################################################### Subj: Dennys Date: 30-Jul-00 15:49:05 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Lets meet at a Dennys. You can bring your wife! We mayeven become good friends who disagree on our origins. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Brad Sparks >Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:13:11 EDT > > >>I think any objective analysis would render that the whiner is not me. >Please reread your latest e mail.<< > >What whining? I'm just telling you the truth. I do not have private >access to a phone; neither at home nor at work. I cannot just go out for >dinner with no explanation. Those are just statements of fact explaining >why your suggestions would not work for me. > >You're the one who keeps whining about typing not being your personal >preference, even though you are perfectly capable of conducting an email >exchange. I would have to go to some extraordinary lengths and >considerable trouble just to satisfy your "personal preferences." The >returns for such an effort are dubious at best. I have gotten a taste of >how you conduct yourself in a serious discussion. On the phone or in >person, you would just have that much more weasel room. You are more than >evasive enough in this medium. > >And if you were refering to my sharing my weekly schedule with you, that >was in response to your whining about how busy you are and how little time >you have. Well, you are not the only busy one here. > >Of course, if you would like, we could post our current exchanges for >objective analysis. You could invite everybody in the CSAOC to read it. > > >>I know what clipboard and pasting is...but it is still TYPING....what >part of typing don't you understand.<< > >Oh, I understand typing. You are quite capable of typing. Therefore, >typing is not impossible for you. > >Also, "clipboard and pasting" is MOUSING, NOT "TYPING". It can be a very >useful tool, if you learn to use it. > >Also, please notice that it only took you about FOUR YEARS to answer that >extremely simple question of whether you know about the Clipboard. Four >years! If I have appeared frustrated at times, this is why. Now, if it >takes this much time and effort to get an answer to an EXTREMELY SIMPLE >question out of you, just imagine what it is like to get an answer from a >meaningful question. > >Now please tell me, just what was so hard about answering that extremely >simple question? >(oh shoot! That one will take at least 10 years!) > >BTW, I was always sincere about offering to help you with the Clipboard, >but first I needed to know whether you needed help. Over the years, I >have worked with and helped many people just starting out with PCs in the >work place or at home. There are a lot of basic operations that are total >mysteries to newbies. One boss I had fancied himself a computer expert; >every time he wanted to copy a file to a diskette, he had to call me into >his office to tell him how to do it. His favorite method of exiting an >application program was to reboot the PC. He also could never understand >why his latest changes never got saved to disk. > >And you're never too old or experienced to learn. Even I, with 23 years >total computer experience and 13 years of PC/DOS/Windows experience, >average at least one new thing learned a month. > >Honestly, from the kinds of responses you were giving me, it really did >look like you didn't know about copying-and-pasting. And just think of how >much easier things would have been if you had just told me then and there >that you did know about it, rather than dragging it out over four years. > > >>If you think I am choosing a restaurant with a heeavy metal band playing >while we chat you are mistaken. Every restaurant I have been too since I >got old and married has been nice and quiet.<< > >Don't be ridiculous, Bill. You know full well that that is not what I was >talking about. Even in quiet restaurants, if multiple conversations or >other noise is going on in the background, I have a very hard time hearing >everything in the conversation that I am having with the person across the >table from me. In our case, I am going have to hear clearly everything >that you are going to say, so that makes a restaurant an extremely poor >choice to have that conversation. And, no, I refuse to sit with you >cheek-to-cheek . > >And, Bill, please stop already with the "old man" act. I'm nine years your >senior. You're still a young punk. You don't even know what getting old >is like (and I only know about it a little bit better than you do). The >body's warranty expires at age 40, whereupon it starts to become a "shop >queen" (curb that homophobia! The term refers to an older automobile which >spends most of its time at the mechanic's getting repaired). Do you wear >glasses yet? Well, in the mid-40's the eyes' lens stiffen up and you get >to start wearing bifocals (you might consider tri-focals, so that you don't >have to be taking them off and putting them back on again all the time). >Remember laughing at those old guys leaning their heads way back with their >mouths hanging open so that they can read a poster? Well, you will get to >be one of them soon. It's going to take a lot longer for those minor >injuries to heal. You will have to get a weekly pill box that you get to >stock with all the new medi! >cine that you will need to take for the rest of your life. Plus you get to >have your prostate examined on a regular basis. At least they no longer >use the older method to test for prostate cancer. > >Do us all a favor. Wait until you do get old before you start complaining >about it. As for me, I'm not old; my warranty is just expired. > >Oh, but some serious business on that subject. By your name, I assume you >to be of English descent and a long-time resident. I'm of Celtic descent >and have lived in Orange County nearly all my life (except for six years on >active duty). That means about 43 years of being exposed to the sun here. >That sun damage accumulates over the years and results in skin growths >starting in your 40's. Most of them are pre-cancerous, but can develop >into something far worse if left untreated. Look for rough spots on your >exposed skin. Or small persistent scabs. They will usually feel sensitive >if you rub them. Because of how we get exposed while driving, they are >more likely to occur on the left side of your face, neck, outer ear (that >is where my first persistent scab appeared). They can also appear on the >backs of your hands. If you notice any, call your doctor or have him >recommend a dermatologist. Do not blow this off. This is very serious >business that could prove life-thre! >atening. > > > >>It is too bad, for the both of us, but we won't have a mega type me type >you >debate. I want to meet in person, or over the phone.....<< > >Already discussed. Virtually impossible to do. Extremely questionable >benefits over a written exchange. Why should I go through all that trouble >just to get jerked around in person? > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yh04.mx.aol.com (rly-yh04.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.36]) by air-yh05.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:49:04 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f49.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.49]) by rly-yh04.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:48:43 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:48:43 -0700 Received: from 152.163.206.181 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.206.181] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Dennys Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:48:42 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F49DvrxVXLX1JNgcOYY00002556@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2000 22:48:43.0285 (UTC) FILETIME=[4FE15450:01BFFA78] ############################################################## Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 31-Jul-00 07:44:51 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Number 1, I did not even know you were married, and actually am surprised to hear you are. Number 2: So if I did not know you were married, how could you I know your wife is Hispanic? Delusional?<< Because I told you. Several times. I also mentioned my son several times. Do I need to send those portions to you yet again? Yet again: You know that you have misinformed your readership. What will be your corrective action? ################################################### Subj: Re: Creation/Evolution debate at a University Date: 31-Jul-00 07:47:41 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Do you know of any PhD's willing to debate a Creationist on a University campus?<< None of the PhDs I know and/or work with has any interest in creation/evolution. Bill, you missed the point. Yet again. Trying to change the subject YET AGAIN will not succeed in covering your tracks. Is your behavior what you meant by those cryptic references to "rabbit trail"? ################################################### Subj: Re: I accept your resignation to debate on line Date: 31-Jul-00 07:53:04 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, webmaster@liberator.net >>Subj: I accept your resignation to debate on line<< What resignation? I'm not resigning for it, Bill. You are the one who keeps trying to dodge it and to weasel out of it. We have an agreed-upon on-line debate between the two of us. That agreement still stands. I have been standing by and ready for over two years. You cannot duck out of it that easily, Bill. ################################################### Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 31-Jul-00 17:07:28 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Lets meet at a Dennys. You can bring your wife! We mayeven become good friends who disagree on our origins.<< You are really quite unbelievable, Bill. Don't you ever pay attention? You already know full well that the answer is no. And you already know full well why not, unless you need to have it listed out yet again. Why are you wasting all this time, instead of just getting on with the discussion? Or are you wasting this time on purpose? And as for inviting my wife along, that's the second worst idea you've come up with! [borrowing from that old vaudeville line which Maxwell Smart used so often] First, there is a set of topics that I have had interest in over the years, but which my wife considers a waste of my time (as I said, she has her own plans for my "copious spare time"). I have learned through experience that life runs a lot smoother if she doesn't see me spending any time on any of those topics. Therefore, when she is around, I am careful not to seen nor heard discussing, reading about, or writing about any of those topics. Therefore, if my wife is present, then we cannot discuss creation/evolution. The entire purpose for such a meeting would be defeated. So why even try to meet in the first place? Second, if my wife and I are going to meet somebody somewhere, it has to be for a very good reason that she has bought into completely. She doesn't care in the least bit about the "creation/evolution" issue except that she has already decided that creationists are a pack of idiots and fools who are typical fundamentalists. And she considers fundamentalists to be a pack of religious fanatics and fools who refuse to listen to reason and with whom one cannot carry on a normal conversation. In her eyes, there would be absolutely no good reason to go meet with a fundamentalist AND a creationist for the purpose of discussing creation/evolution with him. My wife would be a hostile member of the party, further defeating the purpose of such a meeting AND defeating the purpose of keeping her out of the loop in the first place: namely the maintenance of marital bliss. WhatEVER was I thinking when I decided to drag to her along to such a useless and utter waste of a meeting and whatEVER was I thinking when I decided to WASTE my precious time like that and whatEVER was I thinking ... [nagga-nagga-nagga ad infinitum]. Third, it would still not solve the problem of my not being able to hear you clearly in the restaurant. And if I did not wish to sit with you cheek-to-cheek before, I REALLY would not want to do so with my wife present. Therefore, offering to invite my wife along is a HORRIBLE idea. Now, I need to tell you a little story to explain some of my wife's strong feelings about fundamentalists. She is the oldest of four children. Her family is one of the most accepting and loving families I have ever met. They don't just say "mi casa, su casa"; they live it. All four kids grew up in this warm, loving, and nurturing environment. Family is very important to them. They visit and call each other almost every day. We all get together every week for supper; sons-in-law, grandchildren, everybody. Except for her brother's family. Circa 1980, while I was in the war (Air Force slang for being on active duty), her brother became a fundamentalist and started going to Chuck Smith's. They started training him in proselytization and he immediately started working on his family members. He nearly tore that loving, nurturing family apart. The youngest sister just refused to even talk to him at all. The second-youngest was less strong-willed and soon she was having nightmares from the stories he was telling her about Jesus' anger towards and hatred of the unrepentant. To try to keep the peace, his mother went to services with him a few times, but it all seemed too cult-like to her and it seemed like Chuck Smith was hypnotizing them. Finally, she had to refuse to go anymore, which signalled to her son that she would not be converted. Now normally, he is extrememly even-tempered and most of the time hardly expresses any emotion at all. But there he stood before her, trembling and seething with rage and anger, denouncing her. For his mother to have to stand there and see what this Christian cult had done to her only son ... driving a knife through her heart would have been infinitely more merciful. She had to forbid all discussion of religion in the house and could only allow him to visit (he was already living on his own by then) if he promised not to say anything at all about religion. The subject was strengst verboten ("most strictly forbidden"). Now, twenty years later, he has calmed down a bit (actually, he did calm down very shortly after the blow-up) and there is no longer a total ban on religious discussion at my in-laws' house, but it is also not encouraged and my mother-in-law immediately steps in if it ever becomes the least bit heated. Fundamentalism has left an enduring scar. My mother-in-law is an even more loving grandmother than she is a mother and it breaks her heart that she hardly ever gets to see her son's daughter and that her granddaughter hardly ever gets to see her eight cousins, most of whom understand Spanish (except for the baby) whereas she does not. They will come on the very special occasions (eg, birthdays, anniversaries, major holidays), but more often than not he will just come alone and only to the special occasions. His wife is about five years older than he is. Coincidentally, in 1970 we were in the same French class at Santa Ana College, at which time she was already attending Chuck Smith's tiny church on Greenhope and Sunflower (I saw her there one night when they were offering Hebrew lessons). I didn't know her very well at the time; I mainly remember others refering to her as "the Jesus Freak chick" (since you're too young to remember, it was around 1970 that hippies started converting to fundamentalism, sparking the "Jesus Freak" movement, which in Orange County seemed to center mainly around Chuck Smith's church). There was another girl in that French class who wore leg braces and used crutches. 20 years later, I met her again at an Atheists United brunch. I told her about that girl from French class having married my brother-in-law and she then told me that they used to be best friends and how that had ended. Let's call my brother-in-law's wife, "P", and the crippled girl, "L". They were the best of friends. P would spend a lot of time with L, driving her places, etc. P would also invite L to church every chance she could and L would accept most of the time, but with personal reservations. P would try to talk L into converting, but L never would. Finally one day, L had to tell P that there was no chance at all that she would ever convert. Immediately, P wouldn't have anything more to do with L. This told the both of us that all P was ever really interested in was converting L. I have encountered the same thing in creation/evolution discussions. I always wanted to talk about the evidence and the claims, but as soon as they could they started trying to convert me (sound familiar, Bill?). When they finally realized that they could never convert me, they suddenly lost all interest in the discussion. P has done a number of things to lower herself in the family's eyes, so they are not very accepting of her. The religion thing probably doesn't help much either. Ironically, I, the family atheist, am pretty much the warmest and best friend that P, the "Jesus Freak chick", has in the family -- besides her husband, of course -- and have had to try to defend her at times in absentia. BTW, the other night, my wife was voicing some complaint about P and I recounted the P&L story again and added the parallel with creationist behavior, just to feel out her mood about creationism. The temperature in the room immediately dropped about 10 degrees. Even though that should have felt more comfortable on such a hot night, it did not. So, when we hear all this talk of "Christian love" and "Christian family values", we immediately see it for the hypocrisy that it is. ############################################################## Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 22-Jul-00 23:29:52 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Oh, D Wise, you remind me of a commercial I saw when I was about 10 (that would be in 1970). This hapless looking fellow is hitchhiking in the middle of a terrible snow strom, shivering away and holding a sign that says "Miami." Up pulls a Corvette, the door opens and inside is a very pretty girl who says, I am only going as far as Ft Lauderdale.....he shrugs, and says "no thanks." He missed the point! You did to. You selectively chose to not address the Peppered Moth fraud. Also, I have never hid the fact I was eager to sin and happy to stop trusting the Bible. At 14 this happened when Mr. Smeadela taught me I was related to a squid. I will mail you a tape of my lesson; where shall I mail it? Do you belong to a group that wants me to speak to them? I will, as long as you promise it will be respectful....I sure will be. Where is my error in the Inquisition? I thought you would be honored that I mentioned you. I can't do anything right in your eyes. I make you famous, accurately quote you, and you correct me. I will keep trying to please you. Dave Phillips is the Neandertal expert, would you like to call him regarding the N mans DNA????? I added liber8r to my newsletter mailing! You said: "Yet there are several >fossils which show a gradation from Homo erectus to Neanderthal. So if the >ICR still wants to classify Homo erectus as "100% ape", they have those >"missing links" to contend with." Please tell me specifically which fossils you are talking about. Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth >Fraud! >Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:18:05 EDT > >First, I do hope that you have corrected your mistake concerning the >"Spanish Inquisition". > >Second, I corrected my "Morgan Pages" in the matter of when you started >posting your email address and FTP'd them up yesterday. Please let me know >if I missed one. > >Third, your web site is down. I keep getting a 403 message, "Access Not >Authorized". Are you aware of this problem? Could you please let me know >when it gets corrected? And if it ends up that you need to change your >URL, could you please pass it on to me so that I can update my own pages? > >Fourth, I would like to comment on this paragraph in the newsletter: >"When I was 14, I thought the Theory of Evolution was scientific truth >thanks to my 9th grade Biology teacher. He was the expert! Why would he >deceive me?" > >You always seemed to have a problem in identifying experts, though the >attitude that you express here is in keeping with a 14-year-old's >perspective. I am not criticizing the use of that perspective here, since >it is appropriate for what you were trying to communicate. > >There are definite problems with science education, especially in the >secondary schools. >I think that this would be a good subject to discuss. >Of course, my solution would be to try to improve the quality of science >education whereas your "solution" would be to destroy it further. > >I discussed this issue in my 1998-Sep-04 email to you, which never got >delivered because you had disappeared suddenly. At least, I couldn't >deliver it until now: > >[from 1998 Sep 04] > >Sorry for my absense of late. Besides being away for my two weeks of >active duty, I have been very busy with work and with the events >unfolding due to the Boy Scouts of America, Inc, having decided to >attack our church [visit http://www.uua.org for details]. > >Bill, in your last newsletter, you wrote: > >"Some bones, claimed to be from Neandertal Man, were claimed to be >non-human since the number of substitutions in their mitochondrial >DNA was 24, and the human average is 8. What isn't taught, is that >the human range for this is from 1 to 26! Thus it fell within human >range. And if it were Neandertal Man's remains, how was its DNA >preserved? Neandertal man supposedly disappeared 30,000 years ago, >there is strong evidence that DNA cannot be preserved more than a few >thousand years!" > >[Liber8r, there were a lot more statements made, but I didn't feel like >typing them all in. Has Bill started emailing you a copy of the >newsletter as he had planned? He has not emailed it to me.] > >Could you please cite your source(s) for this statement? Until I can >read what the scientific source(s) say, I cannot make sense of your >statement. > >As for your questions about the survival of the DNA, refer to the subject >of Miocene "green fossils" (I'll have to dig the article out on my files), >from which proteins were extracted and sequenced and a pattern of >biochemical differences was discovered across morphologically identical >specimens. Again, the primary source of your statement (ie, the scientific >source, not a creationist claim supposedly based on an unnamed scientific >source) should describe how the mitochondrial samples were obtained. > >While there is disagreement among scientists on exactly how Neanderthal >Man is related to our species, Homo sapiens sapiens, most scientists do >consider him to be very closely related to us, some even placing him as >a sub-species, Homo sapiens neanderthalis, I believe. > >Precisely how are you using the terms, "human" and "non-human", here? >Are you being consistent in your usage of those terms (ie, not engaging >in standard creationist semantic shifting)? Are you using it to refer >strictly to Homo sapiens sapiens, or a bit more loosely to include all >possible sub-species, such as Homo sapiens neanderthalis? > >So what is your point, Bill? You seem to have proceeded from the premise >that all scientists have been involved in some grandiose conspiracy to >misrepresent what Neanderthal Man is. However, except for most of the >interpretations that you threw in, all that information about Neanderthal >has been freely available to anyone who has bothered to look it up. Like >NOAA's answers to your questions about ozone-layer depletion. What it >looks like is that yet again you had had a totally mistaken idea of what >science says and, upon discovering that you were mistaken, you mistakenly >interpreted that as debunking science. Just like your "discovery" that >C-14 has too short a half-life to be used in dating anything older than >about 50,000 years. Having your misunderstanding of science corrected >does not disprove science, it only means that you didn't understand the >science in the first place! > >"According to evolutionsts, Neanderthal Man lived at the same time >as Homo Sapiens." > >Yes, that is correct. So, what is your point? Do you have a point, or >are you trying to rely on innuendo again? > >"Because for many years, millions of school children were taught that >Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of Evolution." > >What kind of evidence are you saying that it has been taught as? There >is lots of different evidence for evolution, each piece of evidence >pertaining to a different part of the overall view. What specifically >are you saying that Neanderthal was being presented as evidence of?Yet >there are several >fossils which show a gradation from Homo erectus to Neanderthal. So if the >ICR still wants to classify Homo erectus as "100% ape", they have those >"missing links" to contend with. > >One thought on this. The ICR decries the lack of a "missing link" between >man and apes. They proclaim that Neanderthal was "100% human" and that >Homo erectus was "100% ape, nothing human about it!". > >But back to the question of what school children are being taught. We >have touched on the problem of the quality of science education before. >IS what is being taught in school as science current scientific thought? >Is it accurate? Is it understood by the students? Is it even understood >by the teachers? > >First, the science curriculum is not current. For various reasons, >usually several years will pass before a new discovery or theory finds >its way into the text books. As Frank Steiger pointed out, trying to >keep science text books current would require them to be revised several >times a year to include all the latest views and information. Our school >district gets new books only about once every seven years. Rather, >current scientific thought is to be found in the professional scientific >journals. How often are professional scientific journals used in junior >high and high school science classes? I cannot say that I've heard of it. > >Second, there are definite problems in the accuracy of the science >curriculum in the elementary and secondary schools, particularly in the >textbooks. When California was preparing to buy new science textbooks in >the mid-to-late 80's, a group of scientists volunteered to review the >textbooks under consideration. They found none of the books to be >acceptable; >all contained numerous inaccuracies, misconceptions, and just plain wrong >information. For one thing, none of the authors were scientists. Also, >in order to appease fundamentalist activists and board members, the >publishers >had their authors equivocate on, and even leave out, certain >"controversial" >subjects, like evolution. The scientists had to reject most of the books >and >drew up a long list of corrections that had to be made in the best of the >candidates before they could even approach being adequate. As soon as the >publisher had implemented a few of the corrections, the State Board met in >secret and went behind the scientists' backs to approve the >still-very-flawed >textbook. > >Third, besides working from inaccurate material, many teachers are >themselves not sufficiently trained in science. In most school districts, >they find practically anyone they can to teach a subject, even if that >teacher has little training in the subject. Two years ago, my younger >son's 6th grade science teacher's experience was in teaching home-ec; our >son knew more about the subject matter than she did and the other students >kept turning to him for explanations. I don't know what his older >brother's >9th grade science teacher's training was, but that guy was horrible; he was >apparently a low-profile creationist who left out certain topics and hinted >at the existence of "scientific evidence" against other topics, his idea of >educational materials included the movies "The Lion King" and "Free Willy", >and he also had a local fundamentalist activist speak to the class a number >of times. Why, one local high school even had a PE teacher teaching >biology, >of all things, even though he had the absolute minimum biology training >required for his PE degree! You may have heard something about that one. > >One thing that I have noticed about the misconceptions expressed by >creationists >about science in general and evolution in particular, is that they are very >similar to the misconceptions held by much of the general public about >science >in general and evolution in particular. That might be a large part of the >reason for most people's willingness to accept the claims of creation >science. >They are confused by what the scientists tell them, but they understand it >when >the creationists tell them what they already "know." > >When a teacher teaches science without knowing the subject matter, then >he/she >must depend on the textbook, which we already know to be woefully >inadequate >and inaccurate. Beyond that, they will rely on their personal "knowledge", >such that they end up propogating their own misconceptions and >misunderstandings >to the next generation. > >Which brings us to the question of how much the students understand >science. >Considering the textbooks and teachers that most of them have to learn >from, >I wouldn't think that they would have much chance. > >"I was taught [that Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of >Evolution] >in 9th grade back in 1974, and I believed it and became an evolutionist!" > >Uh, Bill, now you're changing your story. In AOLCREAT.DOC, you wrote that >you did not really believe it, but rather that you wanted to believe the >[mistaken] conclusion that it made you free to indulge in all kinds of >debauchery, "to sin without guilt." It was not the ideas of evolution that >you had embraced, but rather false Christian conclusions about evolution >and >science. > >You claim to have become an atheist, but your own words speak differently: >"But I honestly know that you know God exists but choose not to honor >acknowldge or give thanks to God. Romans 1 says that and that was my case >when I was an atheist, I prayed many times while an atheist." Bill, an >atheist is one who does not believe in the gods. From what you describe >of yourself, you were never an atheist, but rather had always remained a >theist, even when you were trying to pretend to be an atheist. An atheist >realizes that he does not need any gods upon whom to base his beliefs and >that he must accept responsibility for his own actions. Your entire >masquerade as an "atheist" was nothing but a theist's attempt to escape >responsibility for his actions. Face it, Bill, except for your earliest >infancy, you never were an atheist. > > >"We have a free lesson for your youth so they may defend their faith in >junior high, high school and college. Call 714 898-8331 and ask for more >information (adults need this lesson too)." > >Could you please share some of that free lesson with us? You had freely >offered to present your lesson to me before, which offer I accepted, but >which you never did deliver on. "Mr. 100%". If you protest that none of >it is written in electronic form, then it is high time that you do commit >it to disk, since I would think that, since you appear to think so highly >of your work, you would want to make it widely available on your web page. > >Also, could you please tell us what measures you have taken to ensure the >scientific accuracy of this lesson with which you expect the youth to >"defend their faith." Especially considering that you are well aware of >how creation science's contrary-to-fact teachings about geology and the age >of the earth has destroyed or nearly destroyed the faith of staunch >creationists when faced with the truth. What have you done to ensure that >your free lesson will indeed perform as advertised? That it will indeed >defend their faith and not sow the seeds of its destruction? > >BTW, how is the work going on your web page? When should we expect to see >it put up? And how are you doing on your opening statement for our on-line >debate? > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc04.