<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I wasn't aware we were "engaged in an academic"
debate either. I can't provide the "fabricated quotes" you ask for because
you rarely include quotes. You use paraphrased he-said or she-saids
and you quote from sources that are reviews, once removed from of what
is actually presented. I assume that this is deliberately done to make
refutation somewhat more difficult</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As to a few of the statements you made
that I believe are in error:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>"oh, sure, in 500 years, when everybody's<BR>Christian, execution will be
mandatory, but there will, of course, be<BR>very few homosexuals at that point,
so it will merely be a sad, rare,<BR>eventuality."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Again, paraphrase almost certainly and decidedly at
odds with articles I have quoted previously.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> I recommend _Her Hand in<BR>Marriage_ or _Reforming Marriage_, in
which Doug discusses how a woman<BR>is to pass as chattel between her father and
her future husband.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Quite simply it does not.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Arranged marriages are the ideal to which they aspire, followed by
an<BR>interminable pregnancy interrupted by cleaning house and<BR>non-consensual
sex.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Stupid, vicious, and incorrect.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>the official stance, as told to me by Wilson himself:<BR><BR>"Men haven't
sufficiently oppressed women; therefore, God judges us by making men's sons
effeminate." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>More paraphrase presented as fact. Note: "official
stance as told to me by..."</FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I hope that this satisfies your
request.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Compliantly,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Andreas Schou" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>ophite@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: "g. crabtree" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cc: "Warren Hayman" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:whayman@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>whayman@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>;
<</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>; "Joe
Campbell" <</FONT><A href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>joekc@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 3:09 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Trinity Festival
protest</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> On 8/12/07, g. crabtree <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> Mr. Schou,<BR>>> Considering
your penchant for overblown rhetoric and fudging the facts on<BR>>> this
topic you will have to forgive me if I do not accept your every<BR>>>
utterance as though it were revealed truth.<BR>>><BR>>> Your "long"
post seems to be equal parts guilt by association, accusations<BR>>> of
past ill considered remarks with no reference, citation, or context,
and<BR>>> your own unique spin as applied to the purported statements of
others.<BR>>> Hardly the sort of thing that is going to do a more
effective job of<BR>>> convincing me of the imminent harm that will befall
our community from the<BR>>> dread CC than the "thousands" of other rants
you have gone off on before.<BR>> <BR>> First of all, Gary, I wasn't aware
that we were engaging in an<BR>> academic debate. Would you at least indicate
which quotes you believe<BR>> I fabricated? Or perhaps one of the Christ
Church hangers-on that lurk<BR>> on Vision 2020 might correct me?<BR>>
<BR>> Anyone?<BR>> <BR>> Anyone?<BR>> <BR>> No?<BR>> <BR>>
Then I guess I have to go ahead and answer your charges, which<BR>> alternate
between slamming your palms down over your ears and shouting<BR>> 'nuh-uh!'
at the top of your lungs and casting vague aspersions about<BR>> my
character, honesty, etc, and then refusing to say anything specific<BR>> when
pressed.<BR>> <BR>> So. Let's start with Grant and Wilkins. I suppose
that, under most<BR>> normal circumstances, the fact that he spends a great
deal of time<BR>> with Grant and Wilkins (and Sandlin), preaches with them,
conducts<BR>> seminars together, would merely be disquieting and not
necessarily<BR>> probative evidence of anything in particular. I'll remind
you of two<BR>> things, though: first, that what was being protested was
Trinity Fest,<BR>> at which Wilkins was a featured presenter, and, second,
there have<BR>> never been any protests at anything other than Trinity Fest
and its<BR>> antecedent, the "History Conference"<BR>> <BR>> It's not
the case, however, that Doug is only responsible for the<BR>> behavior of his
co-religionists when he presents with them. Doug is<BR>> founder and
moderator of the CREC, as well as the originator (with<BR>> Steve Wilkins) of
the sacertotalist variety of Presbyterianism --<BR>> called "Auburn Avenue"
or "Federal Vision" theology -- to which they<BR>> all adhere. It would be a
curious thing indeed if Doug disagreed so<BR>> fervently on a topic that is
of such importance with his<BR>> co-religionists, given that he, in fact,
exercises a great deal of<BR>> authority over them.<BR>> <BR>> As
for "context," I can do one thing: cut out paragraphs, as fairly as<BR>>
possible, that express the relevant view. I cannot reprint books for<BR>>
you, Gary. I would repeat my recommendation that you read them for<BR>>
yourself, as well as my recommendation that you do your best to avoid<BR>>
paying for reading them.<BR>> <BR>> I'll repeat, if it'll turn your straw
man back into a haystack, that I<BR>> don't believe Christ Church is of any
"imminent harm" to anyone other<BR>> than women and homosexuals who have the
misfortune to be born to its<BR>> members, as well as those who choose to
leave their "movement." They<BR>> are not, at the moment, lurking under
liberals' beds, waiting to jump<BR>> out and burn us all at the stake. But i
"imminent harm" is the<BR>> standard required to merely disagree (loudly,
publicly) with someone's<BR>> political beliefs, you had best stop responding
to this thread, as I<BR>> daresay I'm not in any danger of causing "imminent
harm" to anyone.<BR>> <BR>> -- ACS<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>