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.
TILL
I have followed the thread, and I understand that some of the confusion
resulted from Jerry's defense of Izz's signature not having been seen by Izz
until today. As for Jerry's fairness, I know him personally and have had
various exchanges with him through written debates, an oral debate, articles
in both his paper and mine, and I have found him to be fair, much, MUCH
fairer than any other preacher I have dealt with. Our only problems have
been bogged-down disagreements over debating rules. This kept a second oral
debate from materializing because I insisted on the right to make some of
the major decisions on format and rules. In the disagreement over Bill
Carrell's intentions, however, I have to disagree with Jerry. I thought
that Carrell definitely injected sarcasm into his response to Izz. I know
Carrell through his participation on the errancy list and personal e-mail
that he and I exchanged, and he is fully capable of sarcasm and insults. As
I have said many times, however, this doesn't bother me, and I think that
those who are bothered by it should forget about trying to debate, because
emotional situations are going to arise in debates where even the most
even-tempered opponents will lose their patience.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net