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

[Darrell Keim]

con·no·ta·tion  (kn-tshn)
*n.*
*1. *The act or process of connoting.
*2.*
*a. *An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or
thing: Hollywood
holds connotations of romance and glittering success.
*b. *The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal
meaning.
*3. **Logic* The set of attributes constituting the meaning of a term;
intension.
------------------------------
*conno·tative** adj.*
*conno·tative·ly** adv.*
*
*
*I draw your attention to #2b and #3.*
*Or, in laymans terms:  If it walks and talks like a duck, it probably is.*
*
*
*Again, I congratulate you on the tone and level of analysis.*

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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)
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101205/a3221f39/attachment.html