[Vision2020] thin skinned?

[Joe Campbell]

Scott,

Two things. First, the claim that I would punch Gary Crabtree in the nose was intended as a joke not a threat. It didn't come off well, I was wrong for doing it, and I apologize to Gary and others for making such a foolish remark. It is hard to see how Gary could have taken it seriously since he soon followed my note with another insulting post. I did not go to his place of work and punch him in the nose nor would I. But none of this justifies my comments and, again, I apologize for them to Gary and to the rest of you. I crossed a line that should not have been crossed.

Second, you and I, Scott, are not the same person. I appreciate that Gary did not offend you. But how does that have anything to do with whether or not he offended me? 

Gary and I have a bit of history in this area. He baits me. A while back I shared some things with him privately, off-line about things that people say to me that bug me and he continually uses them against me in public debates. 

For instance, I informed Gary that I was bothered when people make fun of my occupation and in the note below he writes of the "oh so reasonable, philosophy professor, the esteemed Dr. Joseph Campbell." 

Again, most would wonder what the fuss is. Nonetheless (1) comments like this do bother me a lot, (2) I told Gary on many occasions that such comments bothered me, and (3) he continues to make the comments regardless. This is beyond merely insulting someone. There is something sadistic about Gary's behavior.

Many of the claims that offended me in Gary's most recent remarks are just repeats of claims he's made to me previously in the Super Wal-Mart debate. Below he claims that I "base [my] thinking on [my] feelings on any given day," that I am "waiting for someone to tell you which way the wind is blowing." Prior to this made similar comments and said that I was a hypocrite for voicing my disapproval of Wal-Mart but not Target, etc. I responded to these criticisms on these very pages. He ignores my responses and just keeps making the same claims over and over again, in different debates and different contexts. Why? He knows that it bothers me and Gary Crabtree is a sadist. I'm not just suggesting that he disagrees with my responses. He does not engage in dialogue with me. He ignores the responses and baits me.

What is a person to do? I guess this is why they have the bozo filter. Congratulations, Gary! You are the first and only recipient of the Joe Campbell Bozo Filter Award! I will not discourse with you, Gary Crabtree, on any subject ever again.

Time for another break, too. I'm off to Bled, Slovenia for a philosophy conference next week and I need to prepare. I'll catch up with you all when I return. 

Again, I apologize to you all for my words and actions. The above was an explanation, not a justification.

--
Joe Campbell

---- Scott Dredge <sdredge at yahoo.com> wrote: 

=============
I went through the entire thread again, but I didn't take offense to anything Gary wrote and I'm surprised that Joe did.  I simply narrowed the scope of my questioning back to Gary and he responded directly to my question and then clarified his position which was on complications with polygamous marriages.  Truthfully, I just wanted to focus on substantive parts of the topic and off of the generalized "weak argument" (my fault for throwing this into the mix) and "blowing in the wind" statements.  Joe, I think you misinterpreted Gary's post.  Or maybe Gary insulted me too and I just missed it.  In any event, I appreciate Gary's exchange on this topic.

-Scott

"g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote: Joe, I am sure that you would have preferred to keep this communication on 
the down low, but I really thought that some of our friends on the Vision 
would enjoy getting to see a different side of our mild mannered, oh so 
reasonable, philosophy professor, the esteemed Dr. Joseph Campbell. If this 
is in bad form or a breach of net etiquette, I'll try to deal with the 
sorrow.

The Declaration states that "Natures God" entitles us to hold  some truths 
to be self evident and that we are endowed by our Creator with certain 
unalienable rights. Nowhere does it state that I have to be personally 
acquainted with anyone seeking to exercise the aforementioned truths and 
rights. If it did, they wouldn't be self-evident and unalienable now would 
they? Also the Declaration was a document between the original thirteen 
colonies and the monarch of Great Briton and as such has precious little to 
do with current law, making your original argument just that much more 
awkward.

As to your ridiculous threat to come to my place of employment and do great 
physical harm to my poor proboscis, a protuberance which has done you 
absolutely no injustice, might I suggest that you reconsider this extremely 
poorly thought out scheme? I feel sure that there would be regrets in the 
aftermath. After all, since when has "not knowing what one is talking about" 
on this forum been a valid rationale for violence? If after giving this 
matter some serious further thought you still feel that this course of 
action is wise and the only way to salve your "sacred Honor" so be it. I'm 
easy to find, tough guy.

G. Crabtree
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" 
To: "g. crabtree" 
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:13 PM
Subject: OFFLINE: [Vision2020] Re: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad 
dayin IDAHO


You don't know what the hell you are talking about. I asked you a question: 
Do you know of one f--king person who is a polygomist fighting for the right 
to marry? Answer: No, you don't! Whether you do or not, I certainly don't 
know anyone who is a polygomist who is fighting for the right to marry. I 
know several gays and lesbians who are fighting for the right to marry. And 
so I bet do you! That accounts for the relevant difference.

Before you insult me on-line again make sure you know what you are talking 
about or I will come to your place of work and punch you right in the nose.

--
Joe Campbell

---- "g. crabtree"  wrote:

=============
Well Scott, it sounds to me like you and Joe base your thinking on your 
feelings on any given day. This is why I was asking him about the 
declaration and how it applied to a variation of this discussion. My 
thoughts on the matter are that the government should not be in the business 
of sanctioning relationships of any kind. As far as equal rights go, what's 
OK for a man & a women should be good for a man & a man. Or a man & a man & 
a man. Or a woman, a snake & a apple. Just how equal do you want to get? My 
objections stem from problems that I see when it comes to insurance, social 
security, inheritance, and child custody along with a host of other issues. 
Same gender marriage will cause far more problems then it will solve. To 
call my argument weak and base your assertion on your "feelings" all the 
while offering no coherent argument of your own (in fact stating that with 
regard to a large portion of the discussion that you have "no opinion") 
seems a mite vapid. Perhaps the reason that you have no opinion and Joe 
elects to stick with one issue at a time is because you all are waiting for 
someone to tell you which way the wind is blowing?

gc
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Scott Dredge
  To: g. crabtree ; Joe Campbell ; Ed
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
  Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:02 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad 
dayin IDAHO


  This is the same weak argument that Dale Courtney and Doug Wilson offer 
up.  Do you, Gary, believe that polygamy (including all same sex polygamy) 
should be legalized in the name of equal rights?  Yes or No?

  I support equal rights under the law for same sex couples.  I have no 
opinion about legalizing polygamy.  Make your case for polygamous equality 
compared to a marriage between two consenting adults and I might form one.

  -Scott

  "g. crabtree"  wrote:
    So Joe, If the Declaration of Independence is to be your ultimate guide 
in
    this matter, I am sure that you have no objection to three men/women who
    love and respect one another enjoying the right to marriage and their 
own
    version of the pursuit of happiness. After all, why should couples enjoy
    special rights? Like you say, equal rights for all.

    gc