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

[Michael]

DJA,

 

Thank you very much for your time in responding to my concerns.  This is
very helpful.   Some will disagree with you and some will agree.  But your
expansive argumentation here provides enough information for the
independent, rational investigator at this point.

 

Your Friend,

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

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: 

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!
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman3/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com/evt
=39666/*http:/messenger.yahoo.com>  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/de1e70f7/attachment-0001.htm