<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><div><div>Could you look at the letters and timing because this explanation isn't making a lot of sense. </div><div><br></div><div>On November 30th I wrote a letter that started with these words:</div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: monospace; font-size: medium; white-space: pre; "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: monospace; font-size: medium; white-space: pre; ">"In all honesty I'm having some trouble understanding your point, Darrell."</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>In that letter I asked the rhetorical questions that we're talking about now and we continued back and forth culminating in the letter about the "5 erroneous assumptions, which was sent right after midnight Dec 1, essentially latter the SAME day.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In that letter, the "blizzard" letter, you indeed asked me to clarify things, and made some more criticisms (which I discussed yesterday), and said a few things damning to my character (tomorrow), and made a few "connotations" of your own, like the suggestion that I've some how been in violation of vision 2020 rules (later this week). But we were eventually chased off the V THAT SAME DAY and you decided that you weren't going to talk about the issue any further. So it isn't clear exactly when it was that you expected me to respond to your questions. You made them Dec 1 and decided Dec 1 you'd had enough.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Further, as we will see, you made a LOT of accusations, none of which you have yet to back up. I'm still responding to the "blizzard" and will do so for the next few weeks (day 4 of 20). So you'll get plenty of clarification!</div>
<div><br>On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:21 PM, Darrell Keim <<a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank">keim153@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>I sense some further explanation of connotative value might be of interest to you. At the least, it may help you understand why I came on strong. So I'm going to answer the questions below. This is not to further the debate, rather to help explain how we got to where we ended up.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:47 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><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><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">
<div>What is wrong with just reading this in the direct way that it was intended?</div></blockquote><div>Thats not how communication works, Joe. Bear with me for a minute while I explain. I studied communication, have researched, and even lectured on this. I'll be as brief as possible. Every communication is interpreted in two ways: connotative and denotative (dictionary or literal meaning). All human beings do this. Most of the time people place a very strong--often higher than the denotative--emphasis on the connotative meaning they discern. To determine the connotative meaning they look at the overall tone of the communication. When speaking in person the cues looked at include vocal tone, body language, etc. Other types of communication have comparatively fewer cues, thus increasing the possibility of miscommunication. In the case of your note I had little to go with, knowing little about you. I had to look at the tone of previous communications received, and especially at the general tone of the note they were placed in. You seemed deadly serious and literal, so I took it that way. That is why I am quite willing to believe you when you say you did not intend an implication.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> Are you saying the threatening remarks WOULD NOT interest you were they made toward Christians? This is a provocative question. There is the implicature (not really implication since it doesn't logically follow) that you WOULD be interested were the threatening remarks made toward Christians, say from a local Muslim school. Are you offended by that?</div>
</blockquote><div>I am saying that a threat towards or by any religion is of interest to me. Especially from a local group. I despise religious intolerance of any kind. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div>
<br></div><div>And why would it be insulting to you that I think you are a Christian, which is true, as you said?</div></div></blockquote><div>It isn't. I found the implication to be silly because at that time you had no way of knowing if I was Christian. I was insulted by numbers 1, 2 and especially 3. In my offline life these are things that are quite untrue. In some cases, the opposite is true. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div> Your interpretation is a reasonable interpretation, though it is not what I meant, but even if it were what I meant it was still not an ERRONEOUS ASSERTION. For (a) it was not ASSERTED (not what I said) but at most implicated (what I meant) and (b) it was not erroneous, since it is in fact true. (I'm not yelling; I'm just emphasizing the key words.)</div>
</div></blockquote><div>I think that we may have the heart of the matter here. This is why I repeatedly asked you to clarify those 5 points. Had you clarified, I probably would have told myself that you were offering an equally REASONABLE INTERPRETATION.and moved on to other points. As it was, in leaving those points repeatedly unanswered I was left to think that you weren't answering them for a reason--that you knew you couldn't defend them. Since I found them offensive, I found this agitating.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<div><br></div><div>Best, Joe</div><div><div></div><div></div></div><br></div><div><div></div><div><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Darrell Keim <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank">keim153@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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:<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
“Again, I'm certain it would interest you if the threatening<br>remarks were made toward Christians. </blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div>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.<div>
<div></div><div><div>
<br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:36 AM, 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><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><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">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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!</div>
<div><br></div><div>Best, Joe</div><div><div></div><div><div><br></div><div><br>On Dec 5, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Darrell Keim <<a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target="_blank">keim153@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:13px"><span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:12pt">con·no·ta·tion</span> <span style="border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-color:rgb(128, 158, 131);border-bottom-style:dashed">(k<img align="absbottom">n<img align="absbottom"><img align="absbottom">-t<img align="absbottom"><img align="absbottom">sh<img align="absbottom">n)</span><div>
