[Vision2020] Wilson makes Somebody furious!--Wilson killed Santa

Sun Jun 18 23:00:42 PDT 2006

Michael,

  You wrote:

  "But what if Tom just said: “yes,  Wilson  is a bad man, and so I use every opportunity to point out that his  actual high crimes are fully noted on Vision 20/20”?  Would this  make you even?   Hasn’t he already said as much?" 

  If  Tom said that I would be surprised, and it would show his intentions  are to attack Wilson. But he won't say his intent is to find things,  whatever he can, and complain about them to the public just for the  sake of being cruel to Wilson.

   "Whereas I can sympathize with any concern about a liberal  political agenda driving criticism of the local fundamentalist pastor  (not an uncommon reality), the issues thus far have not been as simple  as this; and Wilson  has been anything but fully cleared of many of the accusations."  

  Your logic is again, twisted. He is not guilty until proved innocent of  whatever you decide to post about. It is not the job of Wilson to prove  himself innocent of endless accusations. And accusing someone of  something different every month on a 24/7 basis and posting those  accusations as fact is harassment. People have lives, they cannot spend  them defending every made up accusation that pops into the head of any  loser that has nothing better to do than post crap about people the  don't like online. 

  "There are  many conservative Christians, even locally, that believe all general concerns  about Wilson  are justified."

  That is because we have a group of  bored people with no  lives  spreading all sorts of misinformation around town, 24/7. 

  "Given this, it seems slanderous to impute hypocrisy and  these kinds of motives to Tom Hansen."

  Not when he making stuff up to create concern over things that are not true. Something must be untrue to be slanderous.

  "Tom’s web site full of primary documents.  If Tom was a hypocrite  only concerned with rhetorical spin to get the public hyped up  irrationally, then why does he just plant primary documentary evidence  for individual scrutiny?"

 Well, Michael, the documents have  NOTHING to with what he is accusing Wilson of doing, or not doing.  Nobody is disputing Sitler is a convicted child molester. So to post  that information that anyone can get themselves anyway is rather  pointless and unsupportive of his accusations isn't it? He might as  well be posting Applebee's menu, it is just as irrelevant. But it does  seem to impress you and I would imagine it does others as well that  aren't familiar with what evidence is and is not. 

  Your second paragraph states;

  "Here  you claim that I have a website that spouts slanderous  information.  However, even after a request from me that you  kindly do so, you have failed to give a single example of slanderous  piece of information on my web site.  In other words, you have  given no evidence that I have a slanderous web site, which in turn  gives evidence that the only person guilty of slander is you."

  Michael, again, here you have it backwards. You are the one making the  accusations against Wilson and providing no proof, then demanding that  everyone else prove your accusations are incorrect or they are the ones  lying. That is twisted. I have already told you, as have others, that  Wilson did discuss the Sitler issue at a Head of Household meeting. So  to say he didn't inform his congregation, is false. You refuse to  accept that as being the truth, because it undermines your entire  attack on Wilson. That is why I care not to engage in discussing, or  trying to find evidence against to counter any accusation that pops  into your head and decide to post. It would not convince you of the  truth.  

  "The  point is that Tom Hansen can be no more guilty than you in damaging  victims; your accusation against him is therefore incoherent.   This is not twisted and biased logic."

 That is indeed  backwards. Tom Hansen used the tragic situation of a child being harmed  to launch another one of his unfounded, unbacked, and malicious attacks  against Doug Wilson.

 Now, I ask you, how would you like to be  the parent of that child, and have some idiot on Vision 2020 use that  incident to make false accusations against your religious leader that  is helping you through the nightmare? You would feel pretty screwed  would you not? And you certainly could not say anything publicly to the  jerk because it would reveal the identity of your child as the victim,  would it not? Think about that. Think about what position you put those  parents in, just for a few minutes. 

  Regards,

  _DJA

Michael <metzler at moscow.com> wrote:                        st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }                              DJA,

    Thanks for the reply.

    You  Write: While I agree I do have an agenda here that people not be  accused publicly of high crimes on Division 20/20, I am first, willing  to admit that is a concern of mine-unlike others on here that pretend  something is a concern when it really something else they are after.

    Me:
    I appreciate your candidness.  But what if Tom just said: “yes,  Wilson  is a bad man, and so I use every opportunity to point out that his  actual high crimes are fully noted on Vision 20/20”?  Would this  make you even?   Hasn’t he already said as much?   Whereas I can sympathize with any concern about a liberal political  agenda driving criticism of the local fundamentalist pastor (not an  uncommon reality), the issues thus far have not been as simple as this;  and Wilson  has been anything but fully cleared of many of the accusations.   There are many conservative Christians, even locally, that believe all  general concerns about Wilson  are justified.  Given this, it seems slanderous to impute  hypocrisy and these kinds of motives to Tom Hansen.  I’m just not  sure I see sufficient evidence for believing this; but I do see  evidence for not believing this, such as Tom’s web site full of primary  documents.  If Tom was a hypocrite only concerned with rhetorical 
 spin to get the public hyped up irrationally, then why does he just  plant primary documentary evidence for individual scrutiny? The story  you are trying to tell about Tom does not line up with some of the  basic facts as far as I can tell.

