Baker & Alward (to Farrell)
David Court hoover1@netcom.ca
Sun, 26 Apr 1998 11:25:21 -0400 (EDT) (00893622321, 199804261525.LAA13756@tor-srs1.netcom.ca)
At 09:49 AM 4/17/98 -0400, David Court wrote:
>TILL
>
>(snip)
>
>You said above that I refuse to correct those on my side whom I know are
>being illogical. That is not so. Long-timers on the list will surely
>remember Joe Alward and MSFITT, who were both atheists, but I was blunter to
>them than I have been to either you or MJ.
>
>(DAVE 4/16) Joe Alward publicly denounced you. He was quite blunt to you
>long before you reacted. Don't give us this malarky that you were blunt to
>him. It was only after he stated what a dishonest joke he considered you -
>and that was from a SINCERE atheist. You are misleading Ian on the truth
>here. If people agree with you, and praise you Farrell, you coddle them.
>That is obvious. Joe didn't.
>
TILL
That simply is not true, Dave. Nancy Todd got tired of his illogical
postings and blasted him first. It was only after this that I made my
feelings about his postings known. What you don't know, Dave, is that Joe
Alward had been sending me personal postings long before he joined the list.
He was having some encounters with biblicists in his area, and he would
write to me for answers to the arguments he was encountering. It was
obvious that he wanted me to do all of his research and work for him, a
situation that I patiently endured until he came onto the list and then
began doing the same thing. He would post inquiries about how to answer
this and how to answer that. Nancy was the first one (as I recall) to
express her irritation at this. If you will recall, he was asking questions
like this in conjunction with comments about how he was postings articles on
the subjects on a private web page and needed the information. This caused
me to realize that he could do more damage than good by posting amateurish
refutations of biblical inerrancy claims. I posted this concern on errancy,
and this caused the disagreements between us to escalate.
I will forward to you a few postings that I received from Alward privately
to show you that he was doing the same thing in personal messages to me
before he joined the list. He wanted me to fight for him the battles that
he was starting in his area of California and couldn't adequately continue.
(DAVE 4/25) Farrell: I would appreciate reading them. What you don't know
is Joe also posted privately to me, and my comments above regarding his view
of you are true.
TILL
>Even Ronal Baker, the dinosaur man, was an atheist, but I didn't hesitate
to >pounce onto his poor logic as hard as I could.
>
>(DAVE 4/16) Interesting. All of sudden Ronal is "one of your own"? On a
>recent post, he was someone I was allied with. Ronal also didn't like you,
>didn't publicly praise you, didn't even seriously consider you as a
>reasonable atheist. He publicly denounced you as well. Of COURSE, you
>didn't hesitate to "pounce" on him...he didn't glorify you...
>
TILL
No, I would never consider Ronal Baker to be "one of [my] own." He was far
too logical. The accusation from MJ was that I never took issue with
skeptics and atheists on the list, so I merely pointed out that Baker was an
atheist. Also, if you have the postings from Baker, a review of them will
show that he denounced me because I spent so much time pointing out
absurdities in the reams of material that he posted. In other words, the
denunciations started when he was unable to respond to my rebuttals. The
point is that he was an atheist, but I still attacked his illogical thinking.
(DAVE 4/25) Farrell: You attacked his dinosaur theories, not his thinking
on being an atheism. And you only attacked him when he scorned you. He was
easy and safe prey for you, Farrell - why don't you publicly "attack"
Darrell Henschell, or Tod Billings or Michael Fisher or the like? Picking
Ronal was easy.
TILL
> This is all a matter of record that you can verify by
>checking the archives, with the exception of Baker who has been gone from
>the list beyond the time that archives are kept. So now could you give me
>an example of illogical argumentation from theists and biblicists on the
>list during your tenure that you have rebuked? I can't recall any.
>
>(DAVE 4/16) Farrell: These kinds of posts, both yours and mine,
>accomplish little in the long run, but it would be nice if you called a
>spade a spade - using Joe Alward or Ronal Baker as examples of people you
>sincerely oppose ideologically, is ridiculous, if not dishonest
>intellectually. Ian has a right to know this, which is why I have posted.
>You don't publicly ride those who agree with and praise you, Farrell. That
>is a fact. Which makes one question your real intentions and sincerity in
>this debate forum.
>
TILL
I mentioned Alward and Baker because they were the ones I most sharply
criticized and would therefore be the likeliest names that long-time members
of the list would remember. I think that you will find that I don't "ride"
even the inerrantists until they demonstrate a stubborn determination to
stick by their guns even when they have run out of ammunition or when they
have given me reasons to think (as MJ and Ian S have done) that they are not
being completely open about their intentions. Go back into the archives and
check my initial postings in response to Matt Bell. As I recall, they were
just forthright rebuttals of his major points, but when he began his evasion
of major points in my rebuttals (which culminated in the series on baptism),
I lost all patience with him. Don't you remember that I have admitted that
this is a character flaw?
(DAVE 4/25) Farrell: I agree with you here, on your treatment of
inerrantists (in general) - there are flakes on this side of the fence as
well, for which patience is difficult to maintain. Without any attempt to
patronize, I personally have never had a problem with how you have "treated" me.
Farrell
I want to ask you a question. Is it your position that I don't express
disagreement with skeptics and atheists on the list? If so, just state that
it is, and I will then respond to it. However, I advise you to do some
checking in the archives before you take such a position.
(DAVE 4/25) Farrell: I don't take such a position. I only argue here with
your use of Alward and Baker as examples of it. And I encourage fairness
and respect to everyone. That is my only position here. I would enjoy
seeing you, though, sincerely and rationally, debate an atheist (playing the
Devil's Advocate role so to speak) - if you haven't done this, it would be
interesting to observe.
Regards.
Dave
"An inevitable result fo autonomy is relativity. If men are their own
creators, then the social environment, destiny, and meaning of existence
created by one group of people, in one place and time, are not necessarily
relevant to another group of people in a different historical context.
Those in each society bring into being a system of thought and values that
has meaning only for those who create and live within it. This is
particularly true in the realm of morals...."
- Tony Campolo