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:29:52 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f293.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.87]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:29:27 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:29:26 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.53 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.53] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 06:29:26 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F293TGJ2TUSzbAUfKRf00001116@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2000 06:29:26.0992 (UTC) FILETIME=[59824500:01BFF46F] Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 31-Jul-00 21:19:21 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Its a shame your wife calls people nasty names. My wife or I never would do that. We respect people. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Dennys >Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:07:26 EDT > > >>Lets meet at a Dennys. You can bring your wife! We mayeven become good >friends who disagree on our origins.<< > >You are really quite unbelievable, Bill. Don't you ever pay attention? >You already know full well that the answer is no. And you already know >full well why not, unless you need to have it listed out yet again. Why >are you wasting all this time, instead of just getting on with the >discussion? Or are you wasting this time on purpose? > >And as for inviting my wife along, that's the second worst idea you've come >up with! [borrowing from that old vaudeville line which Maxwell Smart used >so often] > >First, there is a set of topics that I have had interest in over the years, >but which my wife considers a waste of my time (as I said, she has her own >plans for my "copious spare time"). I have learned through experience that >life runs a lot smoother if she doesn't see me spending any time on any of >those topics. Therefore, when she is around, I am careful not to seen nor >heard discussing, reading about, or writing about any of those topics. > >Therefore, if my wife is present, then we cannot discuss >creation/evolution. The entire purpose for such a meeting would be >defeated. So why even try to meet in the first place? > >Second, if my wife and I are going to meet somebody somewhere, it has to be >for a very good reason that she has bought into completely. She doesn't >care in the least bit about the "creation/evolution" issue except that she >has already decided that creationists are a pack of idiots and fools who >are typical fundamentalists. And she considers fundamentalists to be a >pack of religious fanatics and fools who refuse to listen to reason and >with whom one cannot carry on a normal conversation. In her eyes, there >would be absolutely no good reason to go meet with a fundamentalist AND a >creationist for the purpose of discussing creation/evolution with him. > >My wife would be a hostile member of the party, further defeating the >purpose of such a meeting AND defeating the purpose of keeping her out of >the loop in the first place: namely the maintenance of marital bliss. >WhatEVER was I thinking when I decided to drag to her along to such a >useless and utter waste of a meeting and whatEVER was I thinking when I >decided to WASTE my precious time like that and whatEVER was I thinking ... >[nagga-nagga-nagga ad infinitum]. > >Third, it would still not solve the problem of my not being able to hear >you clearly in the restaurant. And if I did not wish to sit with you >cheek-to-cheek before, I REALLY would not want to do so with my wife >present. > >Therefore, offering to invite my wife along is a HORRIBLE idea. > > >Now, I need to tell you a little story to explain some of my wife's strong >feelings about fundamentalists. > >She is the oldest of four children. Her family is one of the most >accepting and loving families I have ever met. They don't just say "mi >casa, su casa"; they live it. All four kids grew up in this warm, loving, >and nurturing environment. Family is very important to them. They visit >and call each other almost every day. We all get together every week for >supper; sons-in-law, grandchildren, everybody. Except for her brother's >family. > >Circa 1980, while I was in the war (Air Force slang for being on active >duty), her brother became a fundamentalist and started going to Chuck >Smith's. They started training him in proselytization and he immediately >started working on his family members. He nearly tore that loving, >nurturing family apart. The youngest sister just refused to even talk to >him at all. The second-youngest was less strong-willed and soon she was >having nightmares from the stories he was telling her about Jesus' anger >towards and hatred of the unrepentant. To try to keep the peace, his >mother went to services with him a few times, but it all seemed too >cult-like to her and it seemed like Chuck Smith was hypnotizing them. > >Finally, she had to refuse to go anymore, which signalled to her son that >she would not be converted. Now normally, he is extrememly even-tempered >and most of the time hardly expresses any emotion at all. But there he >stood before her, trembling and seething with rage and anger, denouncing >her. For his mother to have to stand there and see what this Christian >cult had done to her only son ... driving a knife through her heart would >have been infinitely more merciful. > >She had to forbid all discussion of religion in the house and could only >allow him to visit (he was already living on his own by then) if he >promised not to say anything at all about religion. The subject was >strengst verboten ("most strictly forbidden"). Now, twenty years later, he >has calmed down a bit (actually, he did calm down very shortly after the >blow-up) and there is no longer a total ban on religious discussion at my >in-laws' house, but it is also not encouraged and my mother-in-law >immediately steps in if it ever becomes the least bit heated. >Fundamentalism has left an enduring scar. > >My mother-in-law is an even more loving grandmother than she is a mother >and it breaks her heart that she hardly ever gets to see her son's daughter >and that her granddaughter hardly ever gets to see her eight cousins, most >of whom understand Spanish (except for the baby) whereas she does not. >They will come on the very special occasions (eg, birthdays, anniversaries, >major holidays), but more often than not he will just come alone and only >to the special occasions. > >His wife is about five years older than he is. Coincidentally, in 1970 we >were in the same French class at Santa Ana College, at which time she was >already attending Chuck Smith's tiny church on Greenhope and Sunflower (I >saw her there one night when they were offering Hebrew lessons). I didn't >know her very well at the time; I mainly remember others refering to her as >"the Jesus Freak chick" (since you're too young to remember, it was around >1970 that hippies started converting to fundamentalism, sparking the "Jesus >Freak" movement, which in Orange County seemed to center mainly around >Chuck Smith's church). > >There was another girl in that French class who wore leg braces and used >crutches. 20 years later, I met her again at an Atheists United brunch. I >told her about that girl from French class having married my brother-in-law >and she then told me that they used to be best friends and how that had >ended. Let's call my brother-in-law's wife, "P", and the crippled girl, >"L". They were the best of friends. P would spend a lot of time with L, >driving her places, etc. P would also invite L to church every chance she >could and L would accept most of the time, but with personal reservations. >P would try to talk L into converting, but L never would. Finally one day, >L had to tell P that there was no chance at all that she would ever >convert. Immediately, P wouldn't have anything more to do with L. This >told the both of us that all P was ever really interested in was converting >L. > >I have encountered the same thing in creation/evolution discussions. I >always wanted to talk about the evidence and the claims, but as soon as >they could they started trying to convert me (sound familiar, Bill?). When >they finally realized that they could never convert me, they suddenly lost >all interest in the discussion. > >P has done a number of things to lower herself in the family's eyes, so >they are not very accepting of her. The religion thing probably doesn't >help much either. Ironically, I, the family atheist, am pretty much the >warmest and best friend that P, the "Jesus Freak chick", has in the family >-- besides her husband, of course -- and have had to try to defend her at >times in absentia. > >BTW, the other night, my wife was voicing some complaint about P and I >recounted the P&L story again and added the parallel with creationist >behavior, just to feel out her mood about creationism. The temperature in >the room immediately dropped about 10 degrees. Even though that should >have felt more comfortable on such a hot night, it did not. > > >So, when we hear all this talk of "Christian love" and "Christian family >values", we immediately see it for the hypocrisy that it is. > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (rly-zd03.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.227]) by air-zd01.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:19:21 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f160.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.160]) by rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:18:57 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:18:56 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.43 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.43] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Dennys Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 04:18:56 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F160f69aZbLAX3cf3ed00009709@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2000 04:18:56.0916 (UTC) FILETIME=[9C233D40:01BFFB6F] Subj: Great Pumpkin Date: 31-Jul-00 21:24:06 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com How many times do I have to tell you...I do not want to read your text and supply my text. I have a family and life, you are like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin. In my list of things to do, challenging you to a typing contest is about 276. There is no Great Pumpkin! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: I accept your resignation to debate on line >Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:53:03 EDT > > >>Subj: I accept your resignation to debate on line<< > >What resignation? I'm not resigning for it, Bill. You are the one who >keeps trying to dodge it and to weasel out of it. > >We have an agreed-upon on-line debate between the two of us. That >agreement still stands. I have been standing by and ready for over two >years. > >You cannot duck out of it that easily, Bill. > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-ye04.mx.aol.com (rly-ye04.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.201]) by air-ye01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:24:06 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f62.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.62]) by rly-ye04.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:23:53 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:23:52 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.43 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.43] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Great Pumpkin Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 04:23:52 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F62gcxHBQ634K01Qppv00006a4b@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2000 04:23:52.0581 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C5E2350:01BFFB70] Subj: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: 31-Jul-00 21:45:18 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: webmaster@liberator.net, DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com Yes you missed the mark out of convienence. We want you to attend and and free thinker could see that. Don't be a chicken little, come to our meeting. I will go to one of yours, and be respectful at yours. Love, Bill >From: "Mark" >To: , >Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. >Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:38:45 -0500 > >, you wrote: > ><<to play the part of a casual reader. That is to say that we need to you to >read something as the average person would read it, without dwelling on it >and analyzing it. For his next newsletter, Bill wrote: "The lesson is free >and we encourage you to bring young people and your skeptical friends. I >know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't come to our meetings is >that he fears 'an Inquisition.' I think he is scared of truth, not an >Inquisition." Bill and I cannot agree on how his readers would interpret >that second sentence: "I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't >come to our meetings is that he fears 'an Inquisition.' " Mark, could you >please tell us as a casual reader what that sentence tells you about that >"one skeptic". In particular, please elaborate on what it tells you about >why that "one skeptic" won't come to the meetings. The only context >missing >here is that it is talking about the meetings of the Creation Science >Association of Orange County, of which Bill is vice-president.>>> > >Gentlemen, > >The statement is an interesting one. If skeptics already have reservations >about attending this meeting, the phrase above will certainly throw >skeptics >over the edge and not attend the meeting. Skeptics are being portrayed as >not just a minority group in this 'lesson,' but that skeptics will account >for an isolated number of critical thinking participants in this 'lesson.' >Also, the reference to the lesson as 'an Inquisition' is not an ideal way >to >characterize this 'lesson' if the intent is to invite skeptics. No skeptic >wants to join a group and be taught a 'lesson' by an overwhelming number of >religious fanatics, as the historical reference implies. > >I invite you to comment on my thoughts. Am I off-base here? > >Mark Liberator >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (rly-zd03.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.227]) by air-zd03.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:45:18 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f142.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.142]) by rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:45:04 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:45:03 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.43 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.43] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: webmaster@liberator.net, DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 04:45:03 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F142cKfExvWvqzAoa2J000013a6@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2000 04:45:03.0568 (UTC) FILETIME=[41EF5D00:01BFFB73] Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 01-Aug-00 07:35:09 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Its a shame your wife calls people nasty names. My wife or I never would do that. We respect people.<< So does she respect people. But she also forms opinions of people based on how they have behaved. She does not call them names; that is just her opinion of them which she has only shared with me. She has nothing but bad experiences with proselytizers. And what happened to her own family has done nothing but reinforce those negative impressions. A lot of people have had very bad experiences with fundamentalists, which colors the way that they see all fundamentalists. For example, the way that you have conducted yourself throughout our exchanges. And now you are wrapping yourself in false moral superiority. Yet again you miss the point. Subj: Re: Great Pumpkin Date: 01-Aug-00 07:39:40 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>How many times do I have to tell you...I do not want to read your text and supply my text. I have a family and life, you are like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin. In my list of things to do, challenging you to a typing contest is about 276. There is no Great Pumpkin!<< Well I also have a family and a life. I did not want an on-line debate, but you kept insisting on having a public debate, so I agreed to one with you. And now you're trying to weasel out of it. It was not MY idea; it was YOUR idea! You INSISTED on it! If you did not want it, then why did you ask for it? Subj: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: 01-Aug-00 07:50:29 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, webmaster@liberator.net >>Yes you missed the mark out of convienence. We want you to attend and and free thinker could see that. Don't be a chicken little, come to our meeting. I will go to one of yours, and be respectful at yours.<< Bill, I have drill in San Diego that weekend. I do plan on attend a meeting some time, but it usually conflicts with other obligations or the topic just plain does not interest me. Plus there is the everpreset problem of explaining to my wife where I am going and not spending time with my family (remember, Bill, I have a life and a family). You are deliberately avoiding the problem that you have created. Liber8r could also plainly see what you were saying, that I feared an inquisition from the creationists at the meeting. That is NOT what I had said to you, as you are fully aware. I have repeatedly asked you what actions you plan to take to correct your having misinformed your readership. Whether you had done it deliberately or not, you have misinformed your readership. You know for a fact that you have misinformed them. All indications are that you do not intend to correct that misinformation. That is a deliberate act of omission on your part. The name for that deliberate act is "lying". Bill, is it truly your deliberate intent to lie to your readership? If not, then what corrective action do you plan to take? Subj: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: 01-Aug-00 08:05:29 Pacific Daylight Time From: webmaster@liberator.net (Mark) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com Bill, if you claim that creationism is the theory you accept, you had better swallow the religious tenants that come with it, which means you should also be honest. Correct the mistake you made and characterize the meeting as a place where people will make a healthy exchange of information. Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 9:50 AM Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. >>Yes you missed the mark out of convienence. We want you to attend and and free thinker could see that. Don't be a chicken little, come to our meeting. I will go to one of yours, and be respectful at yours.<< Bill, I have drill in San Diego that weekend. I do plan on attend a meeting some time, but it usually conflicts with other obligations or the topic just plain does not interest me. Plus there is the everpreset problem of explaining to my wife where I am going and not spending time with my family (remember, Bill, I have a life and a family). You are deliberately avoiding the problem that you have created. Liber8r could also plainly see what you were saying, that I feared an inquisition from the creationists at the meeting. That is NOT what I had said to you, as you are fully aware. I have repeatedly asked you what actions you plan to take to correct your having misinformed your readership. Whether you had done it deliberately or not, you have misinformed your readership. You know for a fact that you have misinformed them. All indications are that you do not intend to correct that misinformation. That is a deliberate act of omission on your part. The name for that deliberate act is "lying". Bill, is it truly your deliberate intent to lie to your readership? If not, then what corrective action do you plan to take? ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.webmaster@liberator.net> Received: from rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (rly-yg02.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.2]) by air-yg01.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 11:05:29 -0400 Received: from Kitten.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 11:05:08 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by Kitten.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA16192; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:05:07 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from webmaster@liberator.net) Message-ID: <000e01bffbca$04dcad80$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" <.webmaster@liberator.net> To: <.DWise1@aol.com>, <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> References: <200008011451.HAA13545@fire.he.net> Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:06:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ############################################################## Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 01-Aug-00 11:22:40 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Its a shame you and your wife develop preconcieved notions about people before meeting them. My wife and I would never do that. We are not prejudiced. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Dennys >Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 10:35:08 EDT > > >>Its a shame your wife calls people nasty names. My wife or I never >would do that. We respect people.<< > >So does she respect people. But she also forms opinions of people based on >how they have behaved. She does not call them names; that is just her >opinion of them which she has only shared with me. She has nothing but bad >experiences with proselytizers. And what happened to her own family has >done nothing but reinforce those negative impressions. > >A lot of people have had very bad experiences with fundamentalists, which >colors the way that they see all fundamentalists. For example, the way >that you have conducted yourself throughout our exchanges. And now you are >wrapping yourself in false moral superiority. > >Yet again you miss the point. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yg04.mx.aol.com (rly-yg04.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.4]) by air-yg03.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:22:40 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f270.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.48]) by rly-yg04.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:22:30 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:22:28 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Dennys Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 18:22:28 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F270mpO2wk8rdCHuhNq00009514@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2000 18:22:28.0404 (UTC) FILETIME=[72EF6F40:01BFFBE5] Subj: Re: Great Pumpkin Date: 01-Aug-00 11:23:52 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com If on line is Public, then our society is not very social is it? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Great Pumpkin >Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 10:39:39 EDT > > >>How many times do I have to tell you...I do not want to read your text >and supply my text. I have a family and life, you are like Linus waiting >for the Great Pumpkin. > >In my list of things to do, challenging you to a typing contest is about >276. There is no Great Pumpkin!<< > >Well I also have a family and a life. I did not want an on-line debate, >but you kept insisting on having a public debate, so I agreed to one with >you. And now you're trying to weasel out of it. > >It was not MY idea; it was YOUR idea! You INSISTED on it! If you did not >want it, then why did you ask for it? > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (rly-yg02.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.2]) by air-yg04.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:23:52 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f273.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.51]) by rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:23:31 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:23:31 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Great Pumpkin Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 18:23:30 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F273OSbsShdbRMy6wGb00009339@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2000 18:23:31.0077 (UTC) FILETIME=[984A9350:01BFFBE5] Subj: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: 01-Aug-00 11:28:26 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com You know me well enough that I will retract that statement. We have known each other for years. Tell me if this is an accurate retraction: Last month I stated a skeptic friend of mine did not want to attend due to a fear of an "Inquisition." I thought and implied inthe newsletter he feared an inquisition from us. The fact is he fears an Inquistion from his wife, who opposes Creation Science. I apologize for the error. Please let me know if that is an accurate retraction. Your friend, Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. >Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 10:50:28 EDT > > >>Yes you missed the mark out of convienence. We want you to attend and >and free thinker could see that. Don't be a chicken little, come to our >meeting. I will go to one of yours, and be respectful at yours.<< > >Bill, I have drill in San Diego that weekend. I do plan on attend a >meeting some time, but it usually conflicts with other obligations or the >topic just plain does not interest me. Plus there is the everpreset >problem of explaining to my wife where I am going and not spending time >with my family (remember, Bill, I have a life and a family). > >You are deliberately avoiding the problem that you have created. Liber8r >could also plainly see what you were saying, that I feared an inquisition >from the creationists at the meeting. That is NOT what I had said to you, >as you are fully aware. I have repeatedly asked you what actions you plan >to take to correct your having misinformed your readership. > >Whether you had done it deliberately or not, you have misinformed your >readership. You know for a fact that you have misinformed them. All >indications are that you do not intend to correct that misinformation. >That is a deliberate act of omission on your part. The name for that >deliberate act is "lying". > >Bill, is it truly your deliberate intent to lie to your readership? If >not, then what corrective action do you plan to take? > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (rly-zb05.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.5]) by air-zb01.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:28:26 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f276.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.54]) by rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:28:02 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:28:01 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 18:28:00 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F276t865WYtn4yGtv3x00000f70@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2000 18:28:01.0250 (UTC) FILETIME=[3953B420:01BFFBE6] Subj: Re: Great Pumpkin Date: 01-Aug-00 17:19:13 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>If on line is Public, then our society is not very social is it?<< Email is great for exchanging information, which is what our goal is. However, to make to public, it needs to be posted on the Web. Subj: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: 01-Aug-00 17:35:02 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, webmaster@liberator.net >>You know me well enough that I will retract that statement. We have known each other for years.<< Yes, Bill, we have known each other for years, which is why I knew that you were more likely than not to NOT print a correction. You continue to post things that you know are not true. Therefore, I could not trust you to take corrective action on your own. >> Tell me if this is an accurate retraction: Last month I stated a skeptic friend of mine did not want to attend due to a fear of an "Inquisition." I thought and implied inthe newsletter he feared an inquisition from us. The fact is he fears an Inquistion from his wife, who opposes Creation Science. I apologize for the error.<< The third sentence needs a little more work. For one thing, a proper Inquisition can no longer be conducted in Orange County because air quality statutes do not allow autos de fe (burning at the stake). What is really going on is that *I* oppose creation science; my wife opposes my spending any time on the creation/evolution issue. Perhaps it should be reworded: "The fact is that he said 'Spanish Inquisition' to refer to his wife, who opposes his spending any time on the creation/evolution issue." That way, you don't need to be as heavy-handed in calling me "hen-pecked." Thank you for finally acknowledging that you would do something to correct your mistake. It's a shame that it took my reminding you what your actions would have constituted if you did not. Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 01-Aug-00 17:44:26 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Its a shame you and your wife develop preconcieved notions about people before meeting them. My wife and I would never do that. We are not prejudiced.<< Never? Are you trying to say that if Mormon missionaries come to your door and you invite them in, that you truly have no preconceived notion of what they intend to do? And when we started corresponding two years ago, you expressed some definite preconceived notions about me and what I believed. You still do. You just did. Besides, I do know what to expect from you. Remember that scene in "Patton" in North Africa? Patton is standing on the top of hill watching his Third Army winning the battle. As memory serves me (I haven't seen it since its original theatrical release), he laughs, yells an epithet or two in absentia at the opposing commander [Rommel?], and adds, "I read your book!" Bill, I have read your book. I have observed how you conduct yourself in a discussion. I believe I have a very good idea how you would behave. Subj: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: 01-Aug-00 20:39:03 Pacific Daylight Time From: webmaster@liberator.net (Mark) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: dwise1@aol.com It's obvious to me that Billy is a typical, hypocritical, asshole religionist. I have spent too many waking moments thinking about jerk-offs like Billy, to no avail. They continue to distort truth, which in my mind translates to hurting people. They prey on the youth who are not able to think critically for themselves, which in my mind is a strong form of child abuse. I tolerate neither!The Liberator E-Mail: news@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ Better Business: http://liberator.net/special/betterbusiness.html We're looking for writers and cartoonists. Need a reliable and inexpensive Internet provider? Visit FindAnISP: http://www.FindAnISP.com/ Visit CNET: http://webisplist.internetlist.com/ If this asshole were to perform ministerial work in the deepest jungles of Indonesia, I would feel sorry for the Indonesians but would be happy for the distance between us. With that, good evening... Mark Liberator The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 7:35 PM Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. >>You know me well enough that I will retract that statement. We have known each other for years.