  You Write: Second, you are the one creating a website spouting  slanderous information, not me. I am forced to respond to it because  apparently the wannabe liberals on here that are too busy worrying  about the rights of terrorists and stopping sacramental wine from being  distributed, don't care if false and damaging information goes about a  member of the community--or do and are participating in it.

    Me:
    Here  you claim that I have a website that spouts slanderous  information.  However, even after a request from me that you  kindly do so, you have failed to give a single example of slanderous  piece of information on my web site.  In other words, you have  given no evidence that I have a slanderous web site, which in turn  gives evidence that the only person guilty of slander is you.  

  You Write: If you feel that my calling bull on the wannabe liberals for  another one of their misinformation and smear campaign is in anyway  damaging the victims of this horrible crime, then by all means, stop  the smearing campaign, and I will stop responding to the smears. I  don't think that is so hard to understand. But to say that if I don't  let the whatever made up allegations fly you want to make I am just  dragging it out, is more twisted and biased logic.

    Me:
    The  point is that Tom Hansen can be no more guilty than you in damaging  victims; your accusation against him is therefore incoherent.   This is not twisted and biased logic.  And given that the last two  people I defended here on Vision 2020 were Greg Dickson and Doug  Wilson, I do hope you will not respond to this further suggesting that  I “don't care if false and damaging information goes about a member of  the community.”

    Thank you,
    Michael

  Michael  <metzler at moscow.com> wrote: 
    DJA,

    I  think that there would be a lot less discussion about Sitler if you  were not continuing this debate with multiple people; your interest  here seems to be your political agenda and your desire to defend Wilson.  Concern about the victims does not seem to interest you here.  No matter  the issue or how robust the evidence, Wilson  is innocent and his critics are immoral, no matter who they are (as my  biography illustrates):   “And apparently, you will stop at  nothing, even when it comes to the most tragic events like this  one.”  One important guideline for me in this is to encourage  folks not to talk about the victims at all and use them for their own  argumentative purposes—there is no reason they need to be brought up at  all.  I therefore request that you would stop bringing up the  victims, which is nothing but continuing Wilson’s  unfortunate rhetorical defense.  In your effort to reveal  hypocrisy of Tom Hansen, and long term ax you have to grind, you have 
 in reality tried to “politically capitalize on the actions of a  pedophile.”  Perhaps you all have kicked a dead horse here  enough.  Unfortunately, Wilson’s unnecessary and aggressive  response to a mere public announcement, his slanderous reviling of  anyone who had anything to do with it (including his implicit slander  of the victims themselves), and his revealing of private information  about the victims in order to defend himself has caused a simple public  announcement to launch into a full controversy.  I really doubt Wilson needed the  critical reflection of Tom Hansen to succeed at doing this.  

    Thank you
    Michael

    Tom,

  You need to go back and reread my previous post.

  There was a Head of Household meeting in which this issue was discussed. Do
  you understand that Hansen? Do you understand that the members of Christ Church  were informed. The public was informed through government channels,  mainly, the police. So stop saying they were not, it is a lie.

  Second, when I said if he said something publicly it would interfere  with the case, I  was referring to BEFORE official charges were  made, not after the conviction. You were the one that was making a case  about Wilson  not releasing information that any citizen could have obtained at any time from  the court house.

  Thirdly, I find your attempts to try and exploit and politically capitalize on  the actions of a pedophile saddening.

  If your true concerns were for victim's of sexual predators, and not  something to try and use as a weapon on a political opponent, you would  have been listing all of the sexual predators in our community and  surrounding areas, not just ONE that no longer lives here. Your pretend  concern for the community regarding this issue, is laughable. You are  only interested in one thing, advancing your political agenda and  attacking Doug Wilson, you will stop at nothing, even when it comes to  the most tragic of events like this one and at the behest of the  victim's family to stop. 

  Regards,

  _DJA

  Tom Hansen  <idahotom at hotmail.com> wrote: 
    Arnold  - 

  You really ought to go back and re-read your post.

  You claimed that any public announcement concerning Sitler would adversely  impact a locally ongoing investigation.

  Sitler made a plea agreement.  In exchange for his plea of guilty, Sitler  was to receive a lighter sentence.

  Once all was said and done concerning Sitler's plea agreement, he  became a convicted pedophile.  Now, tell us how making such an  announcement public would hinder an ongoing investigation, an  investigation that would pretty much be moot due to Sitler's conviction  (BACK IN JULY of 2005).

  Concerning if/when Wilson  was aware of certain facts . . . STAY TUNED . . . more forthcoming.

  Tom Hansen
  Moscow,   Idaho

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

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060618/87af466b/attachment-0001.htm