*Alward: Re: Copyright laws?
JAlw@aol.com JAlw@aol.com
Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:56:02 EST (00911112962, 9e4f2f23.364e26a2@aol.com)
In a message dated 98-11-14 19:16:40 EST, you write:
<< Subj: Re: Copyright laws?
Date: 98-11-14 19:16:40 EST
From: jftill@midwest.net (Farrell Till)
Sender: owner-errancy@infidels.org
To: errancy@infidels.org
At 09:02 AM 11/14/98 -0600, eric/cindy bach wrote:
from Bach
I'm not trying to stir up a test case or anything here, Bryce, but the last
time I checked Joe Alward's website, he had taken an e-mail to this list
from Till (containing some comments from Till regarding Joe's lack of
credibility, by the way) and showcased it right up there at the top of his
home page for eveyone to see...with credit to Farrell Till.
Now......I distinctly recall reading several posts awhile back in which Joe
was continually imploring Farrell to provide him with some kind of
introductory statement....disclaimer, etc., that he could use on his web
page. I didn't think that Farrell ever agreed to doing that and I was quite
surprised to see anything at all from Farrell on Joe's site. Seems that
perhaps Mr. Alward found a way to get something from Farrell after all, to
publish on his site, perhaps without Farrell's knowledge or consent.
If any of this involved me, personally, I would be very pissed, but,
as I mentioned earlier, I am not familiar with the laws governing this type
of activity, and I have not talked to Farrell to learn whether he even knows
or cares about this.
============================
TILL
I noticed this very thing you mentioned when I once accessed Alward's site.
My impression was that he was doing this in order to suggest to his readers
that his postings are so good in exposing weaknesses in the errantist
position that even Farrell Till opposes him. I consider it just another
part of his quest for attention and admiration.
==========
Joe Alward:
Till lets pass no opportunity to flatter himself. He thinks I think that any
attention I get from Till, no matter how corrosive, no matter how abusive, it
somehow shines on me a favorable light. That's so silly, Farrell. I told the
list once before that the reason I put your negative comments about me on my
page was that you repeatedly accused me of trying to pretend that I was some
kind of authority on the subject of errancy, so I put your remarks on my page
for all to see. I'd hoped that this act would debunk the notion that I do
everything I can to puff myself up. But, apparently, no matter what I do,
you're going to see some ulterior motive. If I had deliberately hid from my
readers your criticisms, does anyone doubt that you would now be saying,
"Look, Alward's trying to keep criticisms from TRUE errantists out of the
sight and mind of his readers. He's not to be trusted"?
Till must be mildly paranoid if he believes my website is a fortress defending
inerrancy, or for exposing weaknesses in the errantist position. No
statement from Farrell in recent weeks is farther from the truth.
How many times have I stated on this list that my purpose is to strengthen
arguments on both sides of the issue. If I find that an inerrantist position
in untenable, or less forceful than it could be, then I do everything I can to
try to convince the inerrantists to modify their position. Many have asked me
why--if I really AM an inerrantist--I don't concentrate on strengthening
ERRANCY arguments. The answer is so obvious, I'm embarrassed that I have to
keep repeated it. I will say again:
I spend most of my time doing just THAT. But, I also spend some time
strengthing INerrancy arguments. Errantists, I find, often waste their time
slapping down inerrancy arguments which are not the strongest the inerrantists
could present. Since the inerrantists often lack the skills necessary to
recognize how to improve their arguments, errantists sometime need to do their
work for them; I said before, many on this list will think this is heresy.
But, once we know what the enemy's strongest position is, then we can marshal
our resources to attack a position WORTH attacking. It is a waste to expend
our resources attacking a meaningless, essentially undefendable position put
forth by inexperienced, young, incompetent inerrantists. That is what Till
was doing when I came on this list last month; he was going on, and on, and
on, as was Bell, about "ken", and spending all kinds of time driving us nuts
(Kornform, this means you) arguing about which person wronged whom. Kornform
recognized that Till's time would be better spent on more substantive issues,
such as writing a book (I suggested this to Till a year ago); when I tried to
knock both Bell and Till off their track by suggesting two different ways to
bring the blood plague problem to a more rapid conclusion, they both became
upset. It was only after two probing questions to--and definitive answers
from--the Hebrew Institute of Boston did our list finally get enough
information to convince Till that he should abandon the silly "ken" argument.
Instead of calling me names and accusing me of trying to derail errancy, he
should look at my essays and see the truth: they're almost one-hundred
percent on the side of errancy. Farrell needs to stop behaving like a black
hole for credit--all credit is to be sucked into him and none can escape--and
start telling the truth.
Joe Alward
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/joseph_alward.html