IzzAtheist@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> I hope any who are bored by the subject of unfairness on Jerry's list, will
> spend the five seconds it takes to hit delete. For the rest of you...
>
> 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