Izz:
What in the above is inconsistent with being a Nazi? Nazi=92s served thei=
r
country in war, and they were in the police, too. In fact, to be in the
Gestapo, I bet Nazi Party membership was highly desirable, if not mandato=
ry.
You may indeed have made a lousy Nazi, but so far you have given no evide=
nce
that you are not like a Nazi. Also, why are you always citing your being =
a
police officer? Since you always mention it, tell us exactly your status,
rank, and what police force.
McDonald
As far as my being beaten on the list is concerned, not in your=20
wildest dreams bud. I was stopped from continuing my discussions on=20
the inspiration of the Bible because we got into evolution and=20
everyone complained about that. So, I won't discuss these things any=20
more on this list. I will just go to my own list and discuss them=20
there. No one on this list has said anything that has even come close to=
=20
beating my arguments that I have posted.
Izz
I have been on the list since February, a relatively short time, but I ha=
ve
not seen you make a solid case for anything, and mostly you have been sil=
ent.
Your =93inspiration of the Bible=94 series was erroneous. You never did r=
espond
to my rebuttal of your attempt to explain the Fig Tree contradiction.
McDonald
I haven't responded to much of=20
what you people have brought up since because I have been busy=20
working my own list. I will respond to things now and then, but=20
don't expect me to be as active on this list as I was when I have to=20
work my own list.
Izz
You have not been active since February when I got on the list.
McDonald
Izz, you know that you were very insulting to Bill Carrell.=20
Izz
You keep saying that, but you ignore all my arguments. How come? Bill nev=
er
made much over the matter, and what he did post confirmed that he insulte=
d
me. I think you saw my post, whipped off a brief general statement agains=
t
=93harsh=94 letters, and have been covering up your error ever since. You=
love
talking about being a cop, and using cop analogies, so here is one - you =
made
a bad arrest, and whenever you do, you are trained to cover it up.
McDonald
Bill just asked you why since you didn't believe in God that you would=20
even object to the things that happened to those little babies. When=20
he said you had a ways to go, he wasn't saying that you weren't worth=20
anything, he was merely saying that you needed to lay some ground=20
work before you could legitimately complain, and before he thought it=20
would be worth the time to do the research. I explained all this to=20
you, but you have chosen to ignore it.
Izz
I have not ignored it in the slightest. I have written AT LENGTH showing =
how
your analysis is a rewriting of the truth, you are leaving out the
implications based on the style and wording, rewriting it to say what the
original does not state, and the final proof is by Bill Carrell himself,=
who
admitted he wrote an ad hominem. I have posted my replies on your list, o=
n
errancy, even mailed them out myself when you censored them. How can you =
say
I have ignored this explanation of yours? I have also shown that if what =
you
say were true, your handling of the matter is inconsistent with your excu=
se.
Now, when have you ever dealt with any of MY points? Never. When you disc=
uss
the matter, all you say is I was rude, Bill was not, end of story. Kind o=
f
like the way you think about the Bible, isn=92t it?
McDonald
You wanted the last word on=20
this on my list and you aren't going to get the last word.
Izz
Ah, but I did get the last word. I mailed out the letter you refused to p=
ost.
McDonald
I considered posting your response, but then I would have had to have=20
posted a response behind it
Izz
Why? If you had already said all you wanted to say, what more was there?
Unless you felt that you could not let a post by me go UNANSWERED? That =
is
what I keep saying, Jerry. You live by a double standard. You want to put
things out without letting other people have a say. That is censorship, i=
f
you are the list owner.
McDonald
and then you would have wanted another.=20
Izz
Yeah, I=92m funny that way. I just won=92t let someone misrepresent thing=
s, if I
can help it. I think that both sides of a question giving their views lea=
ds
to truth.
McDonald
So I just stopped it where it was.=20
Izz
All you did was censor me from your list. My message got out anyway.
McDonald
In my publication, Christians will always get the last word,=20
Izz
That is why I am not posting. If you want to run a propaganda forum
masquerading as a list of open exchange of ideas, you are off to a good
start.
McDonald
just like atheists will always get the last word in the Skeptical Review.
What's wrong with that, huh? =20
That's the rules that Till has operated by ever since TSR has been in=20
existence. He claimed at one time to give inerrantists the last=20
word, but every time we sent him an article he would always have=20
something to say about it in the end, and he knows this to be true. =20
As the editor of the publication, he has the last word, just like the=20
editor of any other publication on this manner. I don't find fault=20
with that.
Izz
False analogy. Till doesn=92t censor your rebuttals, does he? You did.
Also, a magazine is different than a list. It would cost you nothing to h=
ave
added my response. You simply did not want your readers to see my answers.