<< Yes, Bill, we have known each other for years, which is why I knew that you were more likely than not to NOT print a correction. You continue to post things that you know are not true. Therefore, I could not trust you to take corrective action on your own. >> Tell me if this is an accurate retraction: Last month I stated a skeptic friend of mine did not want to attend due to a fear of an "Inquisition." I thought and implied inthe newsletter he feared an inquisition from us. The fact is he fears an Inquistion from his wife, who opposes Creation Science. I apologize for the error.<< The third sentence needs a little more work. For one thing, a proper Inquisition can no longer be conducted in Orange County because air quality statutes do not allow autos de fe (burning at the stake). What is really going on is that *I* oppose creation science; my wife opposes my spending any time on the creation/evolution issue. Perhaps it should be reworded: "The fact is that he said 'Spanish Inquisition' to refer to his wife, who opposes his spending any time on the creation/evolution issue." That way, you don't need to be as heavy-handed in calling me "hen-pecked." Thank you for finally acknowledging that you would do something to correct your mistake. It's a shame that it took my reminding you what your actions would have constituted if you did not. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.webmaster@liberator.net> Received: from rly-yc01.mx.aol.com (rly-yc01.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.33]) by air-yc01.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:39:03 -0400 Received: from Kitten.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yc01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:38:31 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by Kitten.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA90797; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:38:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from webmaster@liberator.net) Message-ID: <001101bffc33$43577540$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" <.webmaster@liberator.net> To: <.DWise1@aol.com>, <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Cc: <.dwise1@aol.com> References: <200008020035.RAA28856@fire.he.net> Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. ############################################################## Subj: Re: Great Pumpkin Date: 02-Aug-00 07:36:57 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>If on line is Public, then our society is not very social is it?<< I must be getting tired. Or old. Or both. I just realized that you had yet again dodged the point. We have agreed on having an on-line debate. You are trying to weasel out of it. I am trying to keep you honest (talk about a thankless job!). From your witnessing tips: "DON’T; Go down rabbit trails. If you raise the question "How did life originate?" and they quickly say "well who made God?" keep the discussion on your question, tell them you will answer that later, but first you want an answer to yours." So that's what you meant by that cryptic reference. And throughout our correspondence you have repeatedly tried to lead me "down rabbit trails" in an effort to dodge the issues and to avoid the points. Isn't it ironic that all along I am the one who has been trying to practice what you preach, as I keep trying to get you to first answer my questions. Whereas you keep doing what you preach the opposition should not be allowed to do. ############################################################## Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 02-Aug-00 18:12:16 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Its a shame you and your wife develop preconcieved notions about people before meeting them. My wife and I would never do that. We are not prejudiced.<< Bill, for you to keep missing the point like you do, you've got to be doing it on purpose. I mean, what are the odds that you are doing it purely by chance? My wife and her family have suffered greatly directly because of fanatical fundamentalists. You know the type. Street proselytizers. Attacking other people's beliefs. Trying to convert everybody. After you've been hit on by a few of them, you learn to be very wary of the type. After all, how many times do you need to be bitten by rabid dogs before you become very careful around other rabid dogs you encounter? In other words, she doesn't form preconceived notions about individuals who are acting like normal people (which even fanatical fundamentalists do on occasion), but rather she's learned to avoid certain unpleasant types who believe that they are on a mission. Life's just too short to put up with that kind of grief. However, if she were to accompany us to Denny's, it would not take long for her to see you for what you are. She might not say anything there, I would sure hear about it for a long time afterwards. Now, if you weren't being a proselytizing creationist, then it might be different. She has a lot of friends who are of a wide variety of religions. Some are even fundamentalist Christians. But they are normal people who act normally; they are not on a mission. They have mutual respect for each other. Similarly, from 1970 to 1976, I was a "fellow traveller" of the "Jesus Freaks" when several of my friends got sucked into Chuck Smith's church. I still have friends from that period and we get along just fine. For all except seven months of the last twelve years, I have worked closely with several fundamentalists which whom I got along just fine and continue to. We have even had frequent, non-trivial, meaningful discussions about religion without the slightest hint of acrimony. None of us were on a mission. The object of the discussions was the discussions themselves and the honest exchange of information and perspectives. Again, the key is mutual respect. But the proselytizers are a different story. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. They act very friendly, while all the time they are sizing you up, finding your weaknesses, plotting how to destroy your religious beliefs so that they can replace them with their own, waiting to catch you off-guard. They are predators and you are their prey. A predator has no respect for his prey. And my wife and I have no respect for these predators, nor should we. Let's face it, Bill, you are one of those predatory proselytizers. You may be able to rationalize to yourself that you are doing your prey a favor, but you are still preying on them, stalking them, seeking to attack that which is closest and most personal. You come in sheep's clothing, wanting to be friends, but I know your lupine ways. You have already gone on the attack against me, repeatedly, even resorting to the "Christian Death Threat." If we were to meet in person as you request, I have absolutely no reason to expect you to not go on the attack again. Oh, you may hold back for longer than you usually would, but you would still be lining me up for the kill. And all the while, I would be watching you, anticipating your strategy, watching my defenses. And you would know what I was doing and would be planning your counters to my defenses. There can be no kind of meaningful discussion in such a situation. No honest exchange of ideas or perspectives. There can be no mutual respect between predator and prey. For there to be respect, there must be trust and there can be no trust between predator and prey. We would not meet as friends, but as adversaries. We would not be conversing, but sparring. I do not need that. Even if you were able to completely drop your role of proselytizer, it is too late. Your conduct has already poisoned the well. If you promised? You have already broken promises. You have taught me that I cannot trust your word, that I cannot immediately believe what you tell me. You have taught me that you cannot be trusted. Now, trust can be built, but it takes time and it takes effort. We will need to continue with a written format. You will have to be honest. You will have to refrain from your "rabbit trail" trickery. Then one day, if you show yourself to be trustworthy, we might be able to meet in friendship. But we have a long ways to go before that day. ############################################################## Subj: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: 02-Aug-00 23:11:29 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com On behalf of myself and the Orange County Creation Science Association we apologize for the error. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. >Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 20:35:02 EDT > > >>You know me well enough that I will retract that statement. We have >known each other for years.<< > >Yes, Bill, we have known each other for years, which is why I knew that you >were more likely than not to NOT print a correction. You continue to post >things that you know are not true. Therefore, I could not trust you to >take corrective action on your own. > > >> Tell me if this is an accurate retraction: > > >Last month I stated a skeptic friend of mine did not want to attend due to >a fear of an "Inquisition." I thought and implied inthe newsletter he >feared an inquisition from us. The fact is he fears an Inquistion from his >wife, who opposes Creation Science. I apologize for the error.<< > >The third sentence needs a little more work. For one thing, a proper >Inquisition can no longer be conducted in Orange County because air quality >statutes do not allow autos de fe (burning at the stake). > >What is really going on is that *I* oppose creation science; my wife >opposes my spending any time on the creation/evolution issue. Perhaps it >should be reworded: >"The fact is that he said 'Spanish Inquisition' to refer to his wife, who >opposes his spending any time on the creation/evolution issue." > >That way, you don't need to be as heavy-handed in calling me "hen-pecked." > >Thank you for finally acknowledging that you would do something to correct >your mistake. It's a shame that it took my reminding you what your actions >would have constituted if you did not. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (rly-yg01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.1]) by air-yg05.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:11:29 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f169.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.169]) by rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:11:01 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 23:11:01 -0700 Received: from 64.12.104.172 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.172] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 06:11:01 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F169bBnm1u2mQPoHEpx000024bb@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2000 06:11:01.0217 (UTC) FILETIME=[98F5A510:01BFFD11] Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 02-Aug-00 23:19:46 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com You have more class than I ever dreamed! I know every line from Patton! You are my main man now! He said: "Rommel;.....you dirty @^@%@ I read your book!" No scripture references. Once he said he read his Bible every &^%$&^%$&^% day. I love Mormons! Our neighborhood has many of them. My best freind at work is openly homosexual. Our best friends in the neighborhood are unmarried with kids. Seriously, yours and your wife's prejudices will only hurt you. Treat everybody with an open heart and gracious smile. Suppose your wife did not want to meet someone because they were black? Or Gay? Or Irish? She would be vilified. But people feel justified treating people who believe the Bible is true as evil people. When I street witness, if someone says no thanks, or I don't want to talk about it, I smile and tell them to have a nice day....I don't push anything on anyone. If you told me to send you no more emails, it would only be Christian of me to honor that and abstain which I would. Your friend, Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Dennys >Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 20:44:25 EDT > > >>Its a shame you and your wife develop preconcieved notions about people >before meeting them. My wife and I would never do that. We are not >prejudiced.<< > >Never? Are you trying to say that if Mormon missionaries come to your door >and you invite them in, that you truly have no preconceived notion of what >they intend to do? And when we started corresponding two years ago, you >expressed some definite preconceived notions about me and what I believed. >You still do. You just did. > >Besides, I do know what to expect from you. Remember that scene in >"Patton" in North Africa? Patton is standing on the top of hill watching >his Third Army winning the battle. As memory serves me (I haven't seen it >since its original theatrical release), he laughs, yells an epithet or two >in absentia at the opposing commander [Rommel?], and adds, "I read your >book!" > >Bill, I have read your book. I have observed how you conduct yourself in a >discussion. I believe I have a very good idea how you would behave. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-ye05.mx.aol.com (rly-ye05.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.202]) by air-ye04.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:19:46 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f150.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.150]) by rly-ye05.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:19:21 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 23:19:20 -0700 Received: from 64.12.104.172 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.172] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Dennys Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 06:19:20 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F150Ia1PHrxNKaH4PeG0000bb89@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2000 06:19:20.0434 (UTC) FILETIME=[C2841D20:01BFFD12] Subj: Re: Great Pumpkin Date: 02-Aug-00 23:21:20 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Three is no great pumpkin. Public debate at UCI or Golden West College...but not on line. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Great Pumpkin >Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:36:56 EDT > > >>If on line is Public, then our society is not very social is it?<< > >I must be getting tired. Or old. Or both. I just realized that you had >yet again dodged the point. > >We have agreed on having an on-line debate. You are trying to weasel out >of it. I am trying to keep you honest (talk about a thankless job!). > >From your witnessing tips: >"DON'T; Go down rabbit trails. If you raise the question "How did life >originate?" and they quickly say "well who made God?" keep the discussion >on your question, tell them you will answer that later, but first you want >an answer to yours." > >So that's what you meant by that cryptic reference. And throughout our >correspondence you have repeatedly tried to lead me "down rabbit trails" in >an effort to dodge the issues and to avoid the points. > >Isn't it ironic that all along I am the one who has been trying to practice >what you preach, as I keep trying to get you to first answer my questions. >Whereas you keep doing what you preach the opposition should not be allowed >to do. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (rly-yh01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.33]) by air-yh02.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:21:20 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f266.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.44]) by rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:20:57 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 23:20:56 -0700 Received: from 64.12.104.172 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.172] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Great Pumpkin Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 06:20:55 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F266MTjuRPZh4gS564B00002413@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2000 06:20:56.0048 (UTC) FILETIME=[FB81A700:01BFFD12] Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 02-Aug-00 23:28:12 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Then lets just stop wasting time e mailing each other. I probably have met thousands of Christians in my travels and would say 2 were the type you fear. Your bigoted attacks on me and my wife are cruel and I prefer that you go your way....and I will go mine. You think I am some evil wicked person out to destroy society, I think not, since I really do have many many friends (most non christian). You may think I am wacked for beleiving in God, thats fine, but I am tired of you personally insulting me on the level of a name calling 2nd grader. Good bye, look in the mirror, Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Dennys >Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:12:15 EDT > > >>Its a shame you and your wife develop preconcieved notions about people >before meeting them. My wife and I would never do that. We are not >prejudiced.<< > >Bill, for you to keep missing the point like you do, you've got to be doing >it on purpose. I mean, what are the odds that you are doing it purely by >chance? > >My wife and her family have suffered greatly directly because of fanatical >fundamentalists. You know the type. Street proselytizers. Attacking >other people's beliefs. Trying to convert everybody. After you've been >hit on by a few of them, you learn to be very wary of the type. After all, >how many times do you need to be bitten by rabid dogs before you become >very careful around other rabid dogs you encounter? > >In other words, she doesn't form preconceived notions about individuals who >are acting like normal people (which even fanatical fundamentalists do on >occasion), but rather she's learned to avoid certain unpleasant types who >believe that they are on a mission. Life's just too short to put up with >that kind of grief. > >However, if she were to accompany us to Denny's, it would not take long for >her to see you for what you are. She might not say anything there, I would >sure hear about it for a long time afterwards. > >Now, if you weren't being a proselytizing creationist, then it might be >different. She has a lot of friends who are of a wide variety of >religions. Some are even fundamentalist Christians. But they are normal >people who act normally; they are not on a mission. They have mutual >respect for each other. > >Similarly, from 1970 to 1976, I was a "fellow traveller" of the "Jesus >Freaks" when several of my friends got sucked into Chuck Smith's church. I >still have friends from that period and we get along just fine. For all >except seven months of the last twelve years, I have worked closely with >several fundamentalists which whom I got along just fine and continue to. >We have even had frequent, non-trivial, meaningful discussions about >religion without the slightest hint of acrimony. None of us were on a >mission. The object of the discussions was the discussions themselves and >the honest exchange of information and perspectives. Again, the key is >mutual respect. > >But the proselytizers are a different story. They come to you in sheep's >clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. They act very friendly, >while all the time they are sizing you up, finding your weaknesses, >plotting how to destroy your religious beliefs so that they can replace >them with their own, waiting to catch you off-guard. They are predators >and you are their prey. A predator has no respect for his prey. And my >wife and I have no respect for these predators, nor should we. > >Let's face it, Bill, you are one of those predatory proselytizers. You may >be able to rationalize to yourself that you are doing your prey a favor, >but you are still preying on them, stalking them, seeking to attack that >which is closest and most personal. You come in sheep's clothing, wanting >to be friends, but I know your lupine ways. You have already gone on the >attack against me, repeatedly, even resorting to the "Christian Death >Threat." If we were to meet in person as you request, I have absolutely no >reason to expect you to not go on the attack again. > >Oh, you may hold back for longer than you usually would, but you would >still be lining me up for the kill. And all the while, I would be watching >you, anticipating your strategy, watching my defenses. And you would know >what I was doing and would be planning your counters to my defenses. > >There can be no kind of meaningful discussion in such a situation. No >honest exchange of ideas or perspectives. There can be no mutual respect >between predator and prey. For there to be respect, there must be trust >and there can be no trust between predator and prey. We would not meet as >friends, but as adversaries. We would not be conversing, but sparring. I >do not need that. > >Even if you were able to completely drop your role of proselytizer, it is >too late. Your conduct has already poisoned the well. If you promised? >You have already broken promises. You have taught me that I cannot trust >your word, that I cannot immediately believe what you tell me. You have >taught me that you cannot be trusted. > >Now, trust can be built, but it takes time and it takes effort. We will >need to continue with a written format. You will have to be honest. You >will have to refrain from your "rabbit trail" trickery. Then one day, if >you show yourself to be trustworthy, we might be able to meet in >friendship. But we have a long ways to go before that day. > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (rly-zd03.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.227]) by air-zd03.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:28:12 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (f259.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.36]) by rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:27:47 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 23:27:46 -0700 Received: from 64.12.104.172 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.172] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Dennys Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 06:27:46 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F259n04x29xDbH8J0sc000000bb@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2000 06:27:46.0470 (UTC) FILETIME=[F0231460:01BFFD13] Subj: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: 03-Aug-00 07:17:05 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>On behalf of myself and the Orange County Creation Science Association we apologize for the error.<< Apology accepted. The error itself was understandable, but the reluctance to correct it that you were demonstrating was not. You do understand that I will need confirmation that the correction is actually communicated to your readership. Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 03-Aug-00 07:21:01 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>If you told me to send you no more emails, it would only be Christian of me to honor that and abstain which I would.<< Oh I know that you would be out of here as fast as you could go, disproving the idea that nothing can move faster than light. But I cannot let you, because there are still so many questions that you have avoided answering. Stop trying to lead me off on your "rabbit trails" and let's get down to business. Subj: Re: Great Pumpkin Date: 03-Aug-00 07:25:17 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Three is no great pumpkin. Public debate at UCI or Golden West College...but not on line.<< Bill, you are still weaseling. Public debate ON-line AS AGREED UPON. I do not want to be part of your sham show. If we are to have a debate, then it must be a REAL debate. That can only be accomplished in written form and the only way to make that public is ON-LINE. If you do not understand why your way is a sham, then tell me which part you do not understand and I will explain it to you. Yet again. Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 03-Aug-00 07:47:06 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Then lets just stop wasting time e mailing each other. I probably have met thousands of Christians in my travels and would say 2 were the type you fear. Your bigoted attacks on me and my wife are cruel and I prefer that you go your way....and I will go mine. You think I am some evil wicked person out to destroy society, I think not, since I really do have many many friends (most non christian). You may think I am wacked for beleiving in God, thats fine, but I am tired of you personally insulting me on the level of a name calling 2nd grader. Good bye, look in the mirror, Bill<< Bill, stop with your "rabbit trail" tricks. I am trying to keep you honest and you cannot stand that. But it is necessary. Now you are trying to escape the truth again, but you must not. Even though you keep insulting us and twisting my words, we need to work this out. I did not say you were "some evil wicked person out to destroy society" and YOU KNOW IT! You think that I am prejudging you, but I am not and YOU KNOW IT! I know how you conduct yourself and I have a very good idea what your goals are. During the two years that we corresponded I had ample opportunity to observe your tactics. You repeatedly dodged questions and resorted to "rabbit trail" tricks, over and over and over again. If you do not believe me, then I can provide you with complete transcripts. That is the truth; you cannot hide from it, as much as you want to. During that time, you have also started on your proselytizing pitches, demonstrating that your goal was to convert me. In your mania to meet with me personally, what other goal could you possibly have except to try to convert me? That would immediately make our meeting adversarial, which would also make it worthless. We do not need that. You may think that it is unfair to describe a proselytizer as a predator, but it is true. In that role, you do not talk with a person for the sake of communication or socialization, but rather for the express purpose of breaking down his defenses against religious conversion. And any attempt at religious conversion is in fact an attack on that person's previously-held religious beliefs. Even you could not deny that. Even if it could be argued that that is not predatory, it is at least adversarial, which would still make a personal meeting between us where your goal is to convert me an adversarial meeting. I keep trying to get us away from being adversaries, but you keep fighting it. Your running away again will not resolve anything. Why must you make it impossible for us to just communicate? ################################################### Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 03-Aug-00 23:18:25 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I am sorry, I will not spend any more time listening to you insulting my wife and I. I triesd so hard to talk to you but your wife and you can not stop labelling us as evil. May God Bless you. Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Dennys >Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:47:06 EDT > > >>Then lets just stop wasting time e mailing each other. > >I probably have met thousands of Christians in my travels and would say 2 >were the type you fear. > >Your bigoted attacks on me and my wife are cruel and I prefer that you go >your way....and I will go mine. You think I am some evil wicked person out >to destroy society, I think not, since I really do have many many friends >(most non christian). > >You may think I am wacked for beleiving in God, thats fine, but I am tired >of you personally insulting me on the level of a name calling 2nd grader. > >Good bye, look in the mirror, >Bill<< > >Bill, stop with your "rabbit trail" tricks. I am trying to keep you honest >and you cannot stand that. But it is necessary. Now you are trying to >escape the truth again, but you must not. Even though you keep insulting >us and twisting my words, we need to work this out. > >I did not say you were "some evil wicked person out to destroy society" and >YOU KNOW IT! You think that I am prejudging you, but I am not and YOU KNOW >IT! I know how you conduct yourself and I have a very good idea what your >goals are. > >During the two years that we corresponded I had ample opportunity to >observe your tactics. You repeatedly dodged questions and resorted to >"rabbit trail" tricks, over and over and over again. If you do not believe >me, then I can provide you with complete transcripts. That is the truth; >you cannot hide from it, as much as you want to. > >During that time, you have also started on your proselytizing pitches, >demonstrating that your goal was to convert me. In your mania to meet with >me personally, what other goal could you possibly have except to try to >convert me? That would immediately make our meeting adversarial, which >would also make it worthless. We do not need that. > >You may think that it is unfair to describe a proselytizer as a predator, >but it is true. In that role, you do not talk with a person for the sake >of communication or socialization, but rather for the express purpose of >breaking down his defenses against religious conversion. And any attempt >at religious conversion is in fact an attack on that person's >previously-held religious beliefs. Even you could not deny that. Even if >it could be argued that that is not predatory, it is at least adversarial, >which would still make a personal meeting between us where your goal is to >convert me an adversarial meeting. > >I keep trying to get us away from being adversaries, but you keep fighting >it. Your running away again will not resolve anything. > >Why must you make it impossible for us to just communicate? > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (rly-zd01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.225]) by air-zd03.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 02:18:25 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f194.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.194]) by rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 02:17:56 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 23:17:55 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.28 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.28] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Dennys Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 06:17:55 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F194cOszrlyxTz8sAQF0000c696@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2000 06:17:55.0972 (UTC) FILETIME=[BA95FC40:01BFFDDB] Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 04-Aug-00 08:00:09 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>I am sorry, I will not spend any more time listening to you insulting my wife and I. I triesd so hard to talk to you but your wife and you can not stop labelling us as evil.