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

[Joe Campbell]

I'm telling you I did not make the implication. Are you trying to tell me what I meant? Are you saying I am lying? And this is a genuine question.

You read something into it. Likely your impression of me is similar to your impression of the V, based on past experience or comments from your conservative friends. Something for which you have not provided any recent evidence so far. Not sure what the duck reference means. How did I walk like a duck? Be specific.

My tone has not really changed in the last week. In the earlier posts I might have been trying to be funny, and I was certainly provocative. And of course, I might sound a little offended since you did in fact offend me. But more on that tomorrow!

Best, Joe


On Dec 5, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20101205/3aef958f/attachment-0001.html