[Vision2020] Re: Vision2020 Digest, Vol 3, Issue 77

[Ted Ryan]

Can I answer two posts in one?  I will try.

For crying out loud, I don't know what you are implying by the question "who
is Ted Ryan" but I am not someone else in disguise.  I am new to the forum,
but not the discussion and I am, for the time being, a resident of Western
Washington.  Jumping to conclusions based on nothing but your own
speculation is exactly what has fed the arronious claims in this forum.
Besides, while I love the name my parents gave me, I would have picked
something other than Ted Ryan, if I was in disguise...

Secondly, about the tolerance post, you cannot be tolerant and intolerant at
the same time.  Which is why I asked Tom to choose (which he hasn't done).
Are you answering for Tom then?  Or should I expect a response soon?

Additionally, this forum is NOT tolerant of many from Christ Church, you
would like them to shut up and leave.  That has been made quite clear by
more than one poster to this forum.  So I called them on it.

You said: "...to recognize his right to think and act without criticism."
No one has asked to act without criticism, what they have asked for is to
express that critisism and discussion properly, justly, and fairly,
something that has not occured with those leveling unjustified, untrue and
downright silly posts to this forum.  Much of what has been said is simply
not true, yet many are still blowing that horn.  At what point will you
people recognize how you have perpetuated these claims, often based on
nothing but your own speculation.  Case in point, no one bothered to ask my
identity without the assumption that I must be someone else behind the name.
No one gave me the benefit of the doubt saying something like "Ted Ryan,
would you please kindly tell us who you are, we would like a chance to get
to know you better".  Instead, the presumpisition was that I was an
imposter.  That is a violation of basic logical discourse.

It is little wonder many have left this forum due to the lack of any logical
rules for discourse.

If you asked most of the accused, they desire to be at peace with all men
(mankind).  I too aspire to this end and would like nothing better then to
sit down with you all, buy a round of Alaskan Amber and laugh together,
hearty laughter, the kind that comes with knowing you are an eternal soul
and well, the beer tastes fine.

Ted Ryan



>
> Ted Ryan writes responding to Tom Hansen:
>
> >From a previous post of mine (corrected spelling though, apologies for
making
> your eyes endure that sin)
>
> How can anyone mistake that the above style/syntax?
>
> But for an expert opinion:
>
> Captain Kirker:  As an expert on language, style, syntax, diversionary
tactics,
> and personal writing style, who is Ted Ryan?
>
> Wayne
>
> Art Deco  (Wayne Fox)
> deco at moscow.com
>
> Ted Ryan observes and asks:
>
> > The narrow-mindedness expressed here is really appalling and, not very
diverse
> > or tolerant.  Which is it, diversity and tolerance, or intolerance and
> > diversity void?  You can't have it both ways.
>
>
> Sure you can.  You can be intolerant of intolerance.  You're posing this
question in a very Wilsonian way, Mr. Ryan; you're assuming that any genuine
tolerance of Doug's right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression
would oblige us to recognize his right to think and act without criticism.
Sorry; ain't no such thing.  There is room on the Palouse for you and me and
Doug and Tom: that's diversity.  And you and I and Doug and Tom have the
right to think and speak as we see fit: that's tolerance.  The judicious
application of criticism does not create a conflict between tolerance and
diversity.  Everyone has the right to be an angel or an ass, just as
everyone has the right to applaud or boo.  I'm booing.  I don't like
unelected parsons claiming a right to oversight of elected officials.
>