<< Excuse me, Bill, but YOU were the one who was insulting MY wife and ME. At least try to get your facts straight. Read what I said and not what you want to read into it. You have a history of misreading messages. I did not insult your wife nor you. Nor did I label your wife or your as "evil." If you really believe that I did, then show me EXACTLY what I had said and tell my why you found it insulting. Now I did criticize your customary conduct of trying to lead me down your "rabbit trails". And I did discuss why your proselytizing goals would make an amiable dinner meeting between us extremely difficult. And I did tell you about the pain and suffering that my brother-in-law's conversion had caused his family and my wife. That is all true; you have never presented any alternative viewpoint. If you considered that to be insulting, then I am sorry. If I truly said something that could have been misinterpreted as an insult, then I apologize. But if you truly serve truth, then you must also be prepared to face the truth. You did not try "so hard to talk to [me]". You kept trying hard to avoid talking with me. To the point of using a false excuse. If you really want to talk with me, then DO IT! What's stopping you? Don't spend so much time and energy avoiding it! If you are so insulted by reference to your "rabbit trails", then please remember that I read your book. Here is what you have to say on the subject: "DON’T; Go down rabbit trails. If you raise the question "How did life originate?" and they quickly say "well who made God?" keep the discussion on your question, tell them you will answer that later, but first you want an answer to yours." Now, if you were to look back at the entirety of our correspondence, you will see time and again where I would ask a reasonable question to which you would throw one of your "unanswerable", "rabbit trail" questions at me. Perhaps my mistake at the time was to go ahead and answer your "unanswerable" question in the hope that you would reciprocate by answering my reasonable question. However, your book says to refuse to answer your "rabbit trail" question and insist that you answer my question first. But then insisting that you answer my questions didn't work either. If you really wanted to talk, then talk. If you never intended to talk, then at least be honest and admit it. The channel is still open. Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 04-Aug-00 14:52:50 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I never never never insulted your wife and am offended at this false claim. Lets stop this charade. If you really wanted to talk you coulc call me or meet at Dennys. Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Dennys >Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 11:00:08 EDT > > >>I am sorry, I will not spend any more time listening to you insulting my >wife and I. I triesd so hard to talk to you but your wife and you can not >stop labelling us as evil.<< > >Excuse me, Bill, but YOU were the one who was insulting MY wife and ME. At >least try to get your facts straight. Read what I said and not what you >want to read into it. You have a history of misreading messages. > >I did not insult your wife nor you. Nor did I label your wife or your as >"evil." If you really believe that I did, then show me EXACTLY what I had >said and tell my why you found it insulting. > >Now I did criticize your customary conduct of trying to lead me down your >"rabbit trails". And I did discuss why your proselytizing goals would make >an amiable dinner meeting between us extremely difficult. And I did tell >you about the pain and suffering that my brother-in-law's conversion had >caused his family and my wife. That is all true; you have never presented >any alternative viewpoint. If you considered that to be insulting, then I >am sorry. If I truly said something that could have been misinterpreted as >an insult, then I apologize. But if you truly serve truth, then you must >also be prepared to face the truth. > >You did not try "so hard to talk to [me]". You kept trying hard to avoid >talking with me. To the point of using a false excuse. If you really want >to talk with me, then DO IT! What's stopping you? Don't spend so much >time and energy avoiding it! > >If you are so insulted by reference to your "rabbit trails", then please >remember that I read your book. Here is what you have to say on the >subject: > >"DON'T; Go down rabbit trails. If you raise the question "How did life >originate?" and they quickly say "well who made God?" keep the discussion >on your question, tell them you will answer that later, but first you want >an answer to yours." > >Now, if you were to look back at the entirety of our correspondence, you >will see time and again where I would ask a reasonable question to which >you would throw one of your "unanswerable", "rabbit trail" questions at me. > Perhaps my mistake at the time was to go ahead and answer your >"unanswerable" question in the hope that you would reciprocate by answering >my reasonable question. However, your book says to refuse to answer your >"rabbit trail" question and insist that you answer my question first. But >then insisting that you answer my questions didn't work either. > >If you really wanted to talk, then talk. If you never intended to talk, >then at least be honest and admit it. > >The channel is still open. > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-ye05.mx.aol.com (rly-ye05.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.202]) by air-ye04.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 17:52:50 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (f159.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.159]) by rly-ye05.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 17:52:26 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 14:52:25 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.49 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.49] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Dennys Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 21:52:25 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F159Vvd5X00lfepHjon00001cca@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2000 21:52:25.0818 (UTC) FILETIME=[46D183A0:01BFFE5E] Subj: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: 04-Aug-00 15:00:12 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: webmaster@liberator.net, DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com When the emotion bubbles over, it is a concession of defeat. I accept your sword, and your surrender, and I promise I will be as gracious as General MacAruthur was to the Japanese and never call you those names, or anything close to what you called me. I will actually compliment you. You are determined, motivated, hard working, but wrong. Peace with honor. WIth time, you may surrender graciously, but never the less, your decison to surrender was prudent. Love in Christ, Bill >From: "Mark" >To: , >CC: >Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. >Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:39:27 -0500 > >It's obvious to me that Billy is a typical, hypocritical, asshole >religionist. > >I have spent too many waking moments thinking about jerk-offs like Billy, >to >no avail. They continue to distort truth, which in my mind translates to >hurting people. They prey on the youth who are not able to think >critically >for themselves, which in my mind is a strong form of child abuse. I >tolerate neither!The Liberator >E-Mail: news@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >Better Business: http://liberator.net/special/betterbusiness.html >We're looking for writers and cartoonists. > >Need a reliable and inexpensive Internet provider? >Visit FindAnISP: http://www.FindAnISP.com/ >Visit CNET: http://webisplist.internetlist.com/ > > >If this asshole were to perform ministerial work in the deepest jungles of >Indonesia, I would feel sorry for the Indonesians but would be happy for >the >distance between us. > >With that, good evening... > >Mark Liberator >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Cc: ; >Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 7:35 PM >Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. > > > >>You know me well enough that I will retract that statement. We have >known >each other for years.<< > >Yes, Bill, we have known each other for years, which is why I knew that you >were more likely than not to NOT print a correction. You continue to post >things that you know are not true. Therefore, I could not trust you to >take >corrective action on your own. > > >> Tell me if this is an accurate retraction: > > >Last month I stated a skeptic friend of mine did not want to attend due to >a >fear of an "Inquisition." I thought and implied inthe newsletter he feared >an inquisition from us. The fact is he fears an Inquistion from his wife, >who opposes Creation Science. I apologize for the error.<< > >The third sentence needs a little more work. For one thing, a proper >Inquisition can no longer be conducted in Orange County because air quality >statutes do not allow autos de fe (burning at the stake). > >What is really going on is that *I* oppose creation science; my wife >opposes >my spending any time on the creation/evolution issue. Perhaps it should be >reworded: >"The fact is that he said 'Spanish Inquisition' to refer to his wife, who >opposes his spending any time on the creation/evolution issue." > >That way, you don't need to be as heavy-handed in calling me "hen-pecked." > >Thank you for finally acknowledging that you would do something to correct >your mistake. It's a shame that it took my reminding you what your actions >would have constituted if you did not. > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (rly-zc01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.1]) by air-zc04.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 18:00:12 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f83.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.83]) by rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 17:59:49 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 14:59:22 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.49 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.49] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: webmaster@liberator.net, DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 21:59:21 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F83jPkQTGpaoG1VRIjn00000c89@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2000 21:59:22.0042 (UTC) FILETIME=[3EE841A0:01BFFE5F] Subj: Re: "Typos" on your site still need correcting Date: 04-Aug-00 22:33:02 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Thanks! My wife is going on a short trip with baby and I can devote a little time to the site. Thanks again for the information! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >Subject: Re: "Typos" on your site still need correcting >Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:50:57 EDT > >Good. > >While you are at it, some of the article are duplicates. I didn't do an >extensive check, but the "Grand Canyon" and the "Neanderthal" articles are >both duplicated. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack321@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (rly-yb03.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.3]) by air-yb01.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Aug 2000 01:33:02 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f123.law6.hotmail.com [216.32.241.123]) by rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Aug 2000 01:32:48 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 22:32:47 -0700 Received: from 152.163.207.204 by lw6fd.law6.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 05 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.207.204] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack321@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: "Typos" on your site still need correcting Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 22:32:47 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F123OuLIDAs3zzlLT8U00001de6@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2000 05:32:47.0335 (UTC) FILETIME=[96868770:01BFFE9E] Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 05-Aug-00 10:01:02 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>I never never never insulted your wife and am offended at this false claim.<< Oh yes you did insult us: >>Subj: Re: Dennys >>Date: 01-Aug-00 11:22:40 Pacific Daylight Time >>From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >>To: DWise1@aol.com >> >>Its a shame you and your wife develop preconcieved >>notions about people >>before meeting them. My wife and I would never do >>that. We are not >>prejudiced. And I find that smug hypocritical attitude of yours very offensive. Nobody is completely free of prejudging. Anybody who does not use his past experiences to size up a stranger in order to anticipate potential actions by that stranger is incapable of learning and would be unlikely to survive long. The best that we can ever hope to do would be to proceed as if we had not prejudged, keeping in place back-up plans just in case the situation turns ugly, and be ready and willing to learn from that particular encounter, whichever way it goes. To believe that one does not prejudge is self-delusion and to proclaim to the world that one does not prejudge is seen as hypocricy. >>Lets stop this charade. If you really wanted to talk you coulc call me or meet at Dennys.<< What possible purpose could such a meeting ever serve? Why would I ever want to agree to such a meeting? I would have to go far out of my way, with considerable effort, for WHAT? For you to try to lead me down more of your "rabbit trails"? For you to try to convert me? Bill, I find proselytizing to be very offensive. When it is directly at me, then I find it deeply and personally extremely offensive. If we met in person and you tried any of those tricks on me, I would not put up with it for a single moment. I am certain that you will make such an attempt. I am not prejudging you; your conduct on-line has demonstrated that that is what you will do. I will not put up with it, especially if I have to go through all that trouble to meet with you. Before I could possibly agree to such a meeting, you would need to demonstrate that it would be a productive meeting and you would need to restore my trust in you. If you want to talk, then let's talk! In your "Ozone Layer" article, you claim that no expert could answer a set of questions which you listed. The "experts" you had asked were air-conditioning trade show reps! When I went to the real experts, the scientists at NOAA, I found answers to every single one of your questions and I passed them on to you. Your first response was to pretend that your question had not been answered. My response was to show you that it had been answered and to ask you to tell me why you believed that it hadn't. Your next response was to run away from the question; you also ignored it every time since then that I had raised it again. Bill, why did you say that your question had not been answered? Now, even though you know that your claims in "The Ozone Layer" are not true, you have it posted unchanged on your site, thus bearing false witness to the world. Bill, how can you justify your actions there? You asked me whether children should be taught about God. I answered your question, quite well, in fact. You then started playing a childish game of ignoring my answer and mechanically repeating your question again and again. I kept asking you why you thought that I had not answered you question and you only repeated the question again with no explanation. Bill, why did you pretend that I had not answered your question? No "rabbit trails", Bill. Please answer my questions. ################################################### Subj: Re: "Typos" on your site still need correcting Date: 05-Aug-00 10:24:31 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack321@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 And while you're at it, could you please put the bibliographical references on your "evolutionist quotes"? The lack of reference back to their sources is one of the first things to raise a red flag that this creationist is shady and cannot be believed. It's a bit of basic scholarship that can send a definite message. Elsewhere, I've written a short piece about the importance of good scholarship. I'll share it with you some time. >>Thanks! My wife is going on a short trip with baby and I can devote a little time to the site. Thanks again for the information! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >Subject: Re: "Typos" on your site still need correcting >Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:50:57 EDT > >Good. > >While you are at it, some of the article are duplicates. I didn't do an >extensive check, but the "Grand Canyon" and the "Neanderthal" articles are >both duplicated. << Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 05-Aug-00 10:38:46 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com You called you very nasty names. I think a kind hearted person would apologize. I never insulted your wife. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Dennys >Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 13:01:01 EDT > > >>I never never never insulted your wife and am offended at this false >claim.<< > >Oh yes you did insult us: > > >>Subj: Re: Dennys > >>Date: 01-Aug-00 11:22:40 Pacific Daylight Time > >>From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) > >>To: DWise1@aol.com > >> > >>Its a shame you and your wife develop preconcieved >>notions about >people > >>before meeting them. My wife and I would never do >>that. We are not > >>prejudiced. > >And I find that smug hypocritical attitude of yours very offensive. Nobody >is completely free of prejudging. Anybody who does not use his past >experiences to size up a stranger in order to anticipate potential actions >by that stranger is incapable of learning and would be unlikely to survive >long. The best that we can ever hope to do would be to proceed as if we >had not prejudged, keeping in place back-up plans just in case the >situation turns ugly, and be ready and willing to learn from that >particular encounter, whichever way it goes. To believe that one does not >prejudge is self-delusion and to proclaim to the world that one does not >prejudge is seen as hypocricy. > > > >>Lets stop this charade. If you really wanted to talk you coulc call me >or meet at Dennys.<< > >What possible purpose could such a meeting ever serve? Why would I ever >want to agree to such a meeting? I would have to go far out of my way, >with considerable effort, for WHAT? For you to try to lead me down more of >your "rabbit trails"? For you to try to convert me? > >Bill, I find proselytizing to be very offensive. When it is directly at >me, then I find it deeply and personally extremely offensive. If we met in >person and you tried any of those tricks on me, I would not put up with it >for a single moment. > >I am certain that you will make such an attempt. I am not prejudging you; >your conduct on-line has demonstrated that that is what you will do. I >will not put up with it, especially if I have to go through all that >trouble to meet with you. > >Before I could possibly agree to such a meeting, you would need to >demonstrate that it would be a productive meeting and you would need to >restore my trust in you. > > >If you want to talk, then let's talk! > >In your "Ozone Layer" article, you claim that no expert could answer a set >of questions which you listed. The "experts" you had asked were >air-conditioning trade show reps! When I went to the real experts, the >scientists at NOAA, I found answers to every single one of your questions >and I passed them on to you. Your first response was to pretend that your >question had not been answered. My response was to show you that it had >been answered and to ask you to tell me why you believed that it hadn't. >Your next response was to run away from the question; you also ignored it >every time since then that I had raised it again. > >Bill, why did you say that your question had not been answered? > >Now, even though you know that your claims in "The Ozone Layer" are not >true, you have it posted unchanged on your site, thus bearing false witness >to the world. > >Bill, how can you justify your actions there? > > >You asked me whether children should be taught about God. I answered your >question, quite well, in fact. You then started playing a childish game of >ignoring my answer and mechanically repeating your question again and >again. I kept asking you why you thought that I had not answered you >question and you only repeated the question again with no explanation. > >Bill, why did you pretend that I had not answered your question? > > >No "rabbit trails", Bill. Please answer my questions. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yb04.mx.aol.com (rly-yb04.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.4]) by air-yb02.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Aug 2000 13:38:46 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f68.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.68]) by rly-yb04.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Aug 2000 13:38:25 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 10:38:24 -0700 Received: from 152.163.206.201 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 05 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.206.201] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Dennys Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 17:38:24 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F68XSg2EDD3AA5lGmuK0000e469@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2000 17:38:24.0485 (UTC) FILETIME=[F4B06950:01BFFF03] ################################################### Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 07-Aug-00 17:53:01 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>I never insulted your wife.<< Bill, I showed you the insult that you had written: > >>Its a shame you and your wife develop preconcieved >>notions about >people > >>before meeting them. My wife and I would never do >>that. We are not > >>prejudiced. I had also told you to support your accusation that I had insulted your wife: >>Subj: Re: Dennys >>Date: 04-Aug-00 08:00:09 Pacific Daylight Time >>From: DWise1 >>To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >>CC: DWise1 >> [clipped] >>I did not insult your wife nor you. Nor did I label your wife or your as >>"evil." If you really believe that I did, then show me EXACTLY what I had >>said and tell my why you found it insulting. [clipped] I told you to SHOW ME EXACTLY what I had written that was an insult directed at your wife. You did not show it to me. Until you do, I cannot believe that your accusation has any basis. Nor do I have any way of knowing what you are talking about. >>You called you very nasty names.<< What names did I call you? SHOW ME EXACTLY where I called you "very nasty names". Until you do, I cannot believe that your accusation has any basis. Nor do I have any way of knowing what you are talking about. If you cannot show me EXACTLY what and where, then describe it to me so that I can show what I had actually written. But until you do, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please keep in mind that this is necessary because you have a history of not reading what is written and reading in what is not written. This is yet another reason why a written exchange is necessary and an oral exchange would not be suitable. >>I think a kind hearted person would apologize.<< Bill, why don't you ever read your emails?: >>Subj: Re: Dennys >>Date: 04-Aug-00 08:00:09 Pacific Daylight Time >>From: DWise1 >>To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >>CC: DWise1 >> [clipped] >>Now I did criticize your customary conduct of trying to lead me down your >>"rabbit trails". And I did discuss why your proselytizing goals would make >>an amiable dinner meeting between us extremely difficult. And I did tell you >>about the pain and suffering that my brother-in-law's conversion had caused >>his family and my wife. That is all true; you have never presented any >>alternative viewpoint. If you considered that to be insulting, then I am >>sorry. If I truly said something that could have been misinterpreted as an >>insult, then I apologize. But if you truly serve truth, then you must also >>be prepared to face the truth. [clipped] Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 07-Aug-00 17:54:11 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 Stop already with your "rabbit trails", Bill. Again, the current questions are: In your "Ozone Layer" article, you claim that no expert could answer a set of questions which you listed. The "experts" you had asked were air-conditioning trade show reps! When I went to the real experts, the scientists at NOAA, I found answers to every single one of your questions and I passed them on to you. Your first response was to pretend that your question had not been answered. My response was to show you that it had been answered and to ask you to tell me why you believed that it hadn't. Your next response was to run away from the question; you also ignored it every time since then that I had raised it again. Bill, why did you say that your question had not been answered? Now, even though you know that your claims in "The Ozone Layer" are not true, you have it posted unchanged on your site, thus bearing false witness to the world. Bill, how can you justify your actions there? You asked me whether children should be taught about God. I answered your question, quite well, in fact. You then started playing a childish game of ignoring my answer and mechanically repeating your question again and again. I kept asking you why you thought that I had not answered you question and you only repeated the question again with no explanation. Bill, why did you pretend that I had not answered your question? No "rabbit trails", Bill. Please answer my questions. ################################################### Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 07-Aug-00 20:38:54 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Wow. You're blind. you said what your wife thought of those who beleive in Gid and I insulted her? You're kinda spooky. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Dennys >Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 20:53:01 EDT > > >>I never insulted your wife.<< > >Bill, I showed you the insult that you had written: > > > >>Its a shame you and your wife develop preconcieved >>notions about > >people > > >>before meeting them. My wife and I would never do >>that. We are not > > >>prejudiced. > >I had also told you to support your accusation that I had insulted your >wife: > > >>Subj: Re: Dennys > >>Date: 04-Aug-00 08:00:09 Pacific Daylight Time > >>From: DWise1 > >>To: billyjack1@hotmail.com > >>CC: DWise1 > >> >[clipped] > >>I did not insult your wife nor you. Nor did I label your wife or your >as > >>"evil." If you really believe that I did, then show me EXACTLY what I >had > >>said and tell my why you found it insulting. >[clipped] > >I told you to SHOW ME EXACTLY what I had written that was an insult >directed at your wife. You did not show it to me. Until you do, I cannot >believe that your accusation has any basis. Nor do I have any way of >knowing what you are talking about. > > > >>You called you very nasty names.<< > >What names did I call you? SHOW ME EXACTLY where I called you "very nasty >names". Until you do, I cannot believe that your accusation has any basis. > Nor do I have any way of knowing what you are talking about. > > >If you cannot show me EXACTLY what and where, then describe it to me so >that I can show what I had actually written. But until you do, I have no >idea what you are talking about. > >Please keep in mind that this is necessary because you have a history of >not reading what is written and reading in what is not written. This is >yet another reason why a written exchange is necessary and an oral exchange >would not be suitable. > > > >>I think a kind hearted person would apologize.<< > >Bill, why don't you ever read your emails?: > > >>Subj: Re: Dennys > >>Date: 04-Aug-00 08:00:09 Pacific Daylight Time > >>From: DWise1 > >>To: billyjack1@hotmail.com > >>CC: DWise1 > >> >[clipped] > >>Now I did criticize your customary conduct of trying to lead me down >your > >>"rabbit trails". And I did discuss why your proselytizing goals would >make > >>an amiable dinner meeting between us extremely difficult. And I did >tell you > >>about the pain and suffering that my brother-in-law's conversion had >caused > >>his family and my wife. That is all true; you have never presented any > >>alternative viewpoint. If you considered that to be insulting, then I >am > >>sorry. If I truly said something that could have been misinterpreted as >an > >>insult, then I apologize. But if you truly serve truth, then you must >also > >>be prepared to face the truth. >[clipped] > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (rly-zd01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.225]) by air-zd05.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Aug 2000 23:38:54 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f157.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.157]) by rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Aug 2000 23:38:32 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 20:38:32 -0700 Received: from 152.163.206.213 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.206.213] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Dennys Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 03:38:31 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F157GBsFTmQOB9U8qkL00006670@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2000 03:38:32.0052 (UTC) FILETIME=[1FB29B40:01C000EA] Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 07-Aug-00 20:40:13 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com No, I am tired of your childish tirades. Sorry, Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Dennys >Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 20:54:10 EDT > >Stop already with your "rabbit trails", Bill. Again, the current questions >are: > >In your "Ozone Layer" article, you claim that no expert could answer a set >of questions which you listed. The "experts" you had asked were >air-conditioning trade show reps! When I went to the real experts, the >scientists at NOAA, I found answers to every single one of your questions >and I passed them on to you. Your first response was to pretend that your >question had not been answered. My response was to show you that it had >been answered and to ask you to tell me why you believed that it hadn't. >Your next response was to run away from the question; you also ignored it >every time since then that I had raised it again. > >Bill, why did you say that your question had not been answered? > >Now, even though you know that your claims in "The Ozone Layer" are not >true, you have it posted unchanged on your site, thus bearing false witness >to the >world. > >Bill, how can you justify your actions there? > > >You asked me whether children should be taught about God. I answered your >question, quite well, in fact. You then started playing a childish game of >ignoring my answer and mechanically repeating your question again and >again. I kept asking you why you thought that I had not answered you >question and you only repeated the question again with no explanation. > >Bill, why did you pretend that I had not answered your question? > > >No "rabbit trails", Bill. Please answer my questions. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc01.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Aug 2000 23:40:13 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f211.