[Vision2020] Re: Q & A with DK

[Darrell Keim]

Well, howdy Captain!  Somehow I figured I'd get a response from you.


>DK says,
>
>Thank you for having the courage to, once again, stand up for your beliefs 
>regarding the goings on at Christ Church. It is regrettable that you don’t 
>have the courage to make your statements under your own name, rather than 
>using innuendo and veiled threats under a pseudonym.
>
>You are mistaken; I have not employed innuendo or veiled threats. If you 
>can show me any such thing, I will gladly clarify it for you.

Really?
  Innuendo is defined as: An oblique hint; a remote allusion or reference, 
usually derogatory to a person or thing not named; an insinuation.
  A recent example of innuendo: "The forwarded email was not an internal 
communication of [Christ Church].I'm saving those for a special occasion."
Your derogatory oblique hint is , of course, is that you have a mysterious 
internal communication, intimating that it must be a real rip snorter.


>Hmmm... Makes me wonder... We don’t know your name. Or motive. Why aren’t 
>you being subjected to the same intense debate as Kimmell?
>
>I am not being subjected to public debate because, unlike Commissioner 
>Kimmell, I am not an elected official.

No, but you do open yourself up to question when you make a public claim 
against an elected official.
When one investigates claims one must weigh what is known or can be proved 
about the claim, the accusor and the accused.  We know about your claim, 
Kimmell is certainly being questioned.  Which leads me to a question you 
skipped earlier:
What do we know about you, the accusor?  What's your motive?
    * Truth, justice and the American Way?
    * An enlarged sense of social justice?
    * A need to bring Wilson down?
    * Self aggrandizement?
    * Revenge?
>      And I make no apology for my pseudo-name, I stand in the long 
> distinguished tradition of “a Citizen of New York, “ “Publius,” and “Edna #1.”

And an even longer line of rumor mongers seeking to bring down others 
through gossip and baseless claims.  Which are you?  Honestly, I don't know.

>Sounds like a stereotypical made-for-tv movie plot revolving around a 
>small town when you think about it. A man stands publicly accused by an 
>unnamed source.
>
>Once again you are mistaken. The named source of my accusation is the CEF 
>Elders’ Minutes. Furthermore, the Wolfman, acting as Kimmell’s overseer, 
>has substantiated the accusation.

I am NOT mistaken.  By bringing the purported minutes to light and 
levelling the charges you have become the accuser.  The minutes, and 
Wilsons substantiation, you can claim as proof of your 
charge.  Nonetheless, you remain an unnamed source.  Perhaps I would have 
been more clear if I had said unnamed accuser, rather than unnamed 
source.  Mea culpa.

>A would be town religious leader stirs the pot. Rumors fly! Gossip flows! 
>Maybe we could get Martin Sheen to play Kimmell. Auntie Establishment 
>could have a cameo in a protest scene. Doug Wilson could be played by 
>Werner Klemperer. And the part of Captain Kirker could be played by... The 
>Shadow? The Invisible Man?
>
>My contract precludes anyone but William Shatner from playing me on the 
>silver screen.

Really?  I love Trek, but would rather have someone that could actually act 
portray me.  Guess I'd lean toward Picard if I had to have a Trek actor...

>I won’t quote the bible—many horrible atrocities have been justified with 
>biblical quotes. I refer you to the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you 
>would have them do unto you. Are you following this rule using your 
>current techniques of dissension?
>
>Regarding the Golden Rule, you have in fact quoted the Bible (Luke 6:31), 
>and I have indeed employed it.

Ok.  You got me on that one.  I'm not good at quoting the bible.  But, the 
Golden Rule lies at the heart of many religions, not just our judeo 
christian beliefs.

Curiosity compels me to ask:  How have you followed the Golden Rule in 
regards to Kimmell?

>  You will recall that this discussion began because another one of the 
> Wolfman’s suicide missions posted a defense of Kimmell in this forum on 
> July 30. Unfortunately, he grounded his argument in falsehoods and 
> Kimmell didn’t correct him. Therefore my biblical obligation to both 
> Kimmell and the suicide casualty required that I speak the truth, which I 
> did. However, in doing so, I noted my hesitancy to comment on PK because 
> he is a symptom of the disease, and not the disease itself. Nevertheless, 
> as stated in the elders’ minutes, he has violated the public trust and 
> should have to give an account to those who entrusted him, i.e., the 
> voters of Latah County.
>
>
>
>Regarding “dissension,” I would remind you that the Wolfman has polarized 
>our community (do you remember hatesplotch.net?)

Yes, I'm well aware of the polarization.  It saddens me.  I would argue it 
exists more on v2020 then in the community at large.  Though, it certainly 
is in the overall community, too.  Thanks, in no small part, to Vera Whites 
many quotes from this very listserv!

>, and all conflict will disappear the moment he is excised: “Cast out the 
>scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall 
>cease” (Prov. 22:10).

I wonder how much publicity Wilson and Christ Church have gotten as a 
result of your efforts?  Seems like between your own efforts and Wilsons it 
must be quite a bit.  There really is no such thing as bad publicity, you know.

>To that end I am, and shall remain, the Captain at your service.

I, too, am at your service.  But I prefer to sign off with my name.  Oh, 
and "make it so!"
Later,
Darrell

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20040827/059dcbe0/attachment.htm