[Vision2020] “5 erroneous assertions” allegedly made by Joe, according to Darrell

[Joe Campbell]

I was going to talk about whether or not Darrell had put me in a “bad
light,” since he claimed to Keely that he did not. But it doesn’t seem
fair for me to keep criticizing Darrell without first responding to
some of his concerns.

Darrell claimed that I made “at least 5 erroneous assertions” about
him. Here are the quotes where he notes the 5 “erroneous assertions”.

Nov 28 16:42:16: “I do find it interesting how you feel free to make
accusations about me but are unwilling/able to back them up when
pressed (Too summarize for our viewership you have made four
unproven/untrue accusations about me: 1. I am unconcerned about these
local churches. 2. I have criticized people that are. 3. I am only
concerned about threatening remarks made about Christians. 4. I am a
Christian-I'll concede this point, I'm a Protestant.). That's a lot of
unwarranted assumptions you make about me.”

Dec 1 00:17:15 “Too recap: I initially complained about how often
things, such as the church list Tom posted, get linked back to CC.
When you pressed in a later note I elaborated that unless we had new
info or something changed, it seems like most of the key players
already know where they stand. Thus, my belief that further discussion
doesn't seem to be of benefit. That was the point where you made at
least 5 erroneous assertions about me. Assertions which were downright
silly, considering how little you know about me. Assertions, which
I'll remind you, you never deigned to address. Even after I was kind
enough to enumerate them for you, and request clarification.”

To summarize, the “5 erroneous assertions” Darrell claims I made are:
1. Darrell is unconcerned about local churches like Christ Church and
Freeze Church.
2. Darrell has criticized people that are concerned with these churches.
3. Darrell is only concerned about threatening remarks made about Christians.
4. Darrell is a Christian.
5. Darrell won’t let folks on the V talk about CC.

In some cases (1, 3, 4) I did not make such assertions. In other
cases, though I did make assertions (2, 5) those claims were true and
supported by arguments and evidence. Certainly by this point they’ve
been supported by evidence.

For instance, I never said Darrell was unconcerned about CC or FC. I
said: “I can understand why you might not want to speak out” (Nov 28
13:47:58) and “if you don't want to talk about it, fine. Don’t.” (Nov
28 16:06:59)

Nor did I ever assert that Darrell was a Christian, as in point (4). I
said “Again, I'm certain it would interest you if the threatening
remarks were made toward Christians. I would think you'd find it to be
a good subject for public discussion.” (Nov 28 16:06:59) I also asked
some rhetorical questions: “Or is it just that they don't say things
about your religion? As long as they berate the [Mormons] and the
Muslims it is OK?” (Nov 28 13:47:58) It doesn’t say anywhere in any of
my posts that I think Darrell is a Christian, though I’m not surprised
that he is! At most, one can assume that I didn’t think he was a
Mormon or a Muslim. Again, the examples so far are cases where Darrell
was reading things into my comments that I never actually asserted.

Point (5) is either incorrect or confused. My complaint to Darrell
isn’t that he won’t let me talk about CC, it is that he puts forth a
set of criteria that he seems to think I and others should follow. But
I don’t really give a rip that he’d prefer if I only talked about CC
on the V under certain conditions – if there is new info (which I
argued that there was), or if something changed about CC’s beliefs, or
if the discussion benefited him or someone else (Dec 1 00:17:15).

I don’t think it is appropriate for someone to tell someone else how
to exercise their free speech rights, any more than it is appropriate
to tell someone how to exercise their freedom of religion. I will
respond the same either way: mind your own business. I have never, nor
would I ever, tell Darrell what he should or shouldn’t say, especially
when it came to something about which he felt passionate. I might
disagree with him but I’d just let him go.

As for claim (2), Darrell’s criticisms of folks on the V who comment
about CC and NSA, I’ll just post some of the comments I posted
yesterday in its support. They sound like criticisms to me. Again,
Darrell might still think they are correct, even though they have yet
to be supported, but that doesn’t mean that they are not CRITICISMS.
They are pretty clearly criticisms and not just of me but of the V in
general.

“And, to clarify my position I did not complain about NSA criticism on
V2020. I complained about the amount of NSA criticism on v2020.  Too
recap: I initially complained about how often things, such as the
church list Tom posted, get linked back to CC.  When you pressed in a
later note I elaborated that unless we had new info or something
changed, it seems like most of the key players already know where they
stand.  Thus, my belief that further discussion doesn’t seem to be of
benefit.” (Dec 1 00:17:15)

“I have no problem with NSA criticism, or praise for that matter, on
V2020. I just wish the topic didn’t have to come up with such
frequency.” (Dec 1 00:17:15)

“Do they [Christ Church and NSA] constantly post on Vision 2020 about
the same thing over and over and over and over and over... ad
infinitum?  No, in fact they were pretty much run-off v2020 by folks
that found them offensive (which would seem to violate points 1 AND 2
of our Mission Statement).” (Dec 1 00:17:15)

“None of those topics, or any other, get near the coverage on V2020
that Christ Church does.  Too make an analogy: V2020 is like a
household water spigot for most topics.  It is a fire hose for Christ
Church topics.  I’d simply like to see the fire hose turned down.”
(Dec 1 18:11:24)