[Vision2020] Coulter's Dream - from CNN (post oops)
g. crabtree
jampot at roadrunner.com
Wed Oct 17 10:08:15 PDT 2007
Oh really? Was that what our most recent back ad forth was about? You
pointing out my bad arguments? Lets take a moment and review. In a post to
vision members that were not you, I made the simple assertion that despite
Ms. Coulters awkward phrasing, I did not think that she was being
anti-Semitic. You leapt in and decided to speculate on how I might react to
various imaginary situations unrelated to my post. ("I bet if you were gay,
Gary, you'd think differently") You then went on to use your near God like
powers of telepathy to look into the heart and soul of Larry Craig and
declare him a homosexual. "Craig is gay and maybe he feels the same way as
you do." Next you tried to infer that perhaps I was as well. (" And, of
course, you might be gay, too.") I responded by pointing out that I didn't
think that you were particularly well qualified to be making those judgments
what with you not being me, gay, a woman, or a Jew or a follower of Allah.
>From here you seem to have degenerated into "jackass," "poor me," "jackass,"
"Dale Courtney," "jackass," "I'm mischaracterized," "dear jackass," and most
laughably, "it always comes back to me." Followed, of course, by jackass.
It's a mighty interesting debate style you have. Make a silly and
unsupportable assertion, become agitated should anyone disagree, resort to
insult, refuse to respond to queries, make up stupid lies, and blame the
whole thing on a "local Pastor and how "mischaracterized" you are, whine
about how it's always you, and then run off and electronically pout. Is this
going to follow the same pattern as previous disagreements? I suppose I
should get ready for a batch of off line obscenity and hollow threats? ( I
notice you declined to back up the "CHALLENGED" remark by releasing our off
line "dialog." What a surprise.)
Since this is no longer even close to topical with regard to the "Coulters
dream" header, I'm going to have to shake my head and move on to new biz.
Till the cycle sadly repeats,
g
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>;
<vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Coulter's Dream - from CNN (post oops)
Dear Jackass,
I've stop engaging in conversations with you for awhile now. Which is not to
say that I won't point out your bad arguments or take the time to note that
you're a jackass!
All I'm doing is pointing out that you like to pick and choose which part of
our previous conversations and that it isn't an accident.
You've adopted the rhetorical style of your local Pastor friend, pure and
simple. Look at the subject heading. It doesn't matter what to topic is,
eventually it always comes back to me!
You're a jackass!
--
Joe Campbell
---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
=============
Don't know what happened there, lets try again.
Since the bulk of your post is the same old poor Joe nonsense, I'll simply
make a few points and let this go for now
Point 1. Dale and I are not living in one another's pockets. I do my thing
and he does his. I do occasionally post to his site and I do occasionally
(rarely) reprint something from his site to the V. We do not co-ordinate or
collude in any way other then that and we make it plain where the words are
coming from when we do. If you have a problem with something on Dale's site,
talk to him. If it appears over my name I'll answer for it.
Point 2. Congratulations, you have graduated from buffoon to liar. That I
"CHALLENGED" you to come to my place of employment is prevarication at its
finest. I challenge you to release that private E-mail along with any of
yours leading up to it or following it. Rest assure that with your
permission (or for clarification should you fail to provide the complete
picture) I am only too willing to post the contents of my deleted items file
where they concern any of my off-line dealings with you.
No surprise that you don't want to answer questions and the part about no
longer engaging in conversation I've heard from you many times before. Like
a bad penny you always come back.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>;
<vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Coulter's Dream - from CNN
Crabtree,
You are deliberately misconstruing and mischaracterizing my views.
I never said that my BELIEFS were ambiguous. It is my words that are
deliberately
ambiguous. This is because they often appear out of context and on the
website of your
friend, Dale -- a website where people openly post thoughts about the
justifiable killing
of gays. You don't want to discuss issues with me. You want to create
opportunities
where my views are deliberately misrepresented and publicly ridiculed.
More examples?
You keep repeating the lie that I favor abortion, another lie that is
repeated on Dale’s
website. I've addressed this issue on a number of occasions in town crier
columns and on
these pages but you ignore these words. Legal distinctions are deliberately
cast as moral
distinctions; knowledge is conflated with belief.
I sent you a private e-mail that is not posted on Dale's blog. It is not
possible for me to
make a point without Dale bringing it up. Does he bring up the fact that I
quickly
apologized? Or that recently you INVITED me, CHALLENGED me to come to your
place of work when I asked you to meet with me? These are never mentioned.
I'd be happy to discuss the matter in more detail if you'd give me some
sense that your
goal was to understand my view and not ridicule it in public. As long as I
get
mischaracterized, I won’t engage with you in conversation, won’t answer your
questions.
Which is not to say that I won’t point out your fallacious arguments!
--
Joe Campbell
---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
=============
And what exactly would be your point here, Mr. Moffett? The comment I made
did not express any opinion good or bad about religious ambiguity. That was
left for the reader to determine. The point I was making in the original
post was that Mr. Campbell was in no position to determine how I might feel
about any given topic were I Jewish (or black, or female, or homosexual,
etc.) as was his assertion. Aside from the absurdity of such speculation (If
a fish had feet instead of flippers, how would he feel about formal
footwear?) I'm fairly certain that I am ever so slightly more expert in all
that is me then most others can be. Philosophy teachers included.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Moffett
To: Joe Campbell
Cc: g. crabtree ; vision2020 at moscow.com ; Donovan Arnold
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Coulter's Dream - from CNN
Gary wrote:
I don't recall making any comment as to whether I believed your
assertion of being a Christian or not and I certainly make no judgment with
regard to your level of commitment to whatever it is you do believe but,It
certainly seems to me that reasonable people could come to the conclusion
that you are disposed toward a certain religious ambiguity.
g
If Mother Teresa (Agnes Bojaxhiu), winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, can
have moments of doubt about God, faith and religion, so can anybody who
professes belief about anything:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html
"...the Teresa of the letters lived in a state of deep and abiding
spiritual pain. In more than 40 communications, many of which have never
before been published, she bemoans the "dryness," "darkness," "loneliness"
and "torture" she is undergoing. She compares the experience to hell and at
one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even
of God."
"The church anticipates spiritually fallow periods. Indeed, the Spanish
mystic St. John of the Cross in the 16th century coined the term the "dark
night" of the soul to describe a characteristic stage in the growth of some
spiritual masters. Teresa's may be the most extensive such case on record.
(The "dark night" of the 18th century mystic St. Paul of the Cross lasted 45
years; he ultimately recovered.) Yet Kolodiejchuk sees it in St. John's
context, as darkness within faith. Teresa found ways, starting in the early
1960s, to live with it and abandoned neither her belief nor her work.
Kolodiejchuk produced the book as proof of the faith-filled perseverance
that he sees as her most spiritually heroic act."
------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list