[Vision2020] Plan in Action

[J Ford]

Continuing the "Letter Not Sent" line, the following comments have been 
added to Doug's "explanation" (translated: excuse) for his actions.  If find 
it very interesting that after ten years (+) of this, the new excuse is JUST 
now coming out.  Riachtanas teagascs a plean - Need teaches a plan.



    Doug, your line of thinking makes no sense. It goes like this: They 
couldn't be trying to deceive because too many people would remember that 
the letter was never sent, so they must have made an honest mistake because 
NONE of them remembered the letter was never sent..... Is this YOUR 
explanation of what they did, or have you received this explanation from 
them and you're passing it on? If you haven't talked to them then you're 
just guessing, you weren't there, and you have no way of knowing why they 
did what they did. If you have talked to them and are passing on what they 
told you, then you're depending on their memory. Memories which your earlier 
argument admits are faulty.

        M K - 2/15/2006 9:14:17 PM

    M, first your question about the signatures. They either noticed they 
were not there, and thought the letter was sent out with (something like) 
verbal approval because everyone was not physically present. That kind of 
thing happens. I am not physically going to sign this post. Or they didn't 
notice that the signatures were missing. They either didn't notice, and made 
this honest mistake, or they noticed and made the honest mistake. When it 
comes to signatures, in this situation, all kinds of weird things have 
happened. It is understandable to not see that a signature is missing in the 
flurry of answering a battery of charges. But Bob Callihan signed his "this 
is only a proposal" letter, and it has been three years with us pointing at 
it, and Terry still can't see it. Can you see it? Signatures are funny.

        Douglas Wilson - 2/15/2006 9:23:33 PM

    Mark, give it a break. You have two options: (a) the elders made a 
simple error because they trusted the notebook that Pastor Wilson gave them 
OR (b) the elders are conspiring against their brothers in Christ out of a 
vengeful spirit. We, as mere men, cannot see other men's hearts. We have no 
hard and fast evidence against them (for example, a video recording of them 
knowingly conspiring and laughing at the trouble they would cause their 
brothers). They tell us it is a mistake, and we have to take that in good 
faith because they are our brothers in Christ . If it is from a vengeful 
spirit, they have much more to fear from God than they do from us. Like I 
said before, give it up. Love "thinketh no evil" (1 Cor. 13:5). All men, 
Christians or not, should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

        D C. M - 2/15/2006 9:33:47 PM

    Mark, here is the "line of thinking," in plain English. These men are my 
Christian brothers and scrupulously honest. I believe them. But let us say 
that someone out there is suspicious of these honorable men for whatever 
personal reasons (bitterness, ideology, internet-fever, whatever). For that 
person, who does not want to simply accept the reasonable explanation 
offered, here is the deal. If they knew the letter was not sent, and 
publicly claimed that it *was* sent, and they claimed this in a controversy 
with Terry Morin, knowing that he would call them on it, along with any 
number of others who knew it wasn't sent, but they tried it anyway, it would 
follow from this that these men are stupid. These men are not stupid. 
Therefore it was an honest mistake. If it was an attempt to pull something, 
we would have brazened it out. Terry has made a number of claims from that 
time without signatures. We could have just done the same. But as soon as 
the mistake was pointed out, we realized the mistake, apologized, and 
dropped it. This was a good example. "Dropping it" is a spiritual exercise 
that a lot of people I know could profit from.

        Douglas Wilson - 2/15/2006 9:37:13 PM

    Doug, your belief that Doug Jones, Chris Schlect and Jim Nance are 
honest is plain English. I understand that statement, and I agree with it. 
When you say your explanation(I'm assuming it's your explanation and not 
theirs)of the actions of the committee is 'reasonable' you are NOT speaking 
plain English, because your explanation isn't reasonable. I've shown you 
where it isn't reasonable. If you choose not to further explain yourself 
that's fine. But your explanation doesn't become reasonable just because you 
say it is.

        M K - 2/15/2006 10:24:55 PM

    David, there are lots of options all of us have. Each of us uses his own 
free will to decide which of them to follow. Take care, Mark

        M K - 2/15/2006 10:28:33 PM

    M, all you are doing is illustrating why it is pointless to try to 
explain things like this to people who don't really want an explanation. You 
believe that it is "unreasonable" to say someone saw signatures where there 
are none. So is it equally unreasonable to not see a signature when it is 
sitting there as plain as Bob could make it? And Mark, I am afraid I am 
going to have to *demand* an explanation from you on this. And as soon as 
you offer it, I will shake my head, tsk for a moment, and announce that your 
explanation is no explanation at all. In fact, I will not really hear your 
explanation of Terry's inability to see Bob's signature because I will be 
too busy shaking the pom poms for my team in this debate. And if you protest 
that your explanation "was too" reasonable, I will just say nope. Not 
reasonable. Would that be a good way to proceed?

        Douglas Wilson - 2/15/2006 11:37:14 PM |

J  :]

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/