An uneven playing field.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Saturday, October 10, 1998 9:11 PM,
Matthew Bell wrote:



>M.BELL

>At this juncture of event I want it to be plainly noted that this

>discussion on the Blood, Water and Magicians thread is being carried out

>on an uneven playing field. Why? The reason is that now CCBE have

>eventually got some sort of response to one of their posts from F.Till,

>the responses to it will be put up on the CCBE forum for discussion,

>until an agreed response is decided upon. As Farrell Till is CCBE posts

>in advance this of course provides him with the opportunity to prepare

> rebuttals before CCBE even post their response. As has been

>noted by a member of CCBE,

>

>=====================

>'It is plain from the above:

>

>1  That Farrel Till, or one of his errantists, is able to read the ccbe

>list.

>    We should take note of this.  Either there is a spy in the camp, or

>    else some security loophole in the mail list system.

>

>2.  It has also been noted that Farrel's response to previous ccbe

>     postings has been extremely rapid, probably due to the above.


JANET
Matt, it is beyond me to see why you or any of your list members think
that for Farrell to receive CCBE postings in advance of your agreed upon
responses somehow confers an advantage upon him. He has studied the Bible
and biblical discrepancies for years and can rebut your arguments
regardless of when he receives them. What difference does it make? Does
knowing what is being said on ERRANCY change *your* rebuttal? If so, then
wouldn't you say that that is unfair? If it *doesn't* change your
rebuttal, then why do you think that *Farrell* would be helped by "advance
knowledge?"

All this posturing concerning spies, coupled with continued accusations of
evasion is somewhat of a contradiction in itself, don't you think? You
seem to want it both ways, that Farrell is avoiding answering your
devastating points, but yet has an unfair advantage because he knows in
advance what you will say, and can prepare his rebuttals in rapid order.
In fact, this whole thing smacks of a smoke screen, to hide the weakness
of your position.

CCBE member

>Why is he playing silly games now?  Are they delaying tactics while

>he attempts to think of a way out?  Is he hoping to divert attention

>down some side road?  Has he been defeated, but is too proud or

>not man enough to admit to it?'



JANET
Surely you jest. The games are being played entirely by you. This
insistence that Farrell respond to some point that you claim you made, but
won't specifically point out to him is absolutely infantile. And insisting
that the discussion can go no further until he does respond appears to be
nothing short of a means of stalling. (I was looking forward to the rest
of it, alas.) Accusing him of evasion though he has asked you several
times to indicate the specific points that he is alleged to be evading, so
that he CAN respond to them, is nothing short of hypocritical.


MATT

>======================

>

>When this thread is concluded the above 'advantage', and reasons for his

>speedy response(s) (the latest CCBE posts excluded of course), will be

>included in the web page response and indeed any other forums,

>publications etc, which receive the summation of the thread. Those

>individuals will then be able to draw their own conclusions on how

>good a debator Farrel Till is.



>Thanks

>M.Bell


JANET
I might remind you that others have contributed to the discussion, though
you seem to want this to be a one man band. And yes, I think people will
be able to see just how devastating Farrell's arguments are. Your waving
your hands and crying "eisegesis" does nothing to change that, especially
since you won't demonstrate where and how he actually engaged in
eisegesis. What you don't like to confront is that a valid, plain, i.e.
exegetical reading of the passages in question results in a contradiction.
That's the whole point. To wit: 1. All the water in Egypt was turned into
blood by Moses and Aaron. 2. The magicians did likewise. OOPs, not
possible (all minus all equals none). All the speculation is done by your
side (all doesn't mean all; likewise means in nature, but not extent,
etc.) in order to resolve this glaring discrepancy.

Janet

p.s. I would like very much to hear your answer to Farrell's lottery
analogy.

• Previous message: An uneven playing field.
• Next message: An uneven playing field.
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]