McDonald
Also, you said that I was confused about which message you said that=20
I was sitting on. Since I didn't turn the computer on that day until=20
about 6:30 p.m. and then I downloaded my mail and sent it to the list=20
(with the exception of your's and John's on the matter between you=20
and Bill Carrell) with the promise that I would take care of it when=20
I came in off of patrol, and you say that this was not the one that=20
you accused me of sitting on, just which message was it. I asked you=20
this in a personal message and you have refused to answer. All I got=20
out of you was that you were unsubscribing to my list. So, since you=20
are not going to tell me privately, maybe you can tell me publicly. =20
Just which message are you referring to?.
Izz
I already said on Errancy that the letter you sat on was later printed. I
believe that it was my first rebuttal. I could check, but then I will hav=
e to
start looking at posting times, and I don=92t see the big deal. It defini=
tely
was not the last letter. One reason I was irked was not your fault. AOL i=
s
sometimes very slow about the mail, but I was not thinking about that at =
the
time.
McDonald
Challenge is not a highly one-sided mailing list. As long as people=20
are willing to abide by what few rules I have set forth, then anyone=20
can participate.=20
Izz
Your handling of the Carrell dispute was one-sided. Your policing of the =
list
has been one-sided so far.
McDonald
I have not once, censored anyone's post concerning their beliefs.
Izz
My beef so far has not been that you have censored beliefs, but that you =
are
totally incapable of recognizing in a fair manner violations of your rule=
s.
Indeed, your rules are so subject to interpretation, that they would take
quite a bit of knowledge and disinterestedness to apply fairly, not to
mention time in reading all the letters closely. A BIG beef I have is tha=
t I
pointed out to you that Bill Carrell publicly stated he would in the futu=
re
engage in ad hominems, and you have totally ignored me.
McDonald
I did refuse to post Izz's last response because if I=20
had posted his, I would have had to have posted April's, John's, and=20
Farrell's. Then I am sure that there would be some on my side who=20
would have wanted to respond. If I allowed that all I would have is=20
haggling over who started what.
Izz
Your list is not all that big, Jerry. Its not like there wasn=92t room fo=
r
those posts, and others, too. We are talking about at most, another 10 po=
sts
before all that can be said would have been said. Meanwhile, people
uninterested would simply ignored the subject, and posted unrelated lett=
ers.
McDonald
Challenge is a discussion list where anyone can come and discuss these
issues. =20
Izz
Anyone who is willing to be abused by Christians and not retaliate.
McDonald
Till has a rule that "errancy" is a list to discuss only the inerrancy (o=
r
errancy) of the Bible.=20
Izz
And we all know how strictly he has enforced keeping to the topic.
McDonald
I noticed that when people got off on evolution that everyone=20
on Till's side got upset.
Izz
We got upset, because we know that Christians avoid inerrancy because the
Bible is errant, and they look stupid when they try to show its not. Peer
pressure is the only sanction used on errancy.
McDonald
As April asked me, "what's a little=20
digression?" No, Till has rules and I am obeying those rules to the=20
best of my ability. I will no longer discuss issues like evolution.
Izz
You are also hardly posting, and you have been hardly posting for months.
McDonald
The only reason I am sending this post is because of all the mail=20
that has been generated over my so-called censorship. I want to get=20
it out to everyone that I was not censoring John's signature. Since=20
he and Izz both admit it, there should be no more discussion on the=20
matter. However, if there is, it won't come from me because this is=20
the last thing I will ever say on the matter.
Izz
I am not John, so that matter does not concern me. He has stated that you=
did
not censor him. What more do you want? I also have stated that the letter=
I
said you sat on did get posted. I understand your confusion and indignati=
on
because you thought that post referred to the letter you excused yourself=
on
saying you would answer later, and I assure you that I was not referring =
to
that post, my letter was written before that and was referring to a prior
letter. You did censor my last letter, and since you show NO sign of
prohibiting offensive comments by Christians, (see my latest post to Mich=
ael
Hughes) I won=92t post to your list. You are lucky you have Till, Michae=
l
Fisher, April and John posting or your list would be quite dead.
Izz
PS. Don=92t get me wrong, McDonald. I really do not have a problem with
abusive posts by Christians. But when you take away my right to retaliate=
, I
get upset. If you want to play cop, you better enforce the law more
equitably. Your list is more like a city where crime is rampant, while th=
e
police only protect the people they like, while arresting those who defen=
d
themselves.
PPS=20
You ever see Beverly Hills Cop 2 ? - remember the scene where Axel Foley
investigates the office of the rich businessman bad-guy, who when he figu=
res
out Foley is on to him, has his goons throw Foley out the front window of=
the
hotel? Remember what happens next? Yeah, the businessman calls the cops, =
who
come and arrest Foley for disturbing the peace! That is how your list is
policed currently.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
"Well, I'm willing to try not to [post ad hominems], but from past experi=
ence
I
doubt if it will work. So I'll not make any promises. " - Bill Carrell