<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Gary</span></font></st1:City></st1:place>,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I will respond to you this one last time in the effort to make sure
that I was clear enough in my previous response. I conclude with a robust
answer to your “question,” by merely copying my answer to Leithart
when he asked this same question back in February. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>You first attempt to defend you slanderous insinuation that I am a
person who refuses to address questions and concerns that follow controversial
claims. This is a ludicrous smear, and everybody on the list knows it.
This is why I do not care what the regulars see you writing about me; I care
about the possibility that your intentionally libelous comments about me will
remain in the internet world. You say that on two different dates you found
some instances of your “Mentioning in such a way to beg a
response.” This is no doubt helpfully ambiguous Gary, but whatever its
meaning, it is certainly not equivalent to your original claim: “I also
note that you have yet to back away from, or explain in any manner, a remark I
have questioned you about repeatedly.” Mentioning in such a way to
beg a response is clearly not the same kind of action as questioning
repeatedly. Yet, even though my primary hobby in life is answering every
question and objection anyone brings my way (I have a web site dedicated to
this and this has been my continual practice here at Vision 2020), you continue
with this slanderous smear in this latest post of yours. You now write: “It
seems clear that despite your supposed willingness to provide *answers,* ones
health would be jeopardized by holding their breath *waiting for them.* I
can only surmise from your inability or unwillingness to respond that *your
claims are lacking* in merit.” You are asserting
something about me that you know is utterly false; this is called intentional
libel, and you are the only person who writes here, to my knowledge, that
regularly engages in this kind of behavior. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>You then proceed to defend your more obtuse libel by admitting, “I
was a tad fanciful.” Sorry, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Gary</st1:City></st1:place>,
but what you said was not “a tad fanciful,” but rather a knowingly
deceitful attack on my very sanity. Making knowingly false claims about someone’s
basic “mental health” is little different than informing Vision
2020 that you saw me having sex with a woman who was not my wife last night
when you in fact knew that you saw no such thing. Yanking my statement
out of even the very sentence in which it was originally found, you quote me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"I'd imagine that some interested parties will soon be the FBI and
the CIA."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>And you were sure to fill the readers in on a made up story about what
I was talking about here:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“…assertion that federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering
organizations would have even a glimmering of interest in the trials and
travails of poor Michael and his never ending dramas…..When someone
hyperventilates to the point of imagining so much greater a public involvement
then their private molehill warrants, it's easy to see where the mental
disorder remarks might start to filter in.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>You knew full well that my comment was not stating that I did in fact
believe that the current state of Christ Church made probable the current
interest of the FBI; and you knew full well that the reasons I gave for why the
FBI could potentially become interested in the future had nothing to do with
myself or my life story. And yet this is precisely what told the reader
was the case. Your malicious intentions in doing this were made explicit by
your conclusion that claims about my “mental disorder” where
therefore justified. This is gross and intentional libel, and again, of
the sort I do not believe anyone on this list is culpable of but
yourself. And I note that other than Donovan, you are the only non-Kirker
here on Vision 2020 that consistently identifies himself with <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City
w:st="on">Wilson</st1:City></st1:place>’s own tactics and self-defense. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>This is why I refuse to dialog with you any further. If you every
want to meet privately, in a setting where your dishonest statements about me
will not remain as public record, I would be happy to buy you a couple beers at
Bucers.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>In conclusion, I want to assure those actually reading this that if I
thought someone asked a sincere question in June about my comment regarding the
FBI I would have most likely merely forwarded my reply to Leithart’s
posing of this very question back in February (!). Here is my response to
Leithart’s question about this statement in a private email last
February:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>[my statement in context:] <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“If the Kirk is able to keep notching up the strange combination
of an unanchored theonomy, the ad hoc theology of the local Enemy, imprecatory
prayers, the cultish inability for kirkers to think when their leader is
criticized, an elitist school, Wilson’s “I’m Jesus”
epistemology, and a sanctified practice of serrated insult (against believers,
non-believers, ex-members, churches, city counsel members, you name it)
I’d imagine that some interested parties will soon be the FBI and the
CIA.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>[my explanation to Leithart:] <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>1. Theonomy is violent punishment for practices that many of the ‘Enemy’
perform.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>2. This theonomy is unanchored: Wilson cannot retract, yet always
morphs to meet the occasion; he is intellectually dishonest and has given
sufficient evidence to the fact that if he was in more power, whatever
‘hedges’ he’s made (some of which he has already retracted
when it was fitting) cannot be trusted. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>3. The cultish intellectual behavior of the followers gives <st1:City
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City> more power and the
ability to further extreme versions of the ‘enemy’ theology (which
is already nuts).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>4. I would ‘be surprised’ if the imprecatory prayers
(particularly considering who they addressed) are not already ‘on the
radar’ in <st1:State w:st="on">Washington</st1:State>—I’m
embarrassed to be a member of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Christ</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Church</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> on this score (and
there is more to the way these rituals functioned than the mere fact of the
prayers).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>5. <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City>’s
‘epistemology’ is psychopathic and scary. Whatever comes into
his gray matter is absolute certainty and qualifies him yet again for the
status of extreme sage. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>6. The serrated edge is explicitly built on‘sociology of
violence’ and is a clear rhetorical foretaste of more gruesome measures
that <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Wilson</st1:City></st1:place> is
clearly capable of. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>7. NSA is highly elitist and closed; and this is a self-asserted
status, before letting the world give it. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I guess I don’t see how *the combination* of these things, *if
fostered even more,* would not end up an item of serious concern for the
authorities. What is so hard connecting the dots here? Off the
cliff Leader, cultish following, elitism, unanchored theonomy, a grotesque
defensive theology of the local ‘enemy,’ and the sanctification of
violent rhetoric towards those who challenge? I can’t imagine a
better social crock pot for the next national headlines! Of course, not
in the form of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Waco</st1:City></st1:place>,
but rather the form of a refined, classically trained, Nazi
Germany—albeit one that will of course never get off the ground in a
wonderful nation like ours.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Of course, this is not my general rhetorical stance, particularly since
I’m interested in convincing those in the kirk too. But I think it
is safe to say that conceptually, the conditional statement I used with respect
to the combination of all the items on my list do not make my inference with
respect to the FBI at all unfounded. You know that <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City
w:st="on">Wilson</st1:City></st1:place> explained to us that the FBI was
already here checking things out, right? I stated this fact in my
‘sermon’ and nobody questioned its veracity. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Yours,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michael<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>