<i>n.</i><div style="margin-left:1cm"><b>1. </b>The act or process of connoting.</div><div style="margin-left:1cm"><b>2.</b><div style="margin-left:1cm"><b>a. </b>An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing: <span style="color:rgb(34, 102, 153);font-style:italic">Hollywood holds connotations of romance and glittering success.</span></div>
<div style="margin-left:1cm"><b>b. </b>The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning.</div></div><div style="margin-left:1cm"><b>3. </b><i>Logic</i> The set of attributes constituting the meaning of a term; intension.</div>
</div><hr align="left" style="color:rgb(133, 168, 194);background-color:rgb(133, 168, 194);min-height:1px;margin-bottom:0px;width:216px"><div style="margin-left:0.5cm;margin-top:3pt">
<b>con<img align="absbottom">no·ta<img align="absbottom">tive</b><i> adj.</i></div><div style="margin-left:0.5cm;margin-top:3pt">
<b>con<img align="absbottom">no·ta<img align="absbottom">tive·ly</b><i> adv.</i></div><div style="margin-left:0.5cm;margin-top:3pt">
<i><br></i></div><div style="margin-left:0.5cm;margin-top:3pt"><i>I draw your attention to #2b and #3.</i></div><div style="margin-left:0.5cm;margin-top:3pt"><i>Or, in laymans terms: If it walks and talks like a duck, it probably is.</i></div>
<div style="margin-left:0.5cm;margin-top:3pt"><i><br></i></div><div style="margin-left:0.5cm;margin-top:3pt"><i>Again, I congratulate you on the tone and level of analysis.</i></div>
</span><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:59 AM, 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><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><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">
I was going to talk about whether or not Darrell had put me in a “bad<br>
light,” since he claimed to Keely that he did not. But it doesn’t seem<br>
fair for me to keep criticizing Darrell without first responding to<br>
some of his concerns.<br>
<br>
Darrell claimed that I made “at least 5 erroneous assertions” about<br>
him. Here are the quotes where he notes the 5 “erroneous assertions”.<br>
<br>
Nov 28 16:42:16: “I do find it interesting how you feel free to make<br>
accusations about me but are unwilling/able to back them up when<br>
pressed (Too summarize for our viewership you have made four<br>
unproven/untrue accusations about me: 1. I am unconcerned about these<br>
local churches. 2. I have criticized people that are. 3. I am only<br>
concerned about threatening remarks made about Christians. 4. I am a<br>
Christian-I'll concede this point, I'm a Protestant.). That's a lot of<br>
unwarranted assumptions you make about me.”<br>
<br>
Dec 1 00:17:15 “Too recap: I initially complained about how often<br>
things, such as the church list Tom posted, get linked back to CC.<br>
When you pressed in a later note I elaborated that unless we had new<br>
info or something changed, it seems like most of the key players<br>
already know where they stand. Thus, my belief that further discussion<br>
doesn't seem to be of benefit. That was the point where you made at<br>
least 5 erroneous assertions about me. Assertions which were downright<br>
silly, considering how little you know about me. Assertions, which<br>
I'll remind you, you never deigned to address. Even after I was kind<br>
enough to enumerate them for you, and request clarification.”<br>
<br>
To summarize, the “5 erroneous assertions” Darrell claims I made are:<br>
1. Darrell is unconcerned about local churches like Christ Church and<br>
Freeze Church.<br>
2. Darrell has criticized people that are concerned with these churches.<br>
3. Darrell is only concerned about threatening remarks made about Christians.<br>
4. Darrell is a Christian.<br>
5. Darrell won’t let folks on the V talk about CC.<br>
<br>
In some cases (1, 3, 4) I did not make such assertions. In other<br>
cases, though I did make assertions (2, 5) those claims were true and<br>
supported by arguments and evidence. Certainly by this point they’ve<br>
been supported by evidence.<br>
<br>
For instance, I never said Darrell was unconcerned about CC or FC. I<br>
said: “I can understand why you might not want to speak out” (Nov 28<br>
13:47:58) and “if you don't want to talk about it, fine. Don’t.” (Nov<br>
28 16:06:59)<br>
<br>
Nor did I ever assert that Darrell was a Christian, as in point (4). I<br>
said “Again, I'm certain it would interest you if the threatening<br>
remarks were made toward Christians. I would think you'd find it to be<br>
a good subject for public discussion.” (Nov 28 16:06:59) I also asked<br>
some rhetorical questions: “Or is it just that they don't say things<br>
about your religion? As long as they berate the [Mormons] and the<br>
Muslims it is OK?” (Nov 28 13:47:58) It doesn’t say anywhere in any of<br>
my posts that I think Darrell is a Christian, though I’m not surprised<br>
that he is! At most, one can assume that I didn’t think he was a<br>
Mormon or a Muslim. Again, the examples so far are cases where Darrell<br>
was reading things into my comments that I never actually asserted.<br>
<br>
Point (5) is either incorrect or confused. My complaint to Darrell<br>
isn’t that he won’t let me talk about CC, it is that he puts forth a<br>
set of criteria that he seems to think I and others should follow. But<br>
I don’t really give a rip that he’d prefer if I only talked about CC<br>
on the V under certain conditions – if there is new info (which I<br>
argued that there was), or if something changed about CC’s beliefs, or<br>
if the discussion benefited him or someone else (Dec 1 00:17:15).<br>
<br>
I don’t think it is appropriate for someone to tell someone else how<br>
to exercise their free speech rights, any more than it is appropriate<br>
to tell someone how to exercise their freedom of religion. I will<br>
respond the same either way: mind your own business. I have never, nor<br>
would I ever, tell Darrell what he should or shouldn’t say, especially<br>
when it came to something about which he felt passionate. I might<br>
disagree with him but I’d just let him go.<br>
<br>
As for claim (2), Darrell’s criticisms of folks on the V who comment<br>
about CC and NSA, I’ll just post some of the comments I posted<br>
yesterday in its support. They sound like criticisms to me. Again,<br>
Darrell might still think they are correct, even though they have yet<br>
to be supported, but that doesn’t mean that they are not CRITICISMS.<br>
They are pretty clearly criticisms and not just of me but of the V in<br>
general.<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>
“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>
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><a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</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><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><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><a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</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><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>
</div></blockquote></div><div><span></span></div></div><div><span></span></div></div>