<div class="gmail_quote">Joe:<div><br></div><div>The data is out there:</div><div><a href="http://vision2020.moscow.com/" target="_blank">http://vision2020.moscow.com/</a></div><div>Everything said since the start of the listserv.</div>
<div>I wouldn't advocate for taking the time to analyze it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>My opinion was based on reading the listserv for the past 10(?) years, as you say below; seeing how the atmosphere of the listserv has changed; and asking myself whether we continue to meet our mission now that a whole element of Moscow was made uncomfortable enough that they left.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Please don't assume I am conservative.</div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Joe Campbell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">One more point. To even come close to backing your point up you would<br>
need to do research for 4 hours a day for how ever many months you are<br>
talking about. The last 6 months, 24 hours; the last 12 months, 48<br>
hours. There is no way that you have this data. Ergo, you made an<br>
assertion based on comments from your conservative friends and your<br>
own personal experience. Is that the standard for evidence that you<br>
are suggesting for accusations about groups of people: hearsay and<br>
anecdotal evidence? Shouldn't we reach for higher standards? Best, Joe<br>
<div><div></div><div><br>
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Darrell,<br>
><br>
> Here's the point, which you seem to have missed. You made several<br>
> accusations about the V's obsession with Christ Church and NSA (see<br>
> below). You did not back any of them up -- not even when I asked you<br>
> to do so during our original exchange. You make a comment below that<br>
> my analysis is somewhat skewed -- "RE the month of November." But the<br>
> point is that you made a harmful, prejudicial accusation that you<br>
> STILL have yet to back up.<br>
><br>
> I spent 4 hours today finding data that should convince you that your<br>
> accusation might be false and has no basis in terms of recent posts on<br>
> the V. If you think it has a basis, spend a little time to back it up.<br>
> Or admit that you really don't know what you're talking about and that<br>
> your opinion is based on hearsay from your conservative friends and<br>
> nothing more. This is a harmful accusation that leads folks to dismiss<br>
> the V for no reason. So far there is no evidence that you are doing<br>
> more than spreading vicious rumors against your political opponents.<br>
> If you're not, back your comments up and admit they have no basis.<br>
><br>
> I'm not sure what the 3 things to think about below are meant to<br>
> suggest but they sound insulting. I'd appreciate it if you stopped<br>
> giving advice to me as if you knew me, which you don't. Let's just try<br>
> to stick to the issues, which you are still managing to avoid.<br>
><br>
> Best, Joe<br>
><br>
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Darrell Keim <<a href="mailto:keim152@gmail.com" target="_blank">keim152@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Joe:<br>
>> A quick tip of the metaphorical hat. Great analysis. I would've enjoyed<br>
>> discussing it with you while we were debating.<br>
>> I agree with everything you said RE the month of November.<br>
>> I will enjoy your future postings if they are of this caliber.<br>
>><br>
>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> I did a brief amount of research, checking out the frequency that<br>
>>> folks on Vision 2020 talk about Christ Church or NSA and it is clear<br>
>>> that Darrell Keim has over exaggerated that frequency, at least when<br>
>>> it comes to RECENT discussion on Vision 2020. It might be the case<br>
>>> that the topic was discussed more often a while ago but in terms of<br>
>>> the NOVEMBER topics, the discussion is limited at best. The funny<br>
>>> thing is, next to me the person who discussed CC or NSA the most on<br>
>>> this list in November was Darrell! In short, this is not a topic<br>
>>> discussed much any more by anyone other than myself. Even in my case,<br>
>>> I mentioned CC and NSA in the last month less than 30% of the time,<br>
>>> and the vast majority of those cases were in the discussions I had<br>
>>> with Darrell. If Darrell and I had not debated about the issue, there<br>
>>> would have been fewer than 10 passing references to CC or NSA during<br>
>>> the month of November. I'm not sure of the total number of posts but<br>
>>> it is in the hundreds.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Again, this is just a cross section but it illustrates that not only<br>
>>> were Darrell's continual assertions about Vision 2020s obsession with<br>
>>> CC and NSA (see below) unsupported, something he at no time tried to<br>
>>> fix by doing some research of his own, they are in fact, at least with<br>
>>> respect to recent postings, flat-out incorrect. I challenge Darrell to<br>
>>> come up with some RECENT data to support his claims (no use rehearsing<br>
>>> the past, as Darrell has said) or to admit that in fact his claims<br>
>>> were incorrect and there was NO reason for him to raise a fuse in the<br>
>>> first place.<br>
>>><br>
>>> First I'll list the data followed by some analysis followed by the<br>
>>> assertions that Darrell has made which are refuted by the data. I am<br>
>>> not a social scientist, so if someone else has recent findings that go<br>
>>> against my claims, please bring them forth. Prejudicial claims by<br>
>>> conservatives to the contrary don't count as DATA, by the way. Again,<br>
>>> I choose the most recent month (took me about 4 hours this morning to<br>
>>> compile the data by the way) but if someone else wants to investigate<br>
