.
It is humorous to see Bill saying this, because Michael simply destroyed the
idea that one could use the Bible to define many ideas such as stealing, and
poor Bill was so afraid of this line of argument that he is pleading to the
list to ignore it. Now when I told Bill that he should feel free to ignore MY
OWN arguments if he felt it was a waste of time, Jerry posted to the list
that I had no business saying so.
Bill
These questions here consume the time and energies of
> participants to no good end. If one doesn't know what stealing is, let
him
> look it up in a dictionary. To quibble over such things is truly a waste
of
> time, even as is this quibble over the definition of murder. So I suggest
> that if someone raises that question again we just ignore it.
Izz
Now for another juicy rule violation:
Bill
> What is becoming increasingly clear is that some would have us dancing
like
> puppets on a stick, chasing this pointless objection, then that, until we
> quit in disgust. It will be my purpose to give material I think will be
> helpful in combatting the insidious influence of godless humanism in our
> education system and in our world.
"some would have us dancing like puppets on a stick...until we quit in
disgust"
violates rule 5:
"No one has the right to accuse his adversary with indirect motives."
It also violates:
Rules 3rd. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without effect,
in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. All
expressions may be considered as unmeaning which contribute nothing
to the proof of the question, such as desultory remarks, and
declamatory expressions, alltechnical ambiguities and equivocal
expressions.
Bill's "combatting the insidious influence of godless humanism" is another
violation of rule 8.
Or how about the following post:
L. Davis
"Personally, I find your cutesy crude poems offensive and don't believe
they have any relevancy to any discussion on this list. Could you please
refrain?"
What did that add to the discussion? Why are Christian remarks like this
posted? Because Jerry doesn't read Christian posts before posting, perhaps?
Later, Jerry declares that the poem is acceptable, so why did he not reject
this post, informing Davis that he has no grounds for complaint? Because he
doesn't read them til later.
Another post, which is pure insult, by Lenny Santee:
> April,
>
> Typical, Typical, Typical. You make a statements and then offer nothing
> to prove it,but I'm too busy. You are the one who was offering proof
> that animals share in human morality. Then when called to offer proof
> you either can not or will not. Why would need to read the works of some
> other human? I grew up on a farm and have been around animals all my
> life. I know that animal do not have morality.
Lenny's "typical, typical, typical" is a violation of rule 1, section 3
against declamatory expression. This beginning is highly mocking and if I was
April I would be very offended, as Lenny clearly intended.
April had argued that animals have morals, but then stated that the proof was
in Jane Goodall's works, and the interested person should read it himself,
April saying she did not have the time to re-read and present the material.
Santee is especially wrong here, trying to imply that April's failure to
reproduce Goodall's work is an indication that the arguement is untrue. Even
if April had more time, she can hardly be expected to present all of
Goodall's work, and Santee is so adamant in his opposition to the idea that
animals are moral that he would demand proof for every little detail. April
is perfectly justified in telling Santee to read the book, and Santee's
manner is both sophistry and mocking in its tone.
Michael
I am, btw, one of Jerry's friends as you may have gathered
from some of the posts on Errancy. That doesn't mean that I always
agree with him or the way that he handles something. It does mean
that I will not allow him to be falsely maligned as John has
attempted to do. (I also usually let Jerry know how I feel about
things, but I personally believe that this thing is way out of
proportion at this point).
L8r,
Michael P. Hughes
http://www.odd.net/ozarks/churches/cchrist/camdenton/index.htm
Izz
Thank you for your very civil and reasonable post, Michael.
Izz