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.211]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Aug 2000 23:39:53 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 20:39:52 -0700 Received: from 152.163.206.213 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.206.213] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Dennys Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 03:39:52 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F211jGazDE7lk5Edo4u00000b3b@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2000 03:39:52.0603 (UTC) FILETIME=[4FB5B6B0:01C000EA] Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 08-Aug-00 17:12:33 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: webmaster@liberator.net, DWise1 Bill, you're just getting too weird here. I feel that we need to have a witness before you get totally out of control and out of touch with reality. Mark, sorry to drag you in on this, but I need a witness. Bill insulted me and my wife, but claims that he did not; I showed him where he did. Then he claimed that I had insulted him and his wife, but he refuses to show me where I was supposed to have done this. If you want, I can send you the transcript. Bill, if you want to have your own witness present, then do invite him in. >>Wow. You're blind. you said what your wife thought of those who beleive in Gid and I insulted her?<< Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Bill, are you totally incapable of understanding the written word? I hate to think of how much more wacked-out your misunderstanding of the spoken word must be; yet another good reason to avoid a personal meeting with you. First, I NEVER EVER said anything about her saying anything about "those who beleive in Gid" (and I am NOT simply playing on your gross misspellings here). NEVER, EVER. If you really believe that I did, then SHOW me EXACTLY where I had done so. Now, she has formed an opinion of FUNDAMENTALISTS. Fundamentalists form only a small percentage of "those who beleive in Gid", even though I realize that many fundamentalists would like to believe that they are the only ones (*cute joke about this at the end of the email). Notice that that opinion had been FORMED. A FORMED opinion is formed by learning about the thing in question. That learning can come from experience and/or from study. Her opinion was formed out of bitter personal experience of what had happened to her brother when he converted and how his Christian behavior [which manifested itself as hate and anger, quite the opposite of his normal behavior] nearly tore her family apart. And how her brother's behavior suddenly made it nearly impossible to discuss anything rationally with him. Kind of like how your behavior makes it nearly impossible to discuss anything rationally with you, Bill. So actually, your behavior has been confirming my wife's opinion right down the line. I had asked you from the start to please not confirm my wife's opinion, but you had to go and do it anyway. She saw fundamentalist Christianity turn her brother into a monster, so the opinion that she had formed from that experience should come as no surprise. Funny how you keep overlooking "minor details" like that, Bill. Second, the major part of your insult was in the self-righteous arrogance you displayed in portraying yourselves as being far superior morally to us ungodly scum. That attitude you displayed is extremely insulting. Especially when we all know that it is not true, which also makes it hypocritical. Third, you have yet again avoided lending any support whatsoever to your claim that I had insulted you and/or your wife or that I had called you "very nasty names". Until you tell me what you believe I had said, I really have to idea what you are talking about, nor could I possibly respond to your accusations. From your past behavior, I am quite certain that you never will try to support your claims and that, just like your past claims, they are false and without basis. Until you support your claim, we will have to operate under the assumption that your accusations are false and without basis. Now enough with this nonsense! Let's get on to some constructive discussion! This has been taking time away from my response to your moth claims. For instance, I have found that there is a lot about Roger DeHart that your source neglected to tell you. And the CNN videotape transcript shows that he had done the very thing that I have been warning you about. The same thing that had turned some of Ray Baird's elementary school children into atheists. Also, I hope that my answer to your question about hominid fossils helped. *FOOTNOTE: Oops, almost forgot about the joke I promised you. The latest group of new arrivals were escorted through the Pearly Gates and welcomed by St. Peter who then led them to the House of Many Mansions. It also had many floors, so they soon all found themselves in an elevator. St. Peter explained that since each religion had its own particular view of Heaven, they each had their own particular floor set up especially for them and that he would drop them off there. As they approached one floor in particular, St. Peter told everybody to remain completely silent. After they had passed that floor, St. Peter resumed his talk. One new arrival asked him why they had to be silent passing that one floor. "Oh, that's the fundamentalists' floor. They think they're the only ones here." [of course, most any denomination could be substituted into the punch line] BTW, that joke was told to me by a sweet fundamentalist grandmother, only I forget now which denomination she used in the punch line. Then there's the one about each religion having its own version of Hell, a version that they had all agreed upon as a religion. The Unitarians were lounging about sipping wine and talking. "Darned Unitarians," the Devil muttered bitterly. "They can't agree on anything!" Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 08-Aug-00 17:13:25 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: webmaster@liberator.net, DWise1 Bill, we need a witness. Call in your own witness if you want. Mark, we need your services as a witness again. To bring up-to-date, I quoted to Bill from his own tips for his street proselytizers: "DON'T; Go down rabbit trails. If you raise the question "How did life originate?" and they quickly say "well who made God?" keep the discussion on your question, tell them you will answer that later, but first you want an answer to yours." Mark, I believe that you will immediately recognize Bill's typical response to questions (besides just plain ignoring them) to be the very same "rabbit trail" trick that he insists the opposition not be allowed to pull. For that reason, I am calling him on it every time he tries to pull it. >>No, I am tired of your childish tirades.<< And I am tired of your "rabbit trails" tricks, Bill! You train your street proselytizers not to tolerate that trick, so why do you expect ME to accept your constant use of it? You want to talk? Let's talk! These questions are part of that talk. They are only two of over 50 questions that you ducked and dodged; about 18 of which you ducked and dodged repeatedly. Talking means facing and dealing with the questions. NO MORE "RABBIT TRAILS". The one question about the ozone layer has a direct bearing on your honesty and integrity. You know that your claims in the "Ozone Layer" article are false; the actual experts have indeed answered those questions that you claim to be unanswered. Yet for more than a year you have had posted on your site that "Ozone Layer" article claiming what you know to be false, long after you learned that it was false. You deliberately chose that article for posting. You deliberately converted it to HTML. You deliberately uploaded it. You deliberately set up the links to it. All of these things you did deliberately AFTER you had learned that the article's claims are wrong. Deliberately posting something you know to be wrong and misrepresenting it as true is called "lying." Bill, this is something that we definitely need to discuss. You tell your followers that you serve Truth. If you are at all serious about your claim of serving Truth, then you will discuss this problem. If you refuse to discuss it, then we can only interpret that as your confession that you do not serve Truth. But if you want to see childish behavior, then take another look at your own "responses" to my answer for your "should children be taught about God" question. A prime example, I think you will have to agree. Subj: Re:Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: 08-Aug-00 17:15:38 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: webmaster@liberator.net, DWise1 Bill, thank you for confirming Mark's assessment of you. The sheer self-righteous arrogance of your response, laced heavily with sarcasm, and punctuated with that final calculated knife-twist of "Love in Christ" [oh, the irony!] all testify that he was right on the mark. >From: "Mark" >To: , >CC: >Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. >Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:39:27 -0500 > >It's obvious to me that Billy is a typical, hypocritical, asshole >religionist. > >I have spent too many waking moments thinking about jerk-offs like Billy, >to >no avail. They continue to distort truth, which in my mind translates to >hurting people. They prey on the youth who are not able to think >critically >for themselves, which in my mind is a strong form of child abuse. I >tolerate neither!The Liberator >Subj: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. >Date: 04-Aug-00 15:00:12 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: webmaster@liberator.net, DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com > >When the emotion bubbles over, it is a concession of defeat. > >I accept your sword, and your surrender, and I promise I will be as gracious >as General MacAruthur was to the Japanese and never call you those names, or >anything close to what you called me. > >I will actually compliment you. You are determined, motivated, hard >working, but wrong. > >Peace with honor. WIth time, you may surrender graciously, but never the >less, your decison to surrender was prudent. > >Love in Christ, >Bill Subj: "Concession of Defeat" Date: 08-Aug-00 17:17:17 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: webmaster@liberator.net, DWise1 >>When the emotion bubbles over, it is a concession of defeat.<< So THAT'S what it was! Why didn't you just say so, Bill, instead of repeatedly dodging the question? On 1997 Oct 10, after I had relayed a lot of good information to you, your emotions bubbled over and you responded with a short, frantic: "Its [sic] not!" I had no idea what you meant, so I asked you what you had meant by it, again and again, in eleven messages from 1997 Oct 14 to 1998 Jul 09. You never, ever, answered that question. The only reason why I did not continue to ask it was that within two months after that last message you took your powder (old slang expression for vamoosing, cheesing it, taking French leave, disappearing). Now you're finally telling us that you were conceding defeat. Well why didn't you just say so? At that point, you could have dropped your pretenses and we could have had the honest, constructive exchange that I've been striving for all these years. Instead, you're still playing your games and trying to bog us down in a quagmire. Just for fun and in order to job your memory with the context, here is a short synopsis of the information I had given you right before your "Its not!" To accomplish brevity, explanatory text could not be included; if you have any questions about a particular point, then simply ask: 1. Many atheists became atheists because they discovered that their religious leaders had lied to them, had taught them things that they later discovered is not true. This path to atheism often produces the most anti-religion atheists. 2. Creation science is "packed full of lies"; ie, is filled with claims and teachings that are not true. Hunting down a scientific source quoted by a creationist almost invariably revealed that the source had said something quite different than the creationist had claimed it did. 3. From #1 and #2, it is a grave mistake to build one's faith upon creation science. 4. From #1 and #2, it is a grave mistake to use creation science to convert others. 5. It is a grave mistake to teach that morality is based solely on theology, because when that theology is lost, then so is morality (your own story is an example of this). If morality is instead taught based on its very real purpose and functions in society, then one is more likely to remain moral even when one loses one's theology (my own story is an example of this). Of course, to actively teach, as some fundamentalists do, that losing one's theology automatically requires one to become immoral makes matters only worse. 6. We have documented cases of creation science causing crises of faith, such as in the case of the creationist geologists who had been hired by Glenn Morton. 7. If you really believed creation science to be true, then you would have no reason for not presenting and defending its claims and evidence. If you know it to be false, then you have every reason to be evasive and to avoid defending your claims at all costs. That you have been evasive and have avoided discussing or defending you claims indicates that you know your claims to be false. 8. Your box-car analogy for protein formation is based on false assumptions that through the probability calculations way off. In a subsequent newsletter article, you presented information that demonstated those assumptions to be false. Yet you have not corrected your box-car analogy. 9. Your article on protein comparisons was based on LAMARCKIAN "Ladder of Life" assumptions, which require morphological stasis to be accompanied by biochemical stasis (ie, you require modern lifeforms, such as lampreys, to be identical to and unchanged from their ancient ancestors in ALL aspects (eg, physically, biochemically). That is clearly wrong and does not correspond with current evolutionary theory. 10. Michael Denton made the same mistake as you did in #9. In an attempt to discredit the standard phylogenetic trees of evolutionary descent by using, he used those degrees of difference to construct Venn diagrams and assigned the various species considered into their place in that diagram according to their degrees of difference. However, it turns out that Denton's Venn diagrams quite naturally produce the very same standard phylogenetic trees of evolutionary descent that he had tried to discredit. 11. Walter Brown's rattlesnake protein claim. This is an example of a creationist claim that could not be anything but a deliberate deception. Brown still uses it. ################################################### Subj: Re: "Concession of Defeat" Date: 09-Aug-00 21:11:30 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com If I had no family and was unemployed and not doing 100 other things I would have the time to listen to you attacking my wife and I. But sorry, I don't :( >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: "Concession of Defeat" >Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 20:17:17 EDT > > > >>When the emotion bubbles over, it is a concession of defeat.<< > >So THAT'S what it was! Why didn't you just say so, Bill, instead of >repeatedly dodging the question? > >On 1997 Oct 10, after I had relayed a lot of good information to you, your >emotions bubbled over and you responded with a short, frantic: "Its [sic] >not!" I had no idea what you meant, so I asked you what you had meant by >it, again and again, in eleven messages from 1997 Oct 14 to 1998 Jul 09. >You never, ever, answered that question. The only reason why I did not >continue to ask it was that within two months after that last message you >took your powder (old slang expression for vamoosing, cheesing it, taking >French leave, disappearing). > >Now you're finally telling us that you were conceding defeat. Well why >didn't you just say so? At that point, you could have dropped your >pretenses and we could have had the honest, constructive exchange that I've >been striving for all these years. Instead, you're still playing your >games and trying to bog us down in a quagmire. > > >Just for fun and in order to job your memory with the context, here is a >short synopsis of the information I had given you right before your "Its >not!" To accomplish brevity, explanatory text could not be included; if >you have any questions about a particular point, then simply ask: > >1. Many atheists became atheists because they discovered that their >religious >leaders had lied to them, had taught them things that they later discovered >is not true. This path to atheism often produces the most anti-religion >atheists. > >2. Creation science is "packed full of lies"; ie, is filled with claims and >teachings that are not true. Hunting down a scientific source quoted by a >creationist >almost invariably revealed that the source had said something quite >different than the creationist had claimed it did. > >3. From #1 and #2, it is a grave mistake to build one's faith upon creation >science. > >4. From #1 and #2, it is a grave mistake to use creation science to convert >others. > >5. It is a grave mistake to teach that morality is based solely on >theology, because when that theology is lost, then so is morality (your own >story is an example of this). If morality is instead taught based on its >very real purpose and functions in society, then one is more likely to >remain moral even when one loses one's theology (my own story is an example >of this). Of course, to actively teach, as some fundamentalists do, that >losing one's theology automatically requires one to become immoral makes >matters only worse. > >6. We have documented cases of creation science causing crises of faith, >such as in the case of the creationist geologists who had been hired by >Glenn Morton. > >7. If you really believed creation science to be true, then you would have >no reason for not presenting and defending its claims and evidence. If you >know it to be false, then you have every reason to be evasive and to avoid >defending your claims at all costs. That you have been evasive and have >avoided discussing or defending you claims indicates that you know your >claims to be false. > >8. Your box-car analogy for protein formation is based on false assumptions >that through the probability calculations way off. In a subsequent >newsletter article, you presented information that demonstated those >assumptions to be false. Yet you have not corrected your box-car analogy. > >9. Your article on protein comparisons was based on LAMARCKIAN "Ladder of >Life" assumptions, which require morphological stasis to be accompanied by >biochemical stasis (ie, you require modern lifeforms, such as lampreys, to >be identical to and unchanged from their ancient ancestors in ALL aspects >(eg, physically, biochemically). That is clearly wrong and does not >correspond with current evolutionary theory. > >10. Michael Denton made the same mistake as you did in #9. In an attempt >to discredit the standard phylogenetic trees of evolutionary descent by >using, he used those degrees of difference to construct Venn diagrams and >assigned the various species considered into their place in that diagram >according to their degrees of difference. However, it turns out that >Denton's Venn diagrams quite naturally produce the very same standard >phylogenetic trees of evolutionary descent that he had tried to discredit. > >11. Walter Brown's rattlesnake protein claim. This is an example of a >creationist claim that could not be anything but a deliberate deception. >Brown still uses it. > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (rly-zb05.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.5]) by air-zb05.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:11:30 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f34.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.34]) by rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:10:56 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 21:10:55 -0700 Received: from 152.163.206.183 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.206.183] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: "Concession of Defeat" Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 04:10:54 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F34uHOqiuNXlWKC28ut0000869a@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2000 04:10:55.0300 (UTC) FILETIME=[FACA3840:01C00280] ################################################### Subj: Re: "Concession of Defeat" Date: 10-Aug-00 07:42:23 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: webmaster@liberator.net, DWise1 >>If I had no family and was unemployed and not doing 100 other things I would have the time to listen to you attacking my wife and I. But sorry, I don't :( << Bill, I also have a family, am gainfully employed simultaneoutly in TWO careers, and have 102 other things. I do not have the time for you to play your childish games. We need to resolve this matter, but we cannot do that until you stop obstructing the process. Also I DID NOT ATTACK YOUR WIFE! I have told you repeatedly that if you do believe that I had done so, then tell me what you believe that I had said so that we could resolved this issue. YOUR STEADFAST REFUSAL TO SUBSTANTIATE IN ANY WAY YOUR ACCUSATION INDICATES STRONGLY THAT YOU KNOW THAT YOUR ACCUSATION IS FALSE. Tell me what you believe I said that was an attack on your wife. Until you do, we simply cannot believe you. I have not attacked you personally, but rather I have been strongly critical of your behavior and conduct AND WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT YOU AND YOUR CHARACTER. If you disagree, then tell me what I had said. At least TRY to substantiate your claims and accusations. You accused me of calling you "very nasty names". I honestly do not know what you are talking about. Tell me what some of those "very nasty names" were, so that we can resolve this matter. Your steadfast refusal to substantiate this accusation in any way will indicate and does indicate that you are aware that this is yet another false accusation. Bill, the transcript of our exchange shows clearly that I have been trying to get this matter resolved. It also shows clearly that you are doing almost everything you can to prevent it from being resolved. We also have a witness to this fact, who could provide a third perspective. You could bring in your own witness if you like; I can provide that witness with a full transcript. We need to work together to resolve this matter. ################################################### Subj: Re: "Concession of Defeat" Date: 10-Aug-00 09:00:07 Pacific Daylight Time From: editor@liberator.net (Mark) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com I've bumped into too many hypocritical religionists like Billy. He has no intention of resolving anything. He -- like all the others -- are out to sell something. He either is selling a book, 'selling' someone for career purposes, or (worst of all) is selling religion to those who are too ignorant to ask key questions. All you'll ever get from this guy is essentially a snake oil pitch. The sad thing is, there's nothing new about his pitch. It's the same old broken record. You would think the needle would be worn out by now. Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 9:42 AM Subject: Re: "Concession of Defeat" >>If I had no family and was unemployed and not doing 100 other things I would have the time to listen to you attacking my wife and I. But sorry, I don't :( << Bill, I also have a family, am gainfully employed simultaneoutly in TWO careers, and have 102 other things. I do not have the time for you to play your childish games. We need to resolve this matter, but we cannot do that until you stop obstructing the process. Also I DID NOT ATTACK YOUR WIFE! I have told you repeatedly that if you do believe that I had done so, then tell me what you believe that I had said so that we could resolved this issue. YOUR STEADFAST REFUSAL TO SUBSTANTIATE IN ANY WAY YOUR ACCUSATION INDICATES STRONGLY THAT YOU KNOW THAT YOUR ACCUSATION IS FALSE. Tell me what you believe I said that was an attack on your wife. Until you do, we simply cannot believe you. I have not attacked you personally, but rather I have been strongly critical of your behavior and conduct AND WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT YOU AND YOUR CHARACTER. If you disagree, then tell me what I had said. At least TRY to substantiate your claims and accusations. You accused me of calling you "very nasty names". I honestly do not know what you are talking about. Tell me what some of those "very nasty names" were, so that we can resolve this matter. Your steadfast refusal to substantiate this accusation in any way will indicate and does indicate that you are aware that this is yet another false accusation. Bill, the transcript of our exchange shows clearly that I have been trying to get this matter resolved. It also shows clearly that you are doing almost everything you can to prevent it from being resolved. We also have a witness to this fact, who could provide a third perspective. You could bring in your own witness if you like; I can provide that witness with a full transcript. We need to work together to resolve this matter. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.editor@liberator.net> Received: from rly-zd05.mx.aol.com (rly-zd05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.229]) by air-zd01.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:00:07 -0400 Received: from Kitten.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-zd05.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:59:39 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by Kitten.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA43734; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:59:37 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from editor@liberator.net) Message-ID: <000401c002e4$23b46d80$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" <.editor@liberator.net> To: <.DWise1@aol.com>, <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> References: <200008101443.HAA24734@fire.he.net> Subject: Re: "Concession of Defeat" Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:00:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Subj: Re: "Concession of Defeat" Date: 10-Aug-00 11:20:34 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I can't reason with someone in denial. So if you think my wife and I are evil and wicked, the world's most sinister people fine, think that. I am able to disagree with someone's position without personal attacks and labelling them and refusing to meet them becasue of their beliefs. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: "Concession of Defeat" >Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:42:23 EDT > > >>If I had no family and was unemployed and not doing 100 other things I >would have the time to listen to you attacking my wife and I. But sorry, I >don't >:( ><< > >Bill, I also have a family, am gainfully employed simultaneoutly in TWO >careers, and have 102 other things. I do not have the time for you to play >your childish games. We need to resolve this matter, but we cannot do that >until you stop obstructing the process. > >Also I DID NOT ATTACK YOUR WIFE! I have told you repeatedly that if you do >believe that I had done so, then tell me what you believe that I had said >so that we could resolved this issue. YOUR STEADFAST REFUSAL TO >SUBSTANTIATE IN ANY WAY YOUR ACCUSATION INDICATES STRONGLY THAT YOU KNOW >THAT YOUR ACCUSATION IS FALSE. > >Tell me what you believe I said that was an attack on your wife. Until you >do, we simply cannot believe you. > >I have not attacked you personally, but rather I have been strongly >critical of your behavior and conduct AND WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT YOU AND YOUR >CHARACTER. If you disagree, then tell me what I had said. At least TRY to >substantiate your claims and accusations. > >You accused me of calling you "very nasty names". I honestly do not know >what you are talking about. Tell me what some of those "very nasty names" >were, so that we can resolve this matter. Your steadfast refusal to >substantiate this accusation in any way will indicate and does indicate >that you are aware that this is yet another false accusation. > >Bill, the transcript of our exchange shows clearly that I have been trying >to get this matter resolved. It also shows clearly that you are doing >almost everything you can to prevent it from being resolved. We also have >a witness to this fact, who could provide a third perspective. You could >bring in your own witness if you like; I can provide that witness with a >full transcript. > >We need to work together to resolve this matter. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-za02.mx.aol.com (rly-za02.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.98]) by air-za05.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:20:34 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f218.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.218]) by rly-za02.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:19:59 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:19:58 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: "Concession of Defeat" Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:19:58 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F218fDffnFKze8CTk8u000079b6@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2000 18:19:58.0578 (UTC) FILETIME=[97598D20:01C002F7] ################################################### Subj: Re: "Concession of Defeat" Date: 11-Aug-00 18:32:09 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com, DWise1 I have to bring another witness in on this who can hopefully help Bill come to his senses. Mr. Purcell, I apologize for having to drag you into this morass, but Bill Morgan is being even more irrational than usual and is getting out of control. I can provide you with a complete transcript of the messages so far, if you wish. Basically, Bill has been twisting and distorting what I have said and is claiming that I have insulted him and his wife (he is very adamant about this) and had called him "very nasty names". To my knowledge, I have done neither. Four times now, I have told Bill to show me or tell what I had written that had insulted him AND his wife and what those "very nasty names" were. I told him that I needed that information in order to present the original messages so that we can all see exactly what had actually been written. In short, we need to look at the facts so that we can resolve this matter. I think I know which message he is refering in that "very nasty names" accusation, in which case I could clear that one up instantly, but first I need for Bill to tell me what they were. Bill refuses and responds with even more distorted misinterpretations. As I said, I have made that request FOUR times already; this message will contain the FIFTH such request. I am trying to get this matter cleared up and resolved, but Bill is consistently working to prevent any resolution. I am trying to get us to examine the facts of the matter while Bill is fighting desperately to avoid the facts. This avoidance of the facts is a characteristic trait of Bill's on-line activities; for more information on that I refer you to http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/ , which discusses our two-year correspondence from 1996 to 1998. Again, Mr. Purcell, I apologize for having to drag you into this, but somebody that Bill knows personally needs to try to talk him back to his senses. I do not believe that Bill's behavior is the kind of Christian witness that you would want to see presented. Mark, meet Mr. Everett Purcell, a long-time member of the Creation Science Association of Orange County, of which Bill Morgan is Vice President. Mr. Purcell is an officer or past officer of that association and past editor of that association's newsletter, before Bill Morgan took over those duties. Mr. Purcell, Mark is the webmaster of a free-thought site, The Liberator, at http://liberator.net/ . He had had some past dealings with Bill and has been a witness to much of Bill's and my correspondence together. Any low opinion of Bill that he may express is based on his past experiences with Bill and observations of Bill's conduct. Bill, I am sorry to have to bring Mr. Purcell in as a witness, but we need to find some way to stop your obstructive behavior. Serving the Truth requires examination of the facts. I am trying to get us to examine the facts in this matter. You are obstinantly preventing examination of the facts. Who, then, of the two of us is trying to serve the Truth? Your words claim that it is you, but your actions speak much louder to the fact that you oppose the Truth. If your actions belie your intent, then you need to correct your actions to bring them into compliance. >I can't reason with someone in denial.