>>> another RECENT month, please do so.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Again, I just checked November in part because this was a recent month<br>
>>> where the issue of CC/NSA explicitly came up. I lost count in my case,<br>
>>> so the number of 15 is an estimate. But it is clear by looking at my<br>
>>> postings this month that far fewer than half of the time did I talk<br>
>>> about CC/NSA. And I am willing to admit my own obsession with CC/NSA.<br>
>>> That is pretty well known! In some of the cases the discussion was<br>
>>> really about whether I should talk about CC/NSA and in most cases I<br>
>>> discuss topics that are not directly related to CC/NSA. In the other<br>
>>> case, the numbers refer to even passing references, not the explicit<br>
>>> mention of "Christ Church" or "Douglas Wilson" or "New Saint Andrews."<br>
>>> Thus, when a name or intended reference was mentioned, even if in<br>
>>> passing in a post about a completely different topic, I counted it.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Joe Campbell 15/52<br>
>>> Art Deco 5/43<br>
>>> Keely Mix 5/33<br>
>>> Tom Hansen 4/105<br>
>>> Nick Gier 2/8<br>
>>> Moscow Cares 0/15<br>
>>> Saundra Lund 0/14<br>
>>> Andreas Schou 0/12<br>
>>> Debi Smith 0/9<br>
>>> Carl Westberg 0/8<br>
>>> Bill London 0/5<br>
>>> Ralph Nielsen 0/4<br>
>>> Rosemary Huskey 0/2<br>
>>><br>
>>> This is a list of some of the folks that we might expect to be talking<br>
>>> about CC/NSA. Note that in Keely's case, the 5 instances include 2<br>
>>> where there was merely a passing reference. In each of Tom's 4<br>
>>> instances there is NO explicit reference to either CC or NSA. Here are<br>
>>> some conservatives/moderates worth noting:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Darrell Keim 8/15<br>
>>> Gary Crabtree 0/26<br>
>>> Roger Falen 0/26<br>
>>> Dan Carscallen 0/5<br>
>>> Jeff Harkins 0/3<br>
>>><br>
>>> Again, notice that Darrell comes in number 2, next to me, in terms of<br>
>>> posts discussing Christ Church and/or NSA for the month of November!<br>
>>> It can't be the frequency of our discussion that disturbs him<br>
>>> otherwise he'd have been better off NOT offering any criticisms to<br>
>>> begin with.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> There were 3 posts that got the lion's share of CC/NSA attention.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Crusaders vs. Infidels: Moscow’s Muscular Christianity<br>
>>> 11 posts, though 2 were off topic. Joe (3); Darrell (2); Nick; Keely;<br>
>>> Wayne (Art Deco); Tom. All of these are noted above.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Curiosity Question<br>
>>> 21 posts, some of which (Roger's insult, my response, Tom's apology)<br>
>>> were off topic. Joe (9); Darrell (8); Tom (2); Roger; Keely. All of<br>
>>> these are noted above.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Health Education: A Conspiracy?<br>
>>> 22 posts; only 6 reference CC or NSA; 3 of these were noted above.<br>
>>><br>
>>> That gives us 42 posts for the month of December, the vast majority of<br>
>>> which were made AFTER Darrell made his initial accusation (Nov 28) and<br>
>>> 8 of which were made by Darrell himself.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Here are some of Darrell's recent assertions about Vision 2020 and its<br>
>>> obsession with CC/NSA, which seem to have been refuted:<br>
>>> “The churches and schools which you hint at below have been well<br>
>>> analyzed on this list.” (Nov 28 12:25:29)<br>
>>><br>
>>> “… this topic has been well discussed on this list …” (Nov 28 14:32:45)<br>
>>><br>
>>> “Unfortunately, this listserv seems like a one note instrument when<br>
>>> almost everything is linked to that same topic.” (Nov 28 16:42:16)<br>
>>><br>
>>> “It just doesn’t seem like v2020 benefits from having the topic come<br>
>>> up so often.” (Nov 28 18:10:08)<br>
>>><br>
>>> “And, to clarify my position I did not complain about NSA criticism on<br>
>>> V2020. I complained about the amount of NSA criticism on v2020. Too<br>
>>> recap: I initially complained about how often things, such as the<br>
>>> church list Tom posted, get linked back to CC. When you pressed in a<br>
>>> later note I elaborated that unless we had new info or something<br>
>>> changed, it seems like most of the key players already know where they<br>
>>> stand. Thus, my belief that further discussion doesn’t seem to be of<br>
>>> benefit.” (Dec 1 00:17:15)<br>
>>><br>
>>> “I have no problem with NSA criticism, or praise for that matter, on<br>
>>> V2020. I just wish the topic didn’t have to come up with such<br>
>>> frequency.” (Dec 1 00:17:15)<br>
>>><br>
>>> “Do they [Christ Church and NSA] constantly post on Vision 2020 about<br>
>>> the same thing over and over and over and over and over... ad<br>
>>> infinitum? No, in fact they were pretty much run-off v2020 by folks<br>
>>> that found them offensive (which would seem to violate points 1 AND 2<br>
>>> of our Mission Statement).” (Dec 1 00:17:15)<br>
>>><br>
>>> “If those issues came up with the same frequency as Christ Church, and<br>
>>> no real change bringing in new info to discuss, I might.” (Dec 1<br>
>>> 00:17:15)<br>
>>><br>
>>> “None of those topics, or any other, get near the coverage on V2020<br>
>>> that Christ Church does. Too make an analogy: V2020 is like a<br>
>>> household water spigot for most topics. It is a fire hose for Christ<br>
>>> Church topics. I’d simply like to see the fire hose turned down.”<br>
>>> (Dec 1 18:11:24)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> 3 things to think about:<br>
>> 1. A diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that<br>
>> you will look forward to the trip.<br>
>> 2. To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit<br>
>> the target.<br>
>> 3. Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat<br>
>> you with experience.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></div><br>