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

[Darrell Keim]

No, Joe, I am not calling you a liar.  I am pointing out that due to the
connotative value of words, people can have reasonable interpretations that
differ.  For instance:

“Again, I'm certain it would interest you if the threatening
> remarks were made toward Christians.

>From this, and the overall tone of the paragraph it was in, a reasonable
interpretation could be that I am a Christian.  Why else would I find an
issue around Christianity more or less compelling than Islam or Mormonism?
 You obviously have a valid and reasonable difference in opinion regarding
how this was meant to be read.


On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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>
> 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>http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto: <Vision2020 at moscow.com>Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101205/712d99ce/attachment.html