[Vision2020] Still more slander from Crabtree

Tue Jul 4 14:46:29 PDT 2006

Gary,

Unlike Dale and others, who refuse to acknowledge wrong doing (again, I gave
Dale a shot at this before I went public with criticism), Joe apologized for
his comment to you.  Your original posting of it was questionable, yet you
have made no moves of reconciliation yourself.  Instead of accepting the
apology, you now publicly rub Joe's nose in it. This is unacceptable.  You
clearly like to pull Joe's chain, and you appear more determined to make him
upset than you are making an important useful point.  Also note that Joe
said he was joking when he made this original comment, and claimed he would
never plan on going to your place of work and punch you in the nose.  Those
who have known Joe and know what his general reputation is vouched for his
gentleness and good nature. Posting on Vision 2020 now that Joe "threaten to
do harm" and that he "admitted to it" is slanderous of you.  Further, I have
already told you that I approached Dale about what I considered slanderous
claims against Joe, and this was back in the good old days when I would have
had no other motivation to do so outside of my genuine concern about how
Dale was treating Joe.  Yet you refuse to consider any evidence like this.
Again, compare Joe with Dale here.  Joe said something you didn't like and
he apologized.  Dale said stuff Joe and I did not like and he refuses to
apologize.  And now here you are publicly condemning Joe for doing what he
apologized for while defending Dale for things he refused to apologize for
at all.  There is nothing fair, kind, or judicial with your method here
Gary.  But while we are on the topic of Dale's blog, here's some of an email
I wrote to Dale a very long time ago (when I was defending Doug Wilson on
V2020):

You posted on a current event regarding the giving over of young daughters
to appease revenge and the independent strangeness of archaic penalties
exacted towards unfaithful wives.  You dedicated this to Nick Gier . . .
You referenced an article of his that was very broad-brushed and did not
reference this current event or the practice of giving young daughters for
appeasement.  In that article, he references some old writing of Greg that
represents a view that is more extreme than the general conservatism of your
own website (from what I can tell). Personally, sometimes it is hard for me
to tell the difference between reformed theonomists and Muslim
fundamentalists. . . I thought the comment (I forwarded) to your posting was
unfortunate; I thought it particularly note worthy that it combined today's
recent mocking of Gier from Wilson's Blog . . . with your own "dedication."
I'm concerned about our ability to generate this sort of thing all on our
own without the initiation of the opponent.  Girls on the other side of the
globe might be raped, and so we start talking about Gier.  And so an
arrogant person [witmer], who was just enjoying Wilson's poking fun of . .
Gier . . . wants to start getting us all thinking about Gier having sex with
the lawful husbands of the girls who might get raped:

Tuesday, 22 November, 2005 12:40 PM by cdwitmer

Maybe the illiterate sons would be satisfied with Nick Gier instead. If Nick
can't tell the difference, maybe they can't either. And since they are
illiterate, they would be a perfect match with the Reseerch Perfesser. This
just might be doable!

Many of us will no doubt continue to applaud ourselves that we have
determined to no longer associate with local Venom, lesbians, prostitutes,
tax gathers, and . . . philosophy professors . . .  And so I thought I'd
make a thoughtful note to this particular chain of rhetoric. Gier is
literate by the way.  And I think he has some insight to his analysis.  . .
.Other than that, keep up the good work . . .

Dale refused to recognize the legitimacy of my concerns.  But while you are
so concerned about Dale's reputation, perhaps you could let us know what you
think about Wilson's public claims that I'm pretty much mentally ill, with
identifiable disorders, and have nothing but evil motives for doing what I
am doing.  

thanks,

Michael

Sorry Skippy, but I asked you first. Just exactly what is on Mr. Courtney's
site that rises to the level of libel? (not slander) Specifically, what
statements did I repeat that were "false, malicious, and damaging to your
reputation?" Talk about "unsupported." Rather then coming back with yet
another recitation of how wonderful and nationally important you are,
perhaps you could simply respond to the question. As to my pointing out an
example of your error and inconsistency, lets take the all to easy example I
alluded to in my last post. To threaten to go to a persons place of business
and do them harm, all because you don't agree with their opinions is an
error. You admitted this yourself on this forum on 05/21/06 at 17:48.  To
write newspaper editorials lecturing about tolerance a scant few weeks prior
is quite inconsistent. For someone to point this out is hardly "slander." 

Public service seems far more accurate.

G. Crabtree

P.S. I notice this is the second time you have fallen back on J. Ford to
make your argument's for you. This seems very much like Emeril's Delmonico
using Chef Boyardee to implement it's menu. Then again, I guess the ultimate
result does remain the same.

gc

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>

To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>

Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Daniel Foucachon" <daniel at lyonministries.com>

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:45 PM

Subject: Still more slander from Crabtree

My desktop dictionary defines 'slander' as a false or malicious statement 

that damages somebody's reputation.

I make my living as a teacher of logic, as a writer of philosophy, and as an

editor for MIT Press. Below you claim that Courtney "points out some of [my]

error and inconsistency." I hate to tell you Crabtree but these statements, 

made by Courtney first and then repeated by you, are false, malicious, and 

damaging to my reputation. And if you think otherwise, then point out the 

error and inconsistency to which you refer.

Prior to writing Courtney I was contacted by a philosopher in California who

happened to google my name and have Courney's website come up. I have a 

national reputation, Crabtree, and the unsupported accusations, on public 

websites, from Courtney and now you are not doing it any good.

Similar comments can be made about your remarks toward Stout but since I 

don't want to repeat them in an effort to make my case -- and since J has 

done a fine job responding to you anyway -- I'll let it go.

I just wish you would put people before politics and stop making unsupported

negative claims about individuals just because you happen to disagree with 

them. Call me an optimist!

--

Joe Campbell

---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:

=============

I believe that I have read just about everything on Mr. Courtney's site that

mentions Joe Campbell and I don't recall seeing anything that rises to the

level of oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's

reputation. Would you care to point out exactly what Dale has posted that

would cause you to make such an allegation? Or are you simply upset because

he points out some of your error and inconsistency. Being embarrassed is

quite a different thing from being slandered.

gc

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>

To: "Daniel Foucachon" <daniel at lyonministries.com>

Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:11 AM

Subject: Re: [Vision2020] My Pictures

> Daniel,

> 

> You don't mind that your pictures are on Dale's website. Dale's website

> slanders me. The implication is that you don't respect me, which is

> strange since we've never even met!

> 

> --

> Joe Campbell

> 

> ---- Daniel Foucachon <daniel at lyonministries.com> wrote:

> 

> =============

> I want to clarify something. I don't mind people using my pictures. I like

> seeing them used, and am blessed when others are blessed by them. If

> someone

> wanted to use one of my pictures on a "The Beautiful Palouse" site, I

> would

> be more than glad for them to use it, though I would appreciate if they

> asked first.

> 

> But I don't want my pictures used on sites that slander places or people

> that I respect.

> 

> =====================================================

> List services made available by First Step Internet,

> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.

>               http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/> 

>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com

> ====================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060704/41a3f62c/attachment-0001.htm