<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Sorry Darrell, will just have to disagree! </div><div><br></div><div>Let's start over and try to take it one point at a time. Give one example, just one of a point I missed or an example of an ad hominem attack, just one at a time. You get to write extended passages but I've found that when I do it I get lectured and I'm told to take it off the V. So I'd rather not respond to all this in one post.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Would you like to start with the phrase "threatening rhetoric"? Do you want me to show you exactly when I used that and similar phrases?</div><div><br></div><div>But please keep my job out of it. We're talking politics, not whether or not I do my job well. In these uncertain economic times that is really an irresponsible low blow. Stick to the topic. I have a family, for Christ's sake.</div><div><br></div><div><br>On Dec 1, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Darrell Keim <<a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; "><pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: arial, sans-serif; "><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size: 10pt; ">Nice to hear from you again, Joe. </span></font></pre>
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: arial, sans-serif; "><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size: 10pt; ">I am chuckling to myself as I write this. How typical your response is of our whole conversation. I make several points. You choose to address only one, and hinge it on a small detail such as the connotative meaning of a word. To take the comment below as an example, you didn't use the term “threatening rhetoric” until today. You simply said threatening; leaving how it was threatening wide open for interpretation. Sorry I missed your clarification of terms today. I might have left that point and joke out if I had seen it. I believe I had other, better points.</span></font></pre>
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: arial, sans-serif; "><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size: 10pt; ">When our discussion first began I was somewhat excited. You are a professional philosopher, I reasoned that most philosophers are highly intelligent folks. They’re accustomed to a good debate, utilizing logic, providing and refuting evidence, etc. Perhaps even using the Aristotelian forms of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. I did not expect your academic "A" game, like Nick provides. I hoped your strong academic and intellectual background would lift your level of debate a few levels above the 'net norm. I like a good debate. This sounded fun to me!</span></font></pre>
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: arial, sans-serif; "><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size: 10pt; ">Unfortunately I don't think you provided a good debate. I have consistently provided points that you simply refused to acknowledge. Instead you made a series of unsupported assertions and ad hominem attacks, most of which you did not even acknowledge when your attention was called to their faults. In your zeal to assert the rightness of your position, or perhaps your consuming distaste for Christ Church, you seem unwilling to sully yourself by acknowledging the possibility of valid, moderate counterpoints. That is unfortunate, as your dogmatic approach hurts your overall credibility in the debate.</span></font></pre>
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: arial, sans-serif; "><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size: 10pt; ">I had hoped for better from a guy as obviously intelligent and intellectually accomplished as you.</span></font></pre>
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: arial, sans-serif; "><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size: 10pt; ">I wish you the best, and encourage you to discuss new developments at CC. I'll look forward to reading them on occasion. But I tire of your increasingly hectoring tone.</span></font></pre>
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: arial, sans-serif; "><font size="2" face="Courier New"><span style="font-size: 10pt; ">In short, it has been fun, ciao!</span></font></pre></span><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Joe Campbell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a></a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Thanks for the bs distortion, D! Just to note one example, I never said I felt threatened; if fact I said I don't. I noted the use of threatening rhetoric. </div><div><br></div><div>But we don't want to let the facts get in the way of all this crap, do we? That might mean we'd have to take this post seriously, which would defeat your wonderful smokescreen.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I see you've learned some rhetorical tricks from Wilson yourself! I'm sure he'll be pleased!</div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div><br>On Dec 1, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Darrell Keim <<a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</a></a>> wrote:<br>
<br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>Joe:</div><div><br></div><div>I was going to leave you alone, as you requested. But since you asked to restart our correspondence...</div><div><br></div><div>Hey V2020 posters:</div>
Lots of good stuff below if you like watching Joe and I banter back and forth.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Joe Campbell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a></a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>In all honesty I'm having some trouble understanding your point, Darrell. I fear you won't clarify it further but I'll ask some questions in the hope that you really do have a point to make.</div>
</div></blockquote><div>I'll try. I thought I was fairly clear. I'm not surprised you are having trouble, we don't seem to communicate well with one another. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div><br></div><div>You call the NSA post a "new advertising campaign" but complain about the recent NSA criticism on Vision 2020 because it is "rehashing the old" so it "doesn't seem to be of benefit." But how can it be rehashing the "old" if it is criticism of the "new" ad campaign? The ad campaign was just posted, so criticism of it is "new," right? (I've actually made this point already.)</div>