<< That is really rich, coming from you, who has turned denial into a life-style. I only wish you could appreciate the irony. Someone who is in denial will do whatever he can to avoid having to deal with the facts. The last thing that he would want to do would be to have the facts presented for everybody to examine. I am trying to have the facts presented for all of us to examine. You are doing whatever you can to prevent that from happening. Do the math, Bill. Which one of us is in denial? >>So if you think my wife and I are evil and wicked, the world's most sinister people fine, think that.<< I never said that. If you had any grasp left on reality, you would know that. If you truly believe that I had said that, then SHOW ME what I had said. Or at least TELL ME what I had said as closely as you can to the best of your knowledge. Then I can identify it in the transcript and we can all examine what I had actually written. If that examination shows that I had in fact done that things that you accuse me of, then I will apologize. But if that examination shows that your accusations are false, then you must face reality. I have made that request multiple times in FOUR different messages. You have ignored that request each and every time, even your honoring of that request is vitally necessary for the resolution of this dispute. This makes the FIFTH message in which I make that request. Hopefully, the new witness to this request can persuade you to do the right thing for a change. Bill, if you truly believe that I have said the things of which you accuse me, then you would also believe that examination of the actual text would show that I had indeed said those things. In that case, then you would have no reason to fear having the actual text examined. Indeed, given your past gleeful dancing whenever you thought you had caught me being wrong on something, I would think that it would be YOU demanding that we examine the actual text. You would most certainly want to see me exposed as being in denial. Yet, you are doing everything you can to avoid that examination. This tells us that you do NOT truly believe those things of which you accuse me and that you do realize that examination of the actual text would show you to be wrong yet again. That is the message that your actions are sending to us. That is why I have had to inform you that your refusal to answer would communicate to us that you know that your accusations are false. So far, you have consistently refused to answer, therefore you are telling us that you know that your accusations are false. If that is not the message that you wish to convey, then you need to change your actions accordingly. I am trying to get this matter resolved. You are obstructing any possible resolution. What does that say about us? >I am able to disagree with someone's position without personal attacks and labelling them and refusing to meet them becasue of their beliefs.<< >I am able to disagree with someone's position without personal attacks ... << Demonstrably false. Your false accusations ARE personal attacks against me. Substantiate your accusations or apologize SINCERELY and cease and desist. I have been harshly critical of your reprehensible on-line behavior and rightfully so. I have done my best to restrict that criticism to your behavior, but the consistent and recurring patterns of that behavior do nonetheless reveal something about you personally. Now, in person you could act like a real sweetheart, but the conduct and behavior you have displayed reveals a darker, ugly aspect to your character. I'm sure that you can put on a lovely act in person, but that is all that it would be. I have already seen your real face. > ... and refusing to meet them becasue of their beliefs.<< Bill, that is absolutely false. You know full well why I have refused to meet with you. I have had to explain it to you over and over and over again since 1996. I think that even Mark could recite it in his sleep, he's seen it so many times. For Mr. Purcell's benefit, I will reiterate those reasons here: 1. My wife is very disapproving of any time I spend that is not family or career-related. She is especially disapproving of my spending any time on something that is a complete waste of time. She has had some extremely bad experiences with Christian fundamentalists (particularly when her brother's conversion and his sudden personality changes caused by that conversion nearly tore her close-knit family apart). From those experiences, she has formed the opinion that it is a total waste of time to discuss certain things with fundamentalists because they will simply refuse to listen. Creation science would be one of those topics and Bill's conduct has consistently confirmed my wife's opinion. Being the focus of my wife's disapproval is not a pleasant experience. Therefore, any contact with Bill would require that my wife not be aware of it. Every 2. A verbal discussion is very inefficient for communicating factual information. Email is much more efficient. Also, I need to be able to refer back to what had been said; very difficult to accomplish in verbal form, but very easy in written form. It turns out that this has become vitally important, as I will discuss below. 3. A phone conversation would require privacy. I do not have private use of a phone at work nor at home. Therefore, a phone conversation would not be feasible. 4. Dinner with Bill is out of the question. I do not have the time and there is no way that I could sneak it past my wife. 5. Going to a meeting is problematic. Most of the time they take place on a drill weekend (I am a reservist). Most of the time that they do not, our family has other plans. On the few occasions where I could be free to go, the topic is of no interest to me. Plus, there is still the matter of my wife finding out where I would rather go than be at home with the family. 6. My hearing is starting to deteriorate. I have difficulty carrying on a conversation with someone in a room where other conversations are going on or there is other background noise, such as in a restaurant. A phone conversation is slightly better, but there again I would not hear everything. However, I can read every single word of a written communique. Therefore, the written form is much preferable. 7. I am very shy about calling a stranger on the phone. I am not a good speaker and I do not think quickly on my feet. I prefer to have time to think about what has been said and about my response. I also prefer to be able to research a question rather than to just answer off the top of my head. I feel that that is much better for a discussion with high informational content. That cannot be accomplished in a verbal discussion, but very readily accomplished in a written discussion. 8. I could go to some extreme lengths at considerable effort to meet with Bill personally, but I had to reason to exert all that effort. Why should I? I repeatedly asked Bill to give compelling reasons why I should go to such lengths and effort. He never gave me any compelling reasons. All he would say is that he didn't like typing and he prefered to use the phone. Well, I prefer to not use the phone. 9. I strongly suspect Bill's motives. In a few of his messages, he made it clear that his goal was to convert me. A personal meeting would not be conducive to a factual exchange, but it would be an ideal venue for proselytizing. I disapprove strongly of many fundamentalist proselytizing methods. My Christian training is fundamentalist so I am familiar with those methods and I am familiar with what Bill would be trying to convert me to, which is one good reason why I will not convert. I am also very familiar with the use of creation science in proselytizing. I am fully immunized, so his proselytization attempts will most certainly fail and prove to be a complete waste of time. For me to go to such lengths and exert such considerable effort only to have Bill turn it into a complete waste would be intolerable. 10. Bill's conduct on-line has been extremely evasive. He refuses to answer most questions, no matter how reasonable they are. His response is usually to pull a trick that he calls "rabbit trails". He teaches his proselytizers to not fall for that trick, yet it is SOP [standard operating procedure] for him. I would have at least some chance to try to keep him on the straight-and-narrow in a written format, but a verbal format would give Bill much too much room to cut "rabbit trails" all over the place, thus preventing any substantive discussion. Again, a complete waste. 11. A verbal meeting would allow Bill to use rhetorical tricks that would not work well in print. One example would be the "Gish Gallop", named after its most famous practioner. In the Gish Gallop, the creationist rapidly runs through a sizable number of claims in an effort to overwhelm the opponent (an important intermediate goal in proselytizing). It is particularly effective in a debate format, where the opponent could not possibly respond to all the gallop's questions within the time alloted. For example, assume a gallop which poses ten questions in one minute, not an unreasonable rate. Assume that each question would require ten minutes each to be answered (somewhat too short a time in most cases), so the opponent would need at least 100 minutes just to respond to the gallop; that's not counting his presentation itself. The debate format only allows him ten minutes. An often-used side-effect of the Gish Gallop is that it doesn't give the audience enough time to absorb any of the points or to think about them (a criticism reported about Hovind presentations); all they walk away with is the impression that there's a lot of evidence, but they couldn't tell you anything about it except that it sure was impressive. Tricks like the Gish Gallop are easy to pull off in a verbal format, but it is a lot harder to get away with them in a written format. 12. A personal meeting between Bill and myself would require mutual respect and trust. After the frustrating experience of trying to deal with Bill and Bill's tricks, I find that I cannot trust him. The problem of trust is worsened by my knowledge of Bill's goal, which is proselytizing, and a number of the tricks he might employ, so that anything and everything he says and does becomes suspect. Furthermore, while I may be able to maintain my respect of his beliefs, his proselytizing would negate his respect for mine, so there could be no mutual respect. With no trust and no mutual respect, nothing productive could come of that meeting. Quite the opposite. > ... and refusing to meet them becasue of their beliefs.<< Bill, that is the most audaciously and blatantly false statement I have yet to see you present! I never said such a thing. I never would say such a thing. I have never had any problem meeting with or talking with somebody just because they had different beliefs. PROVE IT! I DEMAND that you SHOW ME where you claim that I had said such a thing! In front of our witnesses, SHOW ME! Mr. Purcell, please get Bill to answer that demand. If he refuses to substantiate that accusation, then we will have no choice but to conclude that he was deliberately lying about it. Bill, that brings us to the final reason why you have made a verbal discussion between us an complete impossibility. During this past month, we have watched you repeatedly distort and misinterpret what I have written. And each time your misunderstanding has gotten more and more bizaare. In an earlier sub-culture, we'd be asking for your pipe in order to find out what you've been smoking. I'm starting to some very serious doubts about your grasp on reality. In light of these events, I have to think about how I am going to protect myself. When you misrepresented my statements in the last newsletter, the only protection I had was the transcript of our messages which contains the actual text that we had written. Even then, it took about a half-dozen times of telling you that you had misrepresented my words and showing what the actual words were and explaining them to you very carefully before you would accept that you had gotten it wrong, that you had misunderstood. But then it about a half-dozen messages asking you what your corrective action would be before I could even get you to commit to correcting your mistake. And then only after reminding you that failure to do so would constitute lying to your readership. Right now we have a situation where you are making a lot of accusations about what you claim that I have said and you are refusing to substantiate those accusations in any way. And you are refusing to let us even try to clear up this mess by refering to the text of what was actually written. OK, Bill, that is how out of control you can be when the hard facts are available to correct your misstatements. What would happen if there were no transcript? If there were no way to show you conclusively what had really been said? You would be totally out of control and making the most outrageous accusations! And I would have to way to defend myself from the falsehoods that you would spew! Bill, in order to protect myself, I must have a complete and accurate transcript of everything that either of us says. Not somebody's recollection. Not what somebody thinks that they heard. Not a tape recording (which can be garbled; ambient sounds could drown out words and some words would have been mumbled, besides which the speaker is not always identifiable). But a complete and completely accurate transcript of every single word that everybody had said, which each speaker clearly identified. Anything less is totally unacceptable. I know of no totally reliable and affordable (YOU'd have to pay for it, Bill, not me) system for accomplishing that for verbal communication. Written communication automatically generates the requisite transcript. Bill, your own behavior has made any kind of verbal discussion between us a complete impossibility. Now, Bill, you have some answers to provide us. Mr. Purcell, if Bill is going to be working around minors, it is absolutely imperative that he gets youth-protection training. That training is not just for protecting youth from abuse and sexual predators, but even more importantly to protect the adults from allegations of pedophilia by teaching them how to avoid stupid mistakes. Other Scout leaders refered to Youth Protection Training as getting "youth-protected", i.e., learning how to avoid getting trapped in compromising situations. Bill really needs to get that training. His practice of making on-line contacts and then insisting on arranging a personal meeting with them, especially if he believes them to be younger than himself, is a principal tactic of pedophiles in cyber-space. All he needs is for one aware parent to file charges against him and he could be branded a sex offender for the rest of his life. He really needs to get that training. ---------------------------------------- Original Message: I can't reason with someone in denial. So if you think my wife and I are evil and wicked, the world's most sinister people fine, think that. I am able to disagree with someone's position without personal attacks and labelling them and refusing to meet them becasue of their beliefs. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: "Concession of Defeat" >Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:42:23 EDT > > >>If I had no family and was unemployed and not doing 100 other things I >would have the time to listen to you attacking my wife and I. But sorry, I >don't >:( ><< > >Bill, I also have a family, am gainfully employed simultaneoutly in TWO >careers, and have 102 other things. I do not have the time for you to play >your childish games. We need to resolve this matter, but we cannot do that >until you stop obstructing the process. > >Also I DID NOT ATTACK YOUR WIFE! I have told you repeatedly that if you do >believe that I had done so, then tell me what you believe that I had said >so that we could resolved this issue. YOUR STEADFAST REFUSAL TO >SUBSTANTIATE IN ANY WAY YOUR ACCUSATION INDICATES STRONGLY THAT YOU KNOW >THAT YOUR ACCUSATION IS FALSE. > >Tell me what you believe I said that was an attack on your wife. Until you >do, we simply cannot believe you. > >I have not attacked you personally, but rather I have been strongly >critical of your behavior and conduct AND WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT YOU AND YOUR >CHARACTER. If you disagree, then tell me what I had said. At least TRY to >substantiate your claims and accusations. > >You accused me of calling you "very nasty names". I honestly do not know >what you are talking about. Tell me what some of those "very nasty names" >were, so that we can resolve this matter. Your steadfast refusal to >substantiate this accusation in any way will indicate and does indicate >that you are aware that this is yet another false accusation. > >Bill, the transcript of our exchange shows clearly that I have been trying >to get this matter resolved. It also shows clearly that you are doing >almost everything you can to prevent it from being resolved. We also have >a witness to this fact, who could provide a third perspective. You could >bring in your own witness if you like; I can provide that witness with a >full transcript. > >We need to work together to resolve this matter. > Subj: Re: "Concession of Defeat" Date: 11-Aug-00 18:33:05 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: editor@liberator.net CC: ealpurcell@juno.com, DWise1 Mark, I quite agree that Bill obviously has no intention of allowing anything to get resolved. He claims to serve the Truth, but, with a few very rare exceptions, he has always run from the truth as fast as he can. I don't know if I've shared this with you yet, but in one of Bill's "Witnessing Tips" he wrote: "DON'T; Go down rabbit trails. If you raise the question "How did life originate?" and they quickly say "well who made God?" keep the discussion on your question, tell them you will answer that later, but first you want an answer to yours." Well, I'm sure that you immediately recognize Bill's standard tactic; in order to dodge a question or a problem, he immediately asked a "rabbit trail" question to divert attention. I think that one reason why he really hated trying to deal with me was that I kept trying to keep him on the straight-and-narrow and kept insisting on an answer to my question. What he could not stand was that I was doing to him what he would teach his proselytizers to do to their marks ... targets ... victims .... you know what I mean. One of the perennial problems with creation science is that it is perennial. As the claims are exposed as false, a new generation of followers comes along who think this stuff is new and who never hear that it has been debunked before. For example, in 1970 I first heard that story about the NASA computer detecting Joshua's Lost Day. Even though I knew no more about computers then than anybody else, I immediately realized that the story was impossible; computers simply could not do what that story had claimed. I was surprised in 1985, well enough into the PC revolution that many more people knew what computers could and could not do, when my sister-in-law mentioned having read about it recently in the Sunday newspaper magazine. Nowadays, even most Christian writers denounce it as a hoax, but it keeps resurfacing. Same thing with the human-population-growth claim, with moon dust, the Paluxy "mantracks", the Meister "print", etc. It never ends. And the professional creationists perpetuate it by "researching" from each other. I checked out Kent Hovind's bibliography for his young-universe claims. All of his sources are creationists! His research goes no further. He's using a moon-dust claim that is a hoax, but he doesn't know it because he never actually researched back to the primary source. He even fell for the Onate Man hoax. A creationist told him about a fossil modern man having been found in the jaws of a T.Rex (they had been rapidly buried just as the T.Rex was eating the man). Hovind accepted the story on face value and presented it as hard fact in a presentation. He stopped using it after somebody finally informed him of the truth, but to my knowledge he had never informed anybody at that presentation that that claim is not true. There is even report of Gish having resurrected an old claim that he had even admitted was wrong. Even creationist claims are rising from the dead. That is part of what makes cases like Bill so sad. He's so wrapped up in his part of the "culture war" that the Religious Right has declared on society that he cannot even carry on a normal discussion with us. You heard him earlier; he doesn't even have any idea what I've been trying to tell him or warn him about. He actually thinks that I want him to become an atheist. No way! We already know what sorry kind of atheist he'd make. Our society doesn't need any more of those dragging it down! ################################################### Subj: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 6:30:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, EALPURCELL@juno.com I cheerfully make my defense. I present it with a good and clear conscience. I would like to first tell the court that I do not save the transcripts that have been brought into question. I do not see the importance, not have the time of saving every transcript of every email I receive(I literally get an average of 25 emails a day). I would also like to tell the court that I have full confidence that Mr. D Wise does save every transcript, and I request he present as evidence before the court the transcript I am about to address. My claim of being insulted by Mr. Wise was after my warm and generous invitation to meet him with his wife (I told him I would bring my wife) to dinner at Denny's, in order to discuss human origins. I have told Mr. Wise many times I do not like long e mail exchanges and he could call me at 714 898-8331 or meet me for dinner anytime. Mr. Purcell will testify in my behalf my reluctance to long e mail exchanges. I have verbally communicated this to him several times. Mr Wise has refused, which is his right, but he keeps trying to get a long email exchange going (which is also his right, but I have the right to not get into a keyboard exchange. I would like Mr Wise to present as evidence his response to my in vitiation to eat at Denny's with our wives. I claim it as insulting the words he connected with my deep sincere personal beliefs. I propose if he called any other person of faith (a Jewish person, or a Muslim, or Hindu) the words he associated with my beliefs he would be claimed to be a hate monger. You may only be politically correct in insulting Christians in today's society. I would like the court to recognize that I never called him any insulting names and I never would. I strongly disagree with his position, I have challenged and attacked his position, I feel it is a weak position, but I gladly leave the personal attacks out of it. I encourage Mr Wise to show my president the e mail where I invited him to dinner, and the email Mr. Wise sent back calling my wife and I insulting and dehumanizing words of hate. Thank you. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , , >Subject: Re: "Concession of Defeat" >Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 21:32:09 EDT > >I have to bring another witness in on this who can hopefully help Bill come >to his senses. > >Mr. Purcell, I apologize for having to drag you into this morass, but Bill >Morgan is being even more irrational than usual and is getting out of >control. I can provide you with a complete transcript of the messages so >far, if you wish. > >Basically, Bill has been twisting and distorting what I have said and is >claiming that I have insulted him and his wife (he is very adamant about >this) and had called him "very nasty names". To my knowledge, I have done >neither. Four times now, I have told Bill to show me or tell what I had >written that had insulted him AND his wife and what those "very nasty >names" were. I told him that I needed that information in order to present >the original messages so that we can all see exactly what had actually been >written. In short, we need to look at the facts so that we can resolve >this matter. I think I know which message he is refering in that "very >nasty names" accusation, in which case I could clear that one up instantly, >but first I need for Bill to tell me what they were. > >Bill refuses and responds with even more distorted misinterpretations. As >I said, I have made that request FOUR times already; this message will >contain the FIFTH such request. I am trying to get this matter cleared up >and resolved, but Bill is consistently working to prevent any resolution. >I am trying to get us to examine the facts of the matter while Bill is >fighting desperately to avoid the facts. This avoidance of the facts is a >characteristic trait of Bill's on-line activities; for more information on >that I refer you to http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/ , which discusses >our two-year correspondence from 1996 to 1998. > >Again, Mr. Purcell, I apologize for having to drag you into this, but >somebody that Bill knows personally needs to try to talk him back to his >senses. I do not believe that Bill's behavior is the kind of Christian >witness that you would want to see presented. > > >Mark, meet Mr. Everett Purcell, a long-time member of the Creation Science >Association of Orange County, of which Bill Morgan is Vice President. Mr. >Purcell is an officer or past officer of that association and past editor >of that association's newsletter, before Bill Morgan took over those >duties. > >Mr. Purcell, Mark is the webmaster of a free-thought site, The Liberator, >at http://liberator.net/ . He had had some past dealings with Bill and has >been a witness to much of Bill's and my correspondence together. Any low >opinion of Bill that he may express is based on his past experiences with >Bill and observations of Bill's conduct. > > >Bill, I am sorry to have to bring Mr. Purcell in as a witness, but we need >to find some way to stop your obstructive behavior. Serving the Truth >requires examination of the facts. I am trying to get us to examine the >facts in this matter. You are obstinantly preventing examination of the >facts. Who, then, of the two of us is trying to serve the Truth? Your >words claim that it is you, but your actions speak much louder to the fact >that you oppose the Truth. If your actions belie your intent, then you >need to correct your actions to bring them into compliance. > > > >>I can't reason with someone in denial.<< > >That is really rich, coming from you, who has turned denial into a >life-style. I only wish you could appreciate the irony. > >Someone who is in denial will do whatever he can to avoid having to deal >with the facts. The last thing that he would want to do would be to have >the facts presented for everybody to examine. > >I am trying to have the facts presented for all of us to examine. You are >doing whatever you can to prevent that from happening. > >Do the math, Bill. Which one of us is in denial? > > > >>So if you think my wife and I are evil and wicked, the world's most >sinister people fine, think that.<< > >I never said that. If you had any grasp left on reality, you would know >that. > >If you truly believe that I had said that, then SHOW ME what I had said. >Or at least TELL ME what I had said as closely as you can to the best of >your knowledge. Then I can identify it in the transcript and we can all >examine what I had actually written. If that examination shows that I had >in fact done that things that you accuse me of, then I will apologize. But >if that examination shows that your accusations are false, then you must >face reality. > >I have made that request multiple times in FOUR different messages. You >have ignored that request each and every time, even your honoring of that >request is vitally necessary for the resolution of this dispute. This >makes the FIFTH message in which I make that request. Hopefully, the new >witness to this request can persuade you to do the right thing for a >change. > >Bill, if you truly believe that I have said the things of which you accuse >me, then you would also believe that examination of the actual text would >show that I had indeed said those things. In that case, then you would >have no reason to fear having the actual text examined. Indeed, given your >past gleeful dancing whenever you thought you had caught me being wrong on >something, I would think that it would be YOU demanding that we examine the >actual text. You would most certainly want to see me exposed as being in >denial. > >Yet, you are doing everything you can to avoid that examination. This >tells us that you do NOT truly believe those things of which you accuse me >and that you do realize that examination of the actual text would show you >to be wrong yet again. > >That is the message that your actions are sending to us. That is why I >have had to inform you that your refusal to answer would communicate to us >that you know that your accusations are false. So far, you have >consistently refused to answer, therefore you are telling us that you know >that your accusations are false. If that is not the message that you wish >to convey, then you need to change your actions accordingly. > >I am trying to get this matter resolved. You are obstructing any possible >resolution. What does that say about us? > >>I am able to disagree with someone's position without personal >attacks and labelling them and refusing to meet them becasue of their >beliefs.<< > >>I am able to disagree with someone's position without personal >attacks ... << > >Demonstrably false. Your false accusations ARE personal attacks against >me. Substantiate your accusations or apologize SINCERELY and cease and >desist. > >I have been harshly critical of your reprehensible on-line behavior and >rightfully so. I have done my best to restrict that criticism to your >behavior, but the consistent and recurring patterns of that behavior do >nonetheless reveal something about you personally. Now, in person you >could act like a real sweetheart, but the conduct and behavior you have >displayed reveals a darker, ugly aspect to your character. I'm sure that >you can put on a lovely act in person, but that is all that it would be. I >have already seen your real face. > > >> ... and refusing to meet them becasue of their beliefs.