[Vision2020] Teds brown nose just got longer

[Captain Kirker]

Ted asks:

I am not sure about the “too many misrepresentations.” You have not asked me about them, why not? What have a misrepresented?

I have not asked you about your misrepresentations to avoid redundancy on this list. Several people have already engaged you, but like the Wolfman you have obfuscated. However, since you asked, here is a short list of your misrepresentations. Each quote comes from separate posts of yours:

August 13—“And don’t forget that the reason we are even having this ‘debate’ is information taken from a local church through unethical means.”

Your statement is false; the minutes were not taken through unethical means, and you have the burden of proof to show otherwise.

August 13—“But that isn’t even the point, why are we allowing this to continue on the basis of documents obtained falsly?”

Once again, your statement is untrue; the documents (plural) were not obtained falsely, and they weren’t obtained falsly either.

August 14—“Those responsible for the error in the original pamphlet have already admitted to the error and have taken the steps to correct it. Why are we still talking about it? Can’t we accept their apology and move on?”

No, we cannot. Those responsible for the error admitted to “sloppiness,” denying the charge of plagiarism. But since the definition of plagiarism is not predicated on “intent,” their admission is a lie. And as SSAIW says,

“Where there is sin, let us freely confess and forsake it. But because we have resolved to abandon sin, this must include the sin of believing a lie.” (Wilkins and the Wolfman, SSAIW [Moscow: Canon Press, 1996] 8, emphasis original.)

Ted, I do not want to commit the sin of believing a lie. Do you?

August 24—“And yet you seem to forget that they [Wilkins and the Wolfman] also call for slaveries end.”

This is untrue. They never called for slaveries [sic] end. However, after extolling the wonders of the South’s peculiar institution for 39 pages, they wrote,

“None need lament the passing of slavery. But who cannot but lament the damage to both white and black that has occurred as a consequence of the way it was abolished? We are forced to say that, in many ways, the remedy which has been applied has been far worse than the disease ever was.

     The issue of slavery was used to provoke a revolution in 1861. That revolution has continued to this day, and slavery has increased in our land as a result. It is time for us to stand and declare the truth about slavery and to expose the failures of the abolitionist worldview. Having done this, we must go on to proclaim the only truth which can set all men truly free from slavery—the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ibid., 39.)

Follow the implications. Wilkins and the Wolfman believe they told the truth about slavery and they stand opposed to abolitionism.

August 27—“We have another internal communication of CC brought wrongfully into a public forum.”

Your statement is untrue, and as before, you have the burden of proof.

September 1—“FOR THE FOURTH TIME, I AM NOT DEFENDING SLAVERY AND I AM NO ADVOCATING FOR ITS RETURN. I thought this was clear. My original post was only meant to point out the misunderstandings, mangling and quotations out of context of the original pamphlet [SSAIW].”

You may not be defending slavery, but Wilkins and the Wolfman did. The following quote, taken from the SSAIW, states the authors’ thesis:

The institution of slavery has so blackened the Southern position that nothing about the South can be viewed as good or right. Slavery is considered to be such a wicked practice that it alone is sufficient to answer the question of which side was right in that unfortunate war. The fact that the South practiced slavery is enough to cause many moderns to feel they do not even have to listen to the various biblical and constitutional arguments that swirled around that controversy. Consequently, to have a closed mind on this issue is to be cloaked in virtue.

     How could men have supported slavery? The question is especially difficult when we consider that these were men who lived in a pervasively Christian culture. We have all heard of the heartlessness—the brutalities, immoralities, and cruelties—that were supposedly inherent in the system of slavery. We have heard how slave families were broken up, of the forcible rape of slave women, of the brutal beatings that were a commonplace, about the horrible living conditions, and of the unrelenting work schedule and back-breaking routine—all of which go together to form our impression of the crushing oppression which was slavery in the South. The truthfulness of this description has seldom been challenged.

     The point of this small booklet is to establish that this impression is largely false. (Ibid., 7, 8)

Again, consider this sales’ copy for SSAIW, posted on the Canon Press website:

How is it that a pervasively Christian culture could have supported slavery? While opposing the South’s abuses and racism, this essay seeks to correct some of the gross slanders of that culture. It explains Scripture’s defense of a form of slavery against evangelicals who are embarrassed by it.

Don’t be embarrassed, Ted, open your mind and concede the point. The authors of SSAIW co-plagiarized their monograph to defend the Southern institution of slavery.

So, you are guilty of at least one misrepresentation. You have assumed, incorectly, something about me and in the very same post accuse me of misrepresentation?

My incorrect assumption does not constitute a misrepresentation. However your representation as such does. Furthermore, my assumption has nothing to do with your multiple misrepresentations.

I have no quarrel with you, can’t we discuss these issues with more civilality?

I thought we were.

Is it so important that you bash someone nearly every time you post?

I have not bashed anyone. Now, if you have any decency, please make the appropriate restitution for your falsehoods. Otherwise your brown nose will push through the Wolfman’s abdomen.


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20040902/d2452f85/attachment.htm