</div></blockquote><div>Yeah, it's a new campaign. But has the product they are attempting to sell changed in any way? No. SSDD. That's Same Stuff, Different Day. They are still ultra-conservative christians with some views that many consider odd and/or offensive. It is simply a new campaign selling the same ultra conservative dogma as they have always sold. I doubt if it will change anyones position or deepen their understanding of them.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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. 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. I digress. Sorry about that.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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. Moscow has other things of interest to discuss. What about the schools? U of I? Downtown? URA? City Council? All of these together don't get half the bandwidth CC does. Here is our Mission Statement. Perhaps it should be posted periodically, so that people might read it. It is one of the reasons I initially signed on to V2020.</div>
<div><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(52, 74, 116)"><table align="CENTER" border="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0, 0, 0)">
<table border="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="400" style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><h3 style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:10pt;color:rgb(52, 74, 116)">
Vision 2020 Mission Statement Adopted March 1995</h3><ol><li>To ensure that all parts of our community have an opportunity to take part in visualizing and planning for the community's future. <br><br></li><li>To strengthen citizens' sense of community by promoting awareness, ownership and investment in Moscow's future. <br>
<br></li><li>To foster cooperation among (and public involvement with) the agencies and organizations that plan for and make decisions about the future of Moscow and Latah County. <br><br></li><li>To raise awareness on the part of citizens and public officials that: <br>
<br><ol><li>uncontrolled and unplanned growth may have negative effects. <br><br></li><li>short-term decisions have long-term consequences.</li></ol><br></li><li>To inform ourselves about growth and development issues. <br>
<br></li><li>To have fun thinking critically and creatively.</li></ol><div><br></div></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></span></div><div> <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:13px">Does this much focus on one topic help us to achieve our mission? I submit that it does not.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div></div><div>Is your point that NSA and Christ Church can insult secularists and Muslims and progressives and be free of public criticism, and use threatening rhetoric, because they've done it before? Is the use of threatening rhetoric in an NSA ad campaign "old news"?</div>
</div></blockquote><div>No. And if you honestly think the campaign is a legitimate physical threat--i.e. they are going to go out and physically assault people, well I think that is highly unlikely. You must also think that drinking Bud Light will get the Swedish Bikini Team after you, and that Exxon gas will put a real tiger in your tank. I kid. I think they are using outrageous advertising hyperbole to draw their target market--ultra conservative christians. Not a turn-on for me, but I'll bet it works well for the people they want.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div><br></div><div>Yet isn't the NSA complaint about secularists "old news" for this very reason, just the same old stuff they've been saying? Did you contact Roy Atwood and complain to him about reporting "old news" in his "new" ad campaign? Or is there something special that the NSA and Christ Church criticisms have going for them that exempts them from the "only new criticisms" demand?</div>
</div></blockquote><div>Do they 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). And, while I have spoken with Roy Atwood and other key players at both CC and Logos on other topics, why would I speak to any of them about something they post on their webpages? It is their space, they can write what they wish; whether you or I like it or not.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div><br></div><div>Maybe the V is special since it is a public venue. Then in that case, you'll be sure to make the same complaint when Crabtree or Roger or whomever accuses liberals and progressives of being socialists, or in favor of gun control, or any number of charges that they keep making over and over again. Same "old news" and there is no place on the V for "old news" since it "doesn't seem to be of benefit," right? </div>
</div></blockquote><div>If those issues came up with the same frequency as Christ Church, and no real change bringing in new info to discuss, I might. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div><br></div><div>Or did I still miss the "nuance" yet again?<br></div></div></blockquote><div>Yeah, you probably did. But that's okay with me. I'm happy to answer questions for you. Perhaps you'll answer some of the questions I've already asked you sometime..</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><br></div><div><div></div><div><div><br></div><div>On Nov 30, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Darrell Keim <<a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</a></a>> wrote:<br>
<br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>My summary of the new advertising campaign:<div><br></div><div>New envelope, same old Christmas letter inside.</div><div><br></div><div>Liberals will hate it, middle of the road folks won't care, and Christian conservatives-their target market-will love it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And, no Nick, I didn't say enough had been said. If there is new info to discuss about CC-good or bad-I want to hear it. I tried to say that rehashing the old doesn't seem to be of benefit. Small, but important nuance there. Probably my fault though, as others also missed the nuance. Easy to do, as I was recently reminded. Email doesn't do nuance very well. C'est la vie!</div>
<div><br></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:36 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nickgier@roadrunner.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:nickgier@roadrunner.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:nickgier@roadrunner.com" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:nickgier@roadrunner.com">nickgier@roadrunner.com</a></a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Greetings:<br>