<< > >Bill, that is absolutely false. You know full well why I have refused to >meet with you. I have had to explain it to you over and over and over >again since 1996. I think that even Mark could recite it in his sleep, >he's seen it so many times. For Mr. Purcell's benefit, I will reiterate >those reasons here: > >1. My wife is very disapproving of any time I spend that is not family or >career-related. She is especially disapproving of my spending any time on >something that is a complete waste of time. She has had some extremely bad >experiences with Christian fundamentalists (particularly when her brother's >conversion and his sudden personality changes caused by that conversion >nearly tore her close-knit family apart). From those experiences, she has >formed the opinion that it is a total waste of time to discuss certain >things with fundamentalists because they will simply refuse to listen. >Creation science would be one of those topics and Bill's conduct has >consistently confirmed my wife's opinion. > >Being the focus of my wife's disapproval is not a pleasant experience. >Therefore, any contact with Bill would require that my wife not be aware of >it. Every > >2. A verbal discussion is very inefficient for communicating factual >information. Email is much more efficient. Also, I need to be able to >refer back to what had been said; very difficult to accomplish in verbal >form, but very easy in written form. It turns out that this has become >vitally important, as I will discuss below. > >3. A phone conversation would require privacy. I do not have private use >of a phone at work nor at home. Therefore, a phone conversation would not >be feasible. > >4. Dinner with Bill is out of the question. I do not have the time and >there is no way that I could sneak it past my wife. > >5. Going to a meeting is problematic. Most of the time they take place on >a drill weekend (I am a reservist). Most of the time that they do not, our >family has other plans. On the few occasions where I could be free to go, >the topic is of no interest to me. Plus, there is still the matter of my >wife finding out where I would rather go than be at home with the family. > >6. My hearing is starting to deteriorate. I have difficulty carrying on a >conversation with someone in a room where other conversations are going on >or there is other background noise, such as in a restaurant. A phone >conversation is slightly better, but there again I would not hear >everything. However, I can read every single word of a written communique. > Therefore, the written form is much preferable. > >7. I am very shy about calling a stranger on the phone. I am not a good >speaker and I do not think quickly on my feet. I prefer to have time to >think about what has been said and about my response. I also prefer to be >able to research a question rather than to just answer off the top of my >head. I feel that that is much better for a discussion with high >informational content. That cannot be accomplished in a verbal discussion, >but very readily accomplished in a written discussion. > >8. I could go to some extreme lengths at considerable effort to meet with >Bill personally, but I had to reason to exert all that effort. Why should >I? I repeatedly asked Bill to give compelling reasons why I should go to >such lengths and effort. He never gave me any compelling reasons. All he >would say is that he didn't like typing and he prefered to use the phone. >Well, I prefer to not use the phone. > >9. I strongly suspect Bill's motives. In a few of his messages, he made it >clear that his goal was to convert me. A personal meeting would not be >conducive to a factual exchange, but it would be an ideal venue for >proselytizing. I disapprove strongly of many fundamentalist proselytizing >methods. My Christian training is fundamentalist so I am familiar with >those methods and I am familiar with what Bill would be trying to convert >me to, which is one good reason why I will not convert. I am also very >familiar with the use of creation science in proselytizing. I am fully >immunized, so his proselytization attempts will most certainly fail and >prove to be a complete waste of time. For me to go to such lengths and >exert such considerable effort only to have Bill turn it into a complete >waste would be intolerable. > >10. Bill's conduct on-line has been extremely evasive. He refuses to >answer most questions, no matter how reasonable they are. His response is >usually to pull a trick that he calls "rabbit trails". He teaches his >proselytizers to not fall for that trick, yet it is SOP [standard operating >procedure] for him. I would have at least some chance to try to keep him >on the straight-and-narrow in a written format, but a verbal format would >give Bill much too much room to cut "rabbit trails" all over the place, >thus preventing any substantive discussion. Again, a complete waste. > >11. A verbal meeting would allow Bill to use rhetorical tricks that would >not work well in print. One example would be the "Gish Gallop", named >after its most famous practioner. In the Gish Gallop, the creationist >rapidly runs through a sizable number of claims in an effort to overwhelm >the opponent (an important intermediate goal in proselytizing). It is >particularly effective in a debate format, where the opponent could not >possibly respond to all the gallop's questions within the time alloted. >For example, assume a gallop which poses ten questions in one minute, not >an unreasonable rate. Assume that each question would require ten minutes >each to be answered (somewhat too short a time in most cases), so the >opponent would need at least 100 minutes just to respond to the gallop; >that's not counting his presentation itself. The debate format only allows >him ten minutes. An often-used side-effect of the Gish Gallop is that it >doesn't give the audience enough time to ab! >sorb any of the points or to think about them (a criticism reported about >Hovind presentations); all they walk away with is the impression that >there's a lot of evidence, but they couldn't tell you anything about it >except that it sure was impressive. Tricks like the Gish Gallop are easy >to pull off in a verbal format, but it is a lot harder to get away with >them in a written format. > >12. A personal meeting between Bill and myself would require mutual respect >and trust. After the frustrating experience of trying to deal with Bill >and Bill's tricks, I find that I cannot trust him. The problem of trust is >worsened by my knowledge of Bill's goal, which is proselytizing, and a >number of the tricks he might employ, so that anything and everything he >says and does becomes suspect. Furthermore, while I may be able to >maintain my respect of his beliefs, his proselytizing would negate his >respect for mine, so there could be no mutual respect. With no trust and >no mutual respect, nothing productive could come of that meeting. Quite >the opposite. > > >> ... and refusing to meet them becasue of their beliefs.<< > >Bill, that is the most audaciously and blatantly false statement I have yet >to see you present! I never said such a thing. I never would say such a >thing. I have never had any problem meeting with or talking with somebody >just because they had different beliefs. > >PROVE IT! I DEMAND that you SHOW ME where you claim that I had said such a >thing! In front of our witnesses, SHOW ME! > >Mr. Purcell, please get Bill to answer that demand. If he refuses to >substantiate that accusation, then we will have no choice but to conclude >that he was deliberately lying about it. > > >Bill, that brings us to the final reason why you have made a verbal >discussion between us an complete impossibility. During this past month, >we have watched you repeatedly distort and misinterpret what I have >written. And each time your misunderstanding has gotten more and more >bizaare. In an earlier sub-culture, we'd be asking for your pipe in order >to find out what you've been smoking. I'm starting to some very serious >doubts about your grasp on reality. > >In light of these events, I have to think about how I am going to protect >myself. When you misrepresented my statements in the last newsletter, the >only protection I had was the transcript of our messages which contains the >actual text that we had written. Even then, it took about a half-dozen >times of telling you that you had misrepresented my words and showing what >the actual words were and explaining them to you very carefully before you >would accept that you had gotten it wrong, that you had misunderstood. But >then it about a half-dozen messages asking you what your corrective action >would be before I could even get you to commit to correcting your mistake. >And then only after reminding you that failure to do so would constitute >lying to your readership. > >Right now we have a situation where you are making a lot of accusations >about what you claim that I have said and you are refusing to substantiate >those accusations in any way. And you are refusing to let us even try to >clear up this mess by refering to the text of what was actually written. > >OK, Bill, that is how out of control you can be when the hard facts are >available to correct your misstatements. What would happen if there were >no transcript? If there were no way to show you conclusively what had >really been said? You would be totally out of control and making the most >outrageous accusations! And I would have to way to defend myself from the >falsehoods that you would spew! > >Bill, in order to protect myself, I must have a complete and accurate >transcript of everything that either of us says. Not somebody's >recollection. Not what somebody thinks that they heard. Not a tape >recording (which can be garbled; ambient sounds could drown out words and >some words would have been mumbled, besides which the speaker is not always >identifiable). But a complete and completely accurate transcript of every >single word that everybody had said, which each speaker clearly identified. > Anything less is totally unacceptable. > >I know of no totally reliable and affordable (YOU'd have to pay for it, >Bill, not me) system for accomplishing that for verbal communication. >Written communication automatically generates the requisite transcript. > >Bill, your own behavior has made any kind of verbal discussion between us a >complete impossibility. > >Now, Bill, you have some answers to provide us. > > > > > >Mr. Purcell, if Bill is going to be working around minors, it is absolutely >imperative that he gets youth-protection training. That training is not >just for protecting youth from abuse and sexual predators, but even more >importantly to protect the adults from allegations of pedophilia by >teaching them how to avoid stupid mistakes. Other Scout leaders refered to >Youth Protection Training as getting "youth-protected", i.e., learning how >to avoid getting trapped in compromising situations. Bill really needs to >get that training. His practice of making on-line contacts and then >insisting on arranging a personal meeting with them, especially if he >believes them to be younger than himself, is a principal tactic of >pedophiles in cyber-space. All he needs is for one aware parent to file >charges against him and he could be branded a sex offender for the rest of >his life. He really needs to get that training. > >---------------------------------------- > > > >Original Message: > >I can't reason with someone in denial. So if you think my wife and I are >evil and wicked, the world's most sinister people fine, think that. > >I am able to disagree with someone's position without personal attacks and >labelling them and refusing to meet them becasue of their beliefs. > > >From: DWise1@aol.com > >To: > >CC: , > >Subject: Re: "Concession of Defeat" > >Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:42:23 EDT > > > > >>If I had no family and was unemployed and not doing 100 other things I > >would have the time to listen to you attacking my wife and I. But sorry, >I > >don't > >:( > ><< > > > >Bill, I also have a family, am gainfully employed simultaneoutly in TWO > >careers, and have 102 other things. I do not have the time for you to >play > >your childish games. We need to resolve this matter, but we cannot do >that > >until you stop obstructing the process. > > > >Also I DID NOT ATTACK YOUR WIFE! I have told you repeatedly that if you >do > >believe that I had done so, then tell me what you believe that I had said > >so that we could resolved this issue. YOUR STEADFAST REFUSAL TO > >SUBSTANTIATE IN ANY WAY YOUR ACCUSATION INDICATES STRONGLY THAT YOU KNOW > >THAT YOUR ACCUSATION IS FALSE. > > > >Tell me what you believe I said that was an attack on your wife. Until >you > >do, we simply cannot believe you. > > > >I have not attacked you personally, but rather I have been strongly > >critical of your behavior and conduct AND WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT YOU AND YOUR > >CHARACTER. If you disagree, then tell me what I had said. At least TRY >to > >substantiate your claims and accusations. > > > >You accused me of calling you "very nasty names". I honestly do not know > >what you are talking about. Tell me what some of those "very nasty >names" > >were, so that we can resolve this matter. Your steadfast refusal to > >substantiate this accusation in any way will indicate and does indicate > >that you are aware that this is yet another false accusation. > > > >Bill, the transcript of our exchange shows clearly that I have been >trying > >to get this matter resolved. It also shows clearly that you are doing > >almost everything you can to prevent it from being resolved. We also >have > >a witness to this fact, who could provide a third perspective. You could > >bring in your own witness if you like; I can provide that witness with a > >full transcript. > > > >We need to work together to resolve this matter. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------Headers -------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) by air-yd04.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:30:10 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f282.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.61]) by rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:30:02 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:30:01 -0700 Received: from 152.163.207.209 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.207.209] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: editor@liberator.net, EALPURCELL@juno.com Subject: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 22:30:01 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Aug 2000 22:30:01.0994 (UTC) FILETIME=[03CCE6A0:01C00A2D] ################################################### Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 21-Aug-00 18:09:46 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 BCC: editor@liberator.netealpurcell@juno.com Geez, Bill! Enough already with the histrionics [please be sure to look this one up in the dictionary]! All we have to do is request that you tell us what you are talking about and you go into a big act of being some kind of martyr who's being put on trial! You accused me repeatedly of having insulted your wife, but so far, I cannot even find where I had said anything at all about her. Well, I'm going to say something about her right now. If this is also how you act in person, then she must be a saint to be able to put up with you. This is not a trial. Like most disagreements, it should never have to go that far. But all too often there is one party, such as yourself, who refuses to work things out and insists on making a court case out of what should have stayed a small matter. Boy, Bill, the lawyers must really love all the work that you create for them! OK, since you have invoked the courtroom metaphor, meaning that you want to force the issue to go to court, let's examine your metaphor. I don't know how you manage to do it, but you got everything all turned around. You've reversed the roles yet again! You're not the defendent. *I* am the defendent. YOU have accused ME of crimes against you and your wife. YOU have accused ME of having insulted her and of having called YOU "very nasty names." That makes YOU the prosecutor. As prosecutor, it is YOUR job to present your case against me. The problem we've been having is that YOU have been refusing to do YOUR job. The defendent, ME, cannot do his job, which is to answer the case presented against him, until the prosecutor, YOU, has presented it. Your other problem is that you've got an evidence room that would make the LAPD's (in re the Simpson case) look like Sherlock Holmes'. Therefore, it is up to me to supply the evidence, which I do gladly. I have repeatedly offered to present it. All I needed was some indication from you of what you believed that I had said. You refused to say. You still have not said what it was that you think I said. How can I present the message that you are refering to if you refuse to tell us anything about the message? Please, what was I supposed to have said that was an insult to your wife? I may have missed it, but I looked through the transcript just now and I could not find where I had made any reference at all about your wife; to my knowledge the second paragraph of this message contains the only direct reference I have ever made about your wife. Please, what were some of the "very nasty names" that I was supposed to have called you? It really would help the court to determine which message is the one that you are talking about. How can I possibly "present as evidence before the court the transcript [you are] about to address" if you refuse to give me any clues about which part of the transcript that should be? C'mon, Bill the Prosecutor. Do your job! In the meantime, I have gone the extra mile. I have provided the transcript. The ENTIRE transcript, from 1996 to the present (though not including this message). It is on my web page "Transcripts of the E-Mail Correspondence Between Bill Morgan and DWise1" which I just created today at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . Simply point your web browser there and download the files that contain the transcipt. They are of no special format, just plain old text files. Since I had encoded their date in the file extension instead of using the .TXT extension, you may need to tell your viewer program to list "All Files" when you open one. For that reason, I would recommend that you download them into their own separate directory/folder. >>My claim of being insulted by Mr. Wise was after my warm and generous invitation to meet him with his wife (I told him I would bring my wife) to dinner at Denny's, in order to discuss human origins. .. I would like Mr Wise to present as evidence his response to my in vitiation to eat at Denny's with our wives. I claim it as insulting the words he connected with my deep sincere personal beliefs.<< In order to expedite matters, I would like to fulfill that request. Unfortunately, I cannot, because no such invitation exists. Instead, I will present here the closest thing that I could find to what Bill is describing. I am looking forward to Bill's explanation of how this supports his accusations that *I* had insulted his wife (whom he hadn't even mentioned at this point within this context -- in an entirely different topic, he did mention she'd be out of town soon) and that *I* had called him "very nasty names". Please be very specific, Bill. And hopefully you will finally provide us with the information we need. Or does the court need to issue a subpoena? ### BEGIN Bill's Invitation ### Subj: Dennys Date: 30-Jul-00 15:49:05 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Lets meet at a Dennys. You can bring your wife! We mayeven become good friends who disagree on our origins. ### END Bill's Invitation ### ### BEGIN DWise1's Reply ### Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 31-Jul-00 17:07:28 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Lets meet at a Dennys. You can bring your wife! We mayeven become good friends who disagree on our origins.<< You are really quite unbelievable, Bill. Don't you ever pay attention? You already know full well that the answer is no. And you already know full well why not, unless you need to have it listed out yet again. Why are you wasting all this time, instead of just getting on with the discussion? Or are you wasting this time on purpose? And as for inviting my wife along, that's the second worst idea you've come up with! [borrowing from that old vaudeville line which Maxwell Smart used so often] First, there is a set of topics that I have had interest in over the years, but which my wife considers a waste of my time (as I said, she has her own plans for my "copious spare time"). I have learned through experience that life runs a lot smoother if she doesn't see me spending any time on any of those topics. Therefore, when she is around, I am careful not to seen nor heard discussing, reading about, or writing about any of those topics. Therefore, if my wife is present, then we cannot discuss creation/evolution. The entire purpose for such a meeting would be defeated. So why even try to meet in the first place? Second, if my wife and I are going to meet somebody somewhere, it has to be for a very good reason that she has bought into completely. She doesn't care in the least bit about the "creation/evolution" issue except that she has already decided that creationists are a pack of idiots and fools who are typical fundamentalists. And she considers fundamentalists to be a pack of religious fanatics and fools who refuse to listen to reason and with whom one cannot carry on a normal conversation. In her eyes, there would be absolutely no good reason to go meet with a fundamentalist AND a creationist for the purpose of discussing creation/evolution with him. My wife would be a hostile member of the party, further defeating the purpose of such a meeting AND defeating the purpose of keeping her out of the loop in the first place: namely the maintenance of marital bliss. WhatEVER was I thinking when I decided to drag to her along to such a useless and utter waste of a meeting and whatEVER was I thinking when I decided to WASTE my precious time like that and whatEVER was I thinking ... [nagga-nagga-nagga ad infinitum]. Third, it would still not solve the problem of my not being able to hear you clearly in the restaurant. And if I did not wish to sit with you cheek-to-cheek before, I REALLY would not want to do so with my wife present. Therefore, offering to invite my wife along is a HORRIBLE idea. Now, I need to tell you a little story to explain some of my wife's strong feelings about fundamentalists. She is the oldest of four children. Her family is one of the most accepting and loving families I have ever met. They don't just say "mi casa, su casa"; they live it. All four kids grew up in this warm, loving, and nurturing environment. Family is very important to them. They visit and call each other almost every day. We all get together every week for supper; sons-in-law, grandchildren, everybody. Except for her brother's family. Circa 1980, while I was in the war (Air Force slang for being on active duty), her brother became a fundamentalist and started going to Chuck Smith's. They started training him in proselytization and he immediately started working on his family members. He nearly tore that loving, nurturing family apart. The youngest sister just refused to even talk to him at all. The second-youngest was less strong-willed and soon she was having nightmares from the stories he was telling her about Jesus' anger towards and hatred of the unrepentant. To try to keep the peace, his mother went to services with him a few times, but it all seemed too cult-like to her and it seemed like Chuck Smith was hypnotizing them. Finally, she had to refuse to go anymore, which signalled to her son that she would not be converted. Now normally, he is extrememly even-tempered and most of the time hardly expresses any emotion at all. But there he stood before her, trembling and seething with rage and anger, denouncing her. For his mother to have to stand there and see what this Christian cult had done to her only son ... driving a knife through her heart would have been infinitely more merciful. She had to forbid all discussion of religion in the house and could only allow him to visit (he was already living on his own by then) if he promised not to say anything at all about religion. The subject was strengst verboten ("most strictly forbidden"). Now, twenty years later, he has calmed down a bit (actually, he did calm down very shortly after the blow-up) and there is no longer a total ban on religious discussion at my in-laws' house, but it is also not encouraged and my mother-in-law immediately steps in if it ever becomes the least bit heated. Fundamentalism has left an enduring scar. My mother-in-law is an even more loving grandmother than she is a mother and it breaks her heart that she hardly ever gets to see her son's daughter and that her granddaughter hardly ever gets to see her eight cousins, most of whom understand Spanish (except for the baby) whereas she does not. They will come on the very special occasions (eg, birthdays, anniversaries, major holidays), but more often than not he will just come alone and only to the special occasions. His wife is about five years older than he is. Coincidentally, in 1970 we were in the same French class at Santa Ana College, at which time she was already attending Chuck Smith's tiny church on Greenhope and Sunflower (I saw her there one night when they were offering Hebrew lessons). I didn't know her very well at the time; I mainly remember others refering to her as "the Jesus Freak chick" (since you're too young to remember, it was around 1970 that hippies started converting to fundamentalism, sparking the "Jesus Freak" movement, which in Orange County seemed to center mainly around Chuck Smith's church). There was another girl in that French class who wore leg braces and used crutches. 20 years later, I met her again at an Atheists United brunch. I told her about that girl from French class having married my brother-in-law and she then told me that they used to be best friends and how that had ended. Let's call my brother-in-law's wife, "P", and the crippled girl, "L". They were the best of friends. P would spend a lot of time with L, driving her places, etc. P would also invite L to church every chance she could and L would accept most of the time, but with personal reservations. P would try to talk L into converting, but L never would. Finally one day, L had to tell P that there was no chance at all that she would ever convert. Immediately, P wouldn't have anything more to do with L. This told the both of us that all P was ever really interested in was converting L. I have encountered the same thing in creation/evolution discussions. I always wanted to talk about the evidence and the claims, but as soon as they could they started trying to convert me (sound familiar, Bill?). When they finally realized that they could never convert me, they suddenly lost all interest in the discussion. P has done a number of things to lower herself in the family's eyes, so they are not very accepting of her. The religion thing probably doesn't help much either. Ironically, I, the family atheist, am pretty much the warmest and best friend that P, the "Jesus Freak chick", has in the family -- besides her husband, of course -- and have had to try to defend her at times in absentia. BTW, the other night, my wife was voicing some complaint about P and I recounted the P&L story again and added the parallel with creationist behavior, just to feel out her mood about creationism. The temperature in the room immediately dropped about 10 degrees. Even though that should have felt more comfortable on such a hot night, it did not. So, when we hear all this talk of "Christian love" and "Christian family values", we immediately see it for the hypocrisy that it is. ### END DWise1's Reply ### PS If you want to try your hand at CGI programming but cannot find a server that allows you to run your own programs, check out Tripod.com . You can get a free 50MB site into which you can upload and run your own CGI programs. I know that Perl is supported, but I am not sure what other languages are as well. If you are interested, go to http://www.tripod.com to learn more. ################################################### Subj: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: liberator.netealpurcelljuno.com: host not found) Date: 21-Aug-00 18:10:44 Pacific Daylight Time From: MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) To: DWise1@aol.com The original message was received at Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:09:46 -0400 (EDT) from root@localhost *** ATTENTION *** Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its delivery. The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----". The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----". The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail could not be delivered. The next line contains a second error message which is a general translation for other e-mail servers. Please direct further questions regarding this message to the e-mail administrator or Postmaster at that destination. --AOL Postmaster ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 ... Host unknown (Name server: liberator.netealpurcelljuno.com: host not found) -------------------- Final-Recipient: RFC822; editor@liberator.netealpurcelljuno.com Action: failed Status: 5.1.2 Remote-MTA: DNS; liberator.netealpurcelljuno.com Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:10:19 -0400 (EDT) -------------------- Received: from DWise1@aol.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id i.48.9ee6017 (15881); Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:09:46 -0400 (EDT) Return-Path: Received: from web33.aolmail.aol.com (web33.aolmail.aol.com [205.188.222.9]) by air-id07.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:09:46 -0400 ################################################### Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 22-Aug-00 07:42:12 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com I'm having to re-send this, because the addresses for our witnesses got messed up and they did not receive it. I can't really feel too bad about this duplication, since you had sent your "call for trial" twice. ### Retransmission follows ### Geez, Bill! Enough already with the histrionics [please be sure to look this one up in the dictionary]! All we have to do is request that you tell us what you are talking about and you go into a big act of being some kind of martyr who's being put on trial! You accused me repeatedly of having insulted your wife, but so far, I cannot even find where I had said anything at all about her. Well, I'm going to say something about her right now. If this is also how you act in person, then she must be a saint to be able to put up with you. This is not a trial. Like most disagreements, it should never have to go that far. But all too often there is one party, such as yourself, who refuses to work things out and insists on making a court case out of what should have stayed a small matter. Boy, Bill, the lawyers must really love all the work that you create for them! OK, since you have invoked the courtroom metaphor, meaning that you want to force the issue to go to court, let's examine your metaphor. I don't know how you manage to do it, but you got everything all turned around. You've reversed the roles yet again! You're not the defendent. *I* am the defendent. YOU have accused ME of crimes against you and your wife. YOU have accused ME of having insulted her and of having called YOU "very nasty names." That makes YOU the prosecutor. As prosecutor, it is YOUR job to present your case against me. The problem we've been having is that YOU have been refusing to do YOUR job. The defendent, ME, cannot do his job, which is to answer the case presented against him, until the prosecutor, YOU, has presented it. Your other problem is that you've got an evidence room that would make the LAPD's (in re the Simpson case) look like Sherlock Holmes'. Therefore, it is up to me to supply the evidence, which I do gladly. I have repeatedly offered to present it. All I needed was some indication from you of what you believed that I had said. You refused to say. You still have not said what it was that you think I said. How can I present the message that you are refering to if you refuse to tell us anything about the message? Please, what was I supposed to have said that was an insult to your wife? I may have missed it, but I looked through the transcript just now and I could not find where I had made any reference at all about your wife; to my knowledge the second paragraph of this message contains the only direct reference I have ever made about your wife. Please, what were some of the "very nasty names" that I was supposed to have called you? It really would help the court to determine which message is the one that you are talking about. How can I possibly "present as evidence before the court the transcript [you are] about to address" if you refuse to give me any clues about which part of the transcript that should be? C'mon, Bill the Prosecutor. Do your job! In the meantime, I have gone the extra mile. I have provided the transcript. The ENTIRE transcript, from 1996 to the present (though not including this message). It is on my web page "Transcripts of the E-Mail Correspondence Between Bill Morgan and DWise1" which I just created today at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . Simply point your web browser there and download the files that contain the transcipt. They are of no special format, just plain old text files. Since I had encoded their date in the file extension instead of using the .TXT extension, you may need to tell your viewer program to list "All Files" when you open one. For that reason, I would recommend that you download them into their own separate directory/folder. >>My claim of being insulted by Mr. Wise was after my warm and generous invitation to meet him with his wife (I told him I would bring my wife) to dinner at Denny's, in order to discuss human origins. .. I would like Mr Wise to present as evidence his response to my in vitiation to eat at Denny's with our wives. I claim it as insulting the words he connected with my deep sincere personal beliefs.