[Vision2020] lets hear it for dictionary's

Tue Jul 4 20:26:21 PDT 2006

Actually Michael, it doesn't surprise me at all that you haven't been face to face with Darby O'Gill and her two favorite little people.  I was speaking a bit figuratively with my company keeping remark. I request no defense from you but thank you just the same. Those that did, attested to my professional competency and not my high moral caliber. As to the three qualities you brought up, the answer is no I suspect that I am as deficit in these areas as anyone and perhaps, in some ways, even more so. I'll work out my own personal shortcomings on my own time. However this doesn't keep me from disagreeing with practically every keystroke they, and increasingly you make. I do, however hope you enjoy Joe's class this fall. Despite any of my personnel feelings about the guy, I'm told he's an excellent instructor. (Mostly I've been told by Joe himself, but rumor also has it that his students think quite highly of him.) I do have one question for you and that would be why do you care even the littlest bit about my opinion of your mental health or if I think your motives are pure? Everyone's entitled to their own obsessions and delusions. They're probably the only things we truly own, might just as well enjoy them. 

gc
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:38 PM
  Subject: [Vision2020] Still more slander from Crabtree

  Gary Writes:

  Regarding your question as to my opinion of your mental health. I am in no position to evaluate your competency and I'm sure that your motives are your own. I do find the amount of effort that you pour into your vendetta against your former pastor to be a bit obsessive and some of the company you keep (hansen, ford, deco, etc.) to be extremely suspect. Other then that I imagine you're a fairly decent fellow.

  Whew! Good to hear. Only one concern:  my obsession (i.e. Pooh's call to duty) is not only with respect to my own vendetta.  But I sympathize with your concerns.  I just might be nuts; at the very least I think I do have a bit of an artistic streak: as long as I feel that most the people enjoying my work are normal I feel justified being a little weird.  But what do you mean by "company you keep"?  Am I suspect because I defend or respect these people where I think they are defensible or respectable?  Did you know I've never even met the three people you list above?  Do you excel these people in judiciousness, fairness, and kindness?  What gives you the standing to question their sanity?  I hope I'm willing to defend you just the same; I recall many people rushing to your defense when your occupational competency was challenged not long ago.

  I'll be enjoying a class under Joe in the Fall; I'll be sure to post any threats or acts of violence to Vision 2020 !  You've got me nervous Gary. : -)

  Michael

  Damn, that last post got away 15 seconds to quick. Please accept revised post.

  Michael, let's review. Joe made an unsupported accusation that the Right Mind web site "slandered" him. When I asked him for a specific instance to support his claim and speculated that in reality it seemed more likely he was just embarrassed that the site had pointed out a few of his errors and inconsistencies. Rather then prove me wrong and provide the information that I asked for, He added me to the list of slanderers and, after his customary monolog on the wonderfulness that is him, insisted that I provide an instance that bore out my contention. I did exactly that. The fact that he made a half hearted, just kidding, apology in no way changes the fact that the stupid remark was made. If your "gentle and good natured" buddy is going to pop off to the effect that he's never in error and always consistent and insist that I prove him wrong, What is it that you suggest I do? Agree with him because you contend that he's a swell guy? You are right that I like to pull Joe's chain if for no other reason then that it's overly long and attached to a fellow who can't bear to be disagreed with and can be counted on to go off like a fourth of July firecracker, appropriately enough, should anyone dare.

  Regarding your question as to my opinion of your mental health. I am in no position to evaluate your competency and I'm sure that your motives are your own. I do find the amount of effort that you pour into your vendetta against your former pastor to be a bit obsessive and some of the company you keep (hansen, ford, deco, etc.) to be extremely suspect. Other then that I imagine you're a fairly decent fellow.

  G. Crabtree

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

  From: Michael 

  To: vision2020 at moscow.com 

  Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:46 PM

  Subject: [Vision2020] Still more slander from Crabtree

  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

  >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  =====================================================
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  ====================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060704/671dc176/attachment-0001.htm