<br>
Despite Darrell Keim's belief that enough has been said about Christ Church and NSA, their recruiting blurb is simply beyond the pale.<br>
<br>
This is my radio commentary/column for the week and the full version is attached as a PDF file. I direct you to my Logos School revision of West Side Story at the end.<br>
<br>
Read everything that I've written about Pastor Wilson at <a href="http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/Wilson.htm" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/Wilson.htm" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/Wilson.htm" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/Wilson.htm">www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/Wilson.htm</a></a>.<br>
<br>
Nick<br>
<br>
THE CRUSADERS VS. THE INFIDELS:MOSCOW’S MUSCULAR CHRISTIANITY<br>
<br>
A long war is a small price to pay for eternal peace.<br>
<br>
--found on a toilet stall wall<br>
<br>
I don’t often cruise the website of New St. Andrews College (<a href="http://www.nsa.edu" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.nsa.edu" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.nsa.edu" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.nsa.edu">www.nsa.edu</a></a>), Moscow’s small Christian college, so the new recruiting campaign gave me quite a jolt. The headline is “Yo, Secularism, Why Don’t We Step into the Alley?”<br>
<br>
The blurb describes the NSA faculty as “not timid in a rumble,” and they want to make the students “dangerous” so that they can “throw the lies of this age up against the wall, lifting wallets and the occasional gift card.” It ends with “an invitation to a brawl.”<br>
<br>
Is NSA a Christ-centered liberal arts college or a fighting club? If it is the latter, then its conditional use permit should be reviewed.<br>
<br>
After the initial shock receded, my first thought was “How can they possibly recruit young women with this raw machismo”? Out of seven images (two with real tough guys) only one includes female students.<br>
<br>
Silly me, I forgot that some females might want to go to a college where they can meet “real” Christian men to whom they can be properly submissive. These religious brawlers would defend their honor in an alley or anywhere for that matter.<br>
<br>
NSA men, however, would not defend their ladies’ right to vote. According to NSA’s founder, Douglas Wilson, misguided women might decide to cancel out their husband’s wise choices in church and political matters.<br>
Wilson also believes that only propertied males should vote. Deliciously ironic, however, is the fact that Wilson encourages all of this congregates at Christ Church to vote for conservative candidates.<br>
<br>
The phrase “muscular Christianity” came out of the Victorian Age, where Charles Kingsley and Thomas Hughes encouraged young men to combine Christian ideals with physical conditioning. Thanks to muscular Christianity, I built up some pretty nice biceps at the local gym of the Young Men’s Christian Association, but I still ended up with the Unitarians, who of course can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.<br>
<br>
NSA does have sports teams, but “pumpkin” rugby has replaced lacrosse (too feminine?), and there is a “girls” volleyball team. Some of the senior faculty, however, look like they have not been to a gym in ages.<br>
<br>
In 1964 Douglas’ father Jim Wilson wrote a small book entitled "Principles of War: A Handbook on Strategic Evangelism." I once told Wilson Pere that I thought that upraised sword on the front cover of the book was rather provocative, but he just shrugged his shoulders and said that he only meant spiritual warfare. Being thrown up against a wall sounds pretty physical to me.<br>
<br>
Has Douglas Wilson’s “Trinitarian skylarking” now turned into godly gang warfare? An example of the former is an outrageous April Fool’s stunt. NSA students stole University of Idaho letterhead and used the English department’s FAX line to announce a feminist scholar who would lecture topless. Wilson later admitted encouraging his students to do the deed.<br>
<br>
Douglas Wilson also established Logos School, whose K-12 students, I’m told, put on some very good plays. I would like to propose that they do an adaptation of West Side Story. Instead of the white working class Jets and the Puerto Rican Sharks, the gangs should be renamed the Crusaders and the Infidels.<br>
<br>
I foresee two snags in this version of the play. Although the killing of Maria’s brother by the Jet’s Tony could go ahead, the love story between Christian Tony and non-Christian Maria would be a real stretch. NSA men must get the permission from a potential date’s father, or from Wilson in loco parentis. Even more problematic is the fact that there can be no truce between the gangs at the end. For Wilson and other conservative evangelicals, there will be bitter warfare until Christ comes to smite the infidels.<br>
<br>
As a “post-millennialist” Wilson believes that there will a 1,000 year Christian theocracy with strict enforcement of biblical law until Christ deigns to appear. I might prefer to get it over with more quickly in the “pre-millennial” Rapture. I’ll paraphrase Milton’s Satan: I would rather fry in the Rapture and take my chances in Hell rather than serve oppressive Christian masters.<br>
<br>
Sometime in the late 1970s, I found a saying on a toilet stall wall near my campus office. Compared to most toilet graffiti, this one was quite sophisticated and a bit puzzling: “A long war is a small price to pay for eternal peace.” One might ask: What kind of peace is this when everyone who has not converted to your religion has been killed?<br>
<br>
Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31 years. <br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>=======================================================</span><br><span> List services made available by First Step Internet, </span><br><span> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. </span><br>
<span> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a> </span><br><span> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a></span><br>
<span>=======================================================</span></div></blockquote></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>