<< In order to expedite matters, I would like to fulfill that request. Unfortunately, I cannot, because no such invitation exists. Instead, I will present here the closest thing that I could find to what Bill is describing. I am looking forward to Bill's explanation of how this supports his accusations that *I* had insulted his wife (whom he hadn't even mentioned at this point within this context -- in an entirely different topic, he did mention she'd be out of town soon) and that *I* had called him "very nasty names". Please be very specific, Bill. And hopefully you will finally provide us with the information we need. Or does the court need to issue a subpoena? ### BEGIN Bill's Invitation ### Subj: Dennys Date: 30-Jul-00 15:49:05 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Lets meet at a Dennys. You can bring your wife! We mayeven become good friends who disagree on our origins. ### END Bill's Invitation ### ### BEGIN DWise1's Reply ### Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 31-Jul-00 17:07:28 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Lets meet at a Dennys. You can bring your wife! We mayeven become good friends who disagree on our origins.<< You are really quite unbelievable, Bill. Don't you ever pay attention? You already know full well that the answer is no. And you already know full well why not, unless you need to have it listed out yet again. Why are you wasting all this time, instead of just getting on with the discussion? Or are you wasting this time on purpose? And as for inviting my wife along, that's the second worst idea you've come up with! [borrowing from that old vaudeville line which Maxwell Smart used so often] First, there is a set of topics that I have had interest in over the years, but which my wife considers a waste of my time (as I said, she has her own plans for my "copious spare time"). I have learned through experience that life runs a lot smoother if she doesn't see me spending any time on any of those topics. Therefore, when she is around, I am careful not to seen nor heard discussing, reading about, or writing about any of those topics. Therefore, if my wife is present, then we cannot discuss creation/evolution. The entire purpose for such a meeting would be defeated. So why even try to meet in the first place? Second, if my wife and I are going to meet somebody somewhere, it has to be for a very good reason that she has bought into completely. She doesn't care in the least bit about the "creation/evolution" issue except that she has already decided that creationists are a pack of idiots and fools who are typical fundamentalists. And she considers fundamentalists to be a pack of religious fanatics and fools who refuse to listen to reason and with whom one cannot carry on a normal conversation. In her eyes, there would be absolutely no good reason to go meet with a fundamentalist AND a creationist for the purpose of discussing creation/evolution with him. My wife would be a hostile member of the party, further defeating the purpose of such a meeting AND defeating the purpose of keeping her out of the loop in the first place: namely the maintenance of marital bliss. WhatEVER was I thinking when I decided to drag to her along to such a useless and utter waste of a meeting and whatEVER was I thinking when I decided to WASTE my precious time like that and whatEVER was I thinking ... [nagga-nagga-nagga ad infinitum]. Third, it would still not solve the problem of my not being able to hear you clearly in the restaurant. And if I did not wish to sit with you cheek-to-cheek before, I REALLY would not want to do so with my wife present. Therefore, offering to invite my wife along is a HORRIBLE idea. Now, I need to tell you a little story to explain some of my wife's strong feelings about fundamentalists. She is the oldest of four children. Her family is one of the most accepting and loving families I have ever met. They don't just say "mi casa, su casa"; they live it. All four kids grew up in this warm, loving, and nurturing environment. Family is very important to them. They visit and call each other almost every day. We all get together every week for supper; sons-in-law, grandchildren, everybody. Except for her brother's family. Circa 1980, while I was in the war (Air Force slang for being on active duty), her brother became a fundamentalist and started going to Chuck Smith's. They started training him in proselytization and he immediately started working on his family members. He nearly tore that loving, nurturing family apart. The youngest sister just refused to even talk to him at all. The second-youngest was less strong-willed and soon she was having nightmares from the stories he was telling her about Jesus' anger towards and hatred of the unrepentant. To try to keep the peace, his mother went to services with him a few times, but it all seemed too cult-like to her and it seemed like Chuck Smith was hypnotizing them. Finally, she had to refuse to go anymore, which signalled to her son that she would not be converted. Now normally, he is extrememly even-tempered and most of the time hardly expresses any emotion at all. But there he stood before her, trembling and seething with rage and anger, denouncing her. For his mother to have to stand there and see what this Christian cult had done to her only son ... driving a knife through her heart would have been infinitely more merciful. She had to forbid all discussion of religion in the house and could only allow him to visit (he was already living on his own by then) if he promised not to say anything at all about religion. The subject was strengst verboten ("most strictly forbidden"). Now, twenty years later, he has calmed down a bit (actually, he did calm down very shortly after the blow-up) and there is no longer a total ban on religious discussion at my in-laws' house, but it is also not encouraged and my mother-in-law immediately steps in if it ever becomes the least bit heated. Fundamentalism has left an enduring scar. My mother-in-law is an even more loving grandmother than she is a mother and it breaks her heart that she hardly ever gets to see her son's daughter and that her granddaughter hardly ever gets to see her eight cousins, most of whom understand Spanish (except for the baby) whereas she does not. They will come on the very special occasions (eg, birthdays, anniversaries, major holidays), but more often than not he will just come alone and only to the special occasions. His wife is about five years older than he is. Coincidentally, in 1970 we were in the same French class at Santa Ana College, at which time she was already attending Chuck Smith's tiny church on Greenhope and Sunflower (I saw her there one night when they were offering Hebrew lessons). I didn't know her very well at the time; I mainly remember others refering to her as "the Jesus Freak chick" (since you're too young to remember, it was around 1970 that hippies started converting to fundamentalism, sparking the "Jesus Freak" movement, which in Orange County seemed to center mainly around Chuck Smith's church). There was another girl in that French class who wore leg braces and used crutches. 20 years later, I met her again at an Atheists United brunch. I told her about that girl from French class having married my brother-in-law and she then told me that they used to be best friends and how that had ended. Let's call my brother-in-law's wife, "P", and the crippled girl, "L". They were the best of friends. P would spend a lot of time with L, driving her places, etc. P would also invite L to church every chance she could and L would accept most of the time, but with personal reservations. P would try to talk L into converting, but L never would. Finally one day, L had to tell P that there was no chance at all that she would ever convert. Immediately, P wouldn't have anything more to do with L. This told the both of us that all P was ever really interested in was converting L. I have encountered the same thing in creation/evolution discussions. I always wanted to talk about the evidence and the claims, but as soon as they could they started trying to convert me (sound familiar, Bill?). When they finally realized that they could never convert me, they suddenly lost all interest in the discussion. P has done a number of things to lower herself in the family's eyes, so they are not very accepting of her. The religion thing probably doesn't help much either. Ironically, I, the family atheist, am pretty much the warmest and best friend that P, the "Jesus Freak chick", has in the family -- besides her husband, of course -- and have had to try to defend her at times in absentia. BTW, the other night, my wife was voicing some complaint about P and I recounted the P&L story again and added the parallel with creationist behavior, just to feel out her mood about creationism. The temperature in the room immediately dropped about 10 degrees. Even though that should have felt more comfortable on such a hot night, it did not. So, when we hear all this talk of "Christian love" and "Christian family values", we immediately see it for the hypocrisy that it is. ### END DWise1's Reply ### PS If you want to try your hand at CGI programming but cannot find a server that allows you to run your own programs, check out Tripod.com . You can get a free 50MB site into which you can upload and run your own CGI programs. I know that Perl is supported, but I am not sure what other languages are as well. If you are interested, go to http://www.tripod.com to learn more. ################################################### Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 22-Aug-00 12:29:30 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com As you all are aware by now, Bill has chosen to treat this matter as a trial. I have chosen to take him up on it. As I pointed out in my reply from yesterday (re-sent this morning to the witnesses), because Bill has accused me of wrong-doing, that makes me the defendent, not Bill. Furthermore, although I used terminology from criminal cases, having refered to Bill as the prosecutor, upon reflection I have decided that what we really have here is a civil case, which would Bill would be the plaintiff and I would be the defendent. That is how I will proceed here. The plaintiff in a civil case is required to tell the court what his complaint against the defendent is and to support his accusations with evidence or convincing argument in order to show that the defendent had indeed done him wrong and precisely what it is that the defendent had done. So far as the plaintiff, Bill has failed to do either. He has called upon me, the defendent, to present portions of the transcript as evidence, which I would gladly do and have been offering to do all along, but he has not given us enough information to identify which portion of the transcript he wants, despite the fact that I had repeatedly requested that information for that very purpose. Bill did specifically request one of his own messages plus my response thereto, but the message he described does not exist; I never received the message that he described. I did find a message that came the closest so I posted both it and my reply thereto, as you witnessed in my message that I had to resend to you this morning (22 Aug 00). However, I do not believe that my reply is what Bill was looking for. In order for me to present the necessary messages, Bill must provide us with the information that we need and that I have repeatedly requested. Sadly, judging from prevailing and characteristic trends in Bill's past behavior, I doubt very much that Bill will provide us with that information. Therefore, in order to expedite the proceedings, I must present to the court that factual portion of Bill's case which is known to us: his actual accusations against the defendent, me. What statements of mine that these accusations are supposed to be based on is still known only to Bill. ### BEGIN BILL'S ACCUSATORY MESSAGES ### ================================ Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 02-Aug-00 23:28:12 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Then lets just stop wasting time e mailing each other. I probably have met thousands of Christians in my travels and would say 2 were the type you fear. Your bigoted attacks on me and my wife are cruel and I prefer that you go your way....and I will go mine. You think I am some evil wicked person out to destroy society, I think not, since I really do have many many friends (most non christian). You may think I am wacked for beleiving in God, thats fine, but I am tired of you personally insulting me on the level of a name calling 2nd grader. Good bye, look in the mirror, Bill ================================ Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 03-Aug-00 23:18:25 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I am sorry, I will not spend any more time listening to you insulting my wife and I. I triesd so hard to talk to you but your wife and you can not stop labelling us as evil. May God Bless you. Bill ================================ Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 05-Aug-00 10:38:46 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com You called you very nasty names. I think a kind hearted person would apologize. I never insulted your wife. ================================ Subj: Re: Dennys Date: 07-Aug-00 20:38:54 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Wow. You're blind. you said what your wife thought of those who beleive in Gid and I insulted her? You're kinda spooky. ================================ Subj: Re: "Concession of Defeat" Date: 10-Aug-00 11:20:34 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I can't reason with someone in denial. So if you think my wife and I are evil and wicked, the world's most sinister people fine, think that. I am able to disagree with someone's position without personal attacks and labelling them and refusing to meet them becasue of their beliefs. ### END BILL'S ACCUSATORY MESSAGES ### These are the messages in which Bill made his accusations against me. They are quoted here in their entirety. As I see it, there are ten accusations that Bill has made against me: 1. Having conducted "bigoted attacks on [him] and [his] wife" 2. Thinking he is "some evil wicked person out to destroy society". 3. Thinking he is "wacked for beleiving in God". 4. "[P]ersonally insulting [him] on the level of a name calling 2nd grader." 5. "[I]nsulting [his] wife and [him]. 6. That my wife and I had labelled him and his wife as evil. 7. Calling him "very nasty names." 8. That I had told him "what [my] wife thought of those who beleive in Gid". 9. That I would think he and his wife "are evil and wicked, the world's most sinister people". 10. That I refuse to meet him because of his beliefs. These are the accusations that Bill has made against me. One is specifically also made against my wife (#6); possibly more, but it is difficult to tell because English fails to distinguish between the singular and plural second person pronoun (ie, "you" can mean either a single person or a group of people; without sufficient context there is no way to tell). In the courtroom setting that Bill has forced us into, his role is that of plaintiff and mine is that of defendent. Whether this were a civil or a criminal case, as plaintiff/prosecutor Bill is required to present his case against me, the defendent. The ten accusations listed above form the body of Bill's allegations against me. I have no knowledge of having done these things. I have reviewed the transcript and cannot find where I had done any of these things. I honestly do not know what Bill is talking about. I have asked him repeatedly to tell us what he believes that I had said, but he has steadfastly refused to do so. I have seen a few possible passages which Bill could have misinterpreted or misunderstood and so have led himself to believe these things of which he accuses me, but, until Bill tells us what I am supposed to have said, that would only be idle speculation on my part. As plaintiff/prosecutor, Bill is required to present his case against me, the defendent. We know what Bill's specific accusations against me are, but only because I have presented them here. Now we need for Bill to support those accusations. He has access to the complete transcript, as do we all. He has always had access to what he thinks he remembers that I had said, to which access has been unilaterally denied to the rest of us (with the possible exception of Mr. Purcell, since he and Bill do not keep their communications open to the group as Mark and I do). Now that Bill has escalated this matter into a trial, he can no longer avoid supporting his accusations against me. Please notice that in his opening remarks, which is what his "Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you" message of 19 Aug 2000 18:30:10 EDT was, he again failed to state what I was supposed to have said, even though he did finally at least allude to which message he was talking about. If Bill continues to refuse to support his accusations against me, I would have to ask that the court seriously consider issuing a subpoena for that information. Should that fail, then I would have to ask the court to consider charging Bill with filing a frivolous suit. Of course, as always, I hope that we can get this matter resolved quickly, amiably, and truthfully. Unfortunately, that's up to Bill. ################################################### Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 23-Aug-00 01:55:55 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: @juno.com Wait, I thought I was the defendant and Everett was my Johnny Cochran! Did you know my grandmothers maiden name is Cochran? But I do not think we are related. I know what histrionics is. I love reading about World War 2! I admited under cross examination I do not save these emails, but after I invited you to Denny's many nasty words that were anti religious were sent electronically. I am confident you have the reply to Denny's email and I subpenoa it and will not let you Fawn Hall it. Remember her? You really should meet my wife and I. Yes, she is a saint! But I think you have the wrong opinion of me. My fault is that I am too Quixotical for some people and Saint Jennifer accepts this...we have a lot of fun. Even if we never agreed on human origins, I have several friends who think I am indeed crazy for believing the central nervous system is the result of design, you would see I am a nice dude. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , <"editor@liberator.net EALPURCELL"@juno.com> >Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to >you >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:09:45 EDT > >Geez, Bill! Enough already with the histrionics [please be sure to look >this one up in the dictionary]! All we have to do is request that you tell >us what you are talking about and you go into a big act of being some kind >of martyr who's being put on trial! > >You accused me repeatedly of having insulted your wife, but so far, I >cannot even find where I had said anything at all about her. Well, I'm >going to say something about her right now. If this is also how you act in >person, then she must be a saint to be able to put up with you. > > >This is not a trial. Like most disagreements, it should never have to go >that far. But all too often there is one party, such as yourself, who >refuses to work things out and insists on making a court case out of what >should have stayed a small matter. Boy, Bill, the lawyers must really love >all the work that you create for them! > >OK, since you have invoked the courtroom metaphor, meaning that you want to >force the issue to go to court, let's examine your metaphor. > >I don't know how you manage to do it, but you got everything all turned >around. You've reversed the roles yet again! You're not the defendent. >*I* am the defendent. YOU have accused ME of crimes against you and your >wife. YOU have accused ME of having insulted her and of having called YOU >"very nasty names." That makes YOU the prosecutor. > >As prosecutor, it is YOUR job to present your case against me. The problem >we've been having is that YOU have been refusing to do YOUR job. The >defendent, ME, cannot do his job, which is to answer the case presented >against him, until the prosecutor, YOU, has presented it. > >Your other problem is that you've got an evidence room that would make the >LAPD's (in re the Simpson case) look like Sherlock Holmes'. Therefore, it >is up to me to supply the evidence, which I do gladly. I have repeatedly >offered to present it. All I needed was some indication from you of what >you believed that I had said. You refused to say. You still have not said >what it was that you think I said. How can I present the message that you >are refering to if you refuse to tell us anything about the message? > >Please, what was I supposed to have said that was an insult to your wife? >I may have missed it, but I looked through the transcript just now and I >could not find where I had made any reference at all about your wife; to my >knowledge the second paragraph of this message contains the only direct >reference I have ever made about your wife. > >Please, what were some of the "very nasty names" that I was supposed to >have called you? It really would help the court to determine which message >is the one that you are talking about. > >How can I possibly "present as evidence before the court the transcript >[you are] about to address" if you refuse to give me any clues about which >part of the transcript that should be? > >C'mon, Bill the Prosecutor. Do your job! > > >In the meantime, I have gone the extra mile. I have provided the >transcript. The ENTIRE transcript, from 1996 to the present (though not >including this message). It is on my web page "Transcripts of the E-Mail >Correspondence Between Bill Morgan and DWise1" which I just created today >at >http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . Simply point your web >browser there and download the files that contain the transcipt. They are >of no special format, just plain old text files. Since I had encoded their >date in the file extension instead of using the .TXT extension, you may >need to tell your viewer program to list "All Files" when you open one. >For that reason, I would recommend that you download them into their own >separate directory/folder. > > > >>My claim of being insulted by Mr. Wise was after my warm and generous >invitation to meet him with his wife (I told him I would bring my wife) to >dinner at Denny's, in order to discuss human origins. >.. > >I would like Mr Wise to present as evidence his response to my in vitiation >to eat at Denny's with our wives. I claim it as insulting the words he >connected with my deep sincere personal beliefs.<< > >In order to expedite matters, I would like to fulfill that request. >Unfortunately, I cannot, because no such invitation exists. Instead, I >will present here the closest thing that I could find to what Bill is >describing. > >I am looking forward to Bill's explanation of how this supports his >accusations that *I* had insulted his wife (whom he hadn't even mentioned >at this point within this context -- in an entirely different topic, he did >mention she'd be out of town soon) and that *I* had called him "very nasty >names". Please be very specific, Bill. > >And hopefully you will finally provide us with the information we need. Or >does the court need to issue a subpoena? > >### BEGIN Bill's Invitation ### > >Subj: Dennys >Date: 30-Jul-00 15:49:05 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: DWise1@aol.com > >Lets meet at a Dennys. You can bring your wife! We mayeven become good >friends who disagree on our origins. > >### END Bill's Invitation ### > >### BEGIN DWise1's Reply ### > >Subj: Re: Dennys >Date: 31-Jul-00 17:07:28 Pacific Daylight Time >From: DWise1 >To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: DWise1 > > >>Lets meet at a Dennys. You can bring your wife! We mayeven become good >friends who disagree on our origins.<< > >You are really quite unbelievable, Bill. Don't you ever pay attention? >You >already know full well that the answer is no. And you already know full >well >why not, unless you need to have it listed out yet again. Why are you >wasting all this time, instead of just getting on with the discussion? Or >are you wasting this time on purpose? > >And as for inviting my wife along, that's the second worst idea you've come >up with! [borrowing from that old vaudeville line which Maxwell Smart used >so >often] > >First, there is a set of topics that I have had interest in over the years, >but which my wife considers a waste of my time (as I said, she has her own >plans for my "copious spare time"). I have learned through experience that >life runs a lot smoother if she doesn't see me spending any time on any of >those topics. Therefore, when she is around, I am careful not to seen nor >heard discussing, reading about, or writing about any of those topics. > >Therefore, if my wife is present, then we cannot discuss >creation/evolution. >The entire purpose for such a meeting would be defeated. So why even try >to >meet in the first place? > >Second, if my wife and I are going to meet somebody somewhere, it has to be >for a very good reason that she has bought into completely. She doesn't >care >in the least bit about the "creation/evolution" issue except that she has >already decided that creationists are a pack of idiots and fools who are >typical fundamentalists. And she considers fundamentalists to be a pack of >religious fanatics and fools who refuse to listen to reason and with whom >one >cannot carry on a normal conversation. In her eyes, there would be >absolutely no good reason to go meet with a fundamentalist AND a >creationist >for the purpose of discussing creation/evolution with him. > >My wife would be a hostile member of the party, further defeating the >purpose >of such a meeting AND defeating the purpose of keeping her out of the loop >in >the first place: namely the maintenance of marital bliss. WhatEVER was I >thinking when I decided to drag to her along to such a useless and utter >waste of a meeting and whatEVER was I thinking when I decided to WASTE my >precious time like that and whatEVER was I thinking ... [nagga-nagga-nagga >ad >infinitum]. > >Third, it would still not solve the problem of my not being able to hear >you >clearly in the restaurant. And if I did not wish to sit with you >cheek-to-cheek before, I REALLY would not want to do so with my wife >present. > >Therefore, offering to invite my wife along is a HORRIBLE idea. > > >Now, I need to tell you a little story to explain some of my wife's strong >feelings about fundamentalists. > >She is the oldest of four children. Her family is one of the most >accepting >and loving families I have ever met. They don't just say "mi casa, su >casa"; >they live it. All four kids grew up in this warm, loving, and nurturing >environment. Family is very important to them. They visit and call each >other almost every day. We all get together every week for supper; >sons-in-law, grandchildren, everybody. Except for her brother's family. > >Circa 1980, while I was in the war (Air Force slang for being on active >duty), her brother became a fundamentalist and started going to Chuck >Smith's. They started training him in proselytization and he immediately >started working on his family members. He nearly tore that loving, >nurturing >family apart. The youngest sister just refused to even talk to him at all. >The second-youngest was less strong-willed and soon she was having >nightmares >from the stories he was telling her about Jesus' anger towards and hatred >of >the unrepentant. To try to keep the peace, his mother went to services >with >him a few times, but it all seemed too cult-like to her and it seemed like >Chuck Smith was hypnotizing them. > >Finally, she had to refuse to go anymore, which signalled to her son that >she >would not be converted. Now normally, he is extrememly even-tempered and >most of the time hardly expresses any emotion at all. But there he stood >before her, trembling and seething with rage and anger, denouncing her. >For >his mother to have to stand there and see what this Christian cult had done >to her only son ... driving a knife through her heart would have been >infinitely more merciful. > >She had to forbid all discussion of religion in the house and could only >allow him to visit (he was already living on his own by then) if he >promised >not to say anything at all about religion. The subject was strengst >verboten >("most strictly forbidden"). Now, twenty years later, he has calmed down a >bit (actually, he did calm down very shortly after the blow-up) and there >is >no longer a total ban on religious discussion at my in-laws' house, but it >is >also not encouraged and my mother-in-law immediately steps in if it ever >becomes the least bit heated. Fundamentalism has left an enduring scar. > >My mother-in-law is an even more loving grandmother than she is a mother >and >it breaks her heart that she hardly ever gets to see her son's daughter and >that her granddaughter hardly ever gets to see her eight cousins, most of >whom understand Spanish (except for the baby) whereas she does not. They >will come on the very special occasions (eg, birthdays, anniversaries, >major >holidays), but more often than not he will just come alone and only to the >special occasions. > >His wife is about five years older than he is. Coincidentally, in 1970 we >were in the same French class at Santa Ana College, at which time she was >already attending Chuck Smith's tiny church on Greenhope and Sunflower (I >saw >her there one night when they were offering Hebrew lessons). I didn't know >her very well at the time; I mainly remember others refering to her as "the >Jesus Freak chick" (since you're too young to remember, it was around 1970 >that hippies started converting to fundamentalism, sparking the "Jesus >Freak" >movement, which in Orange County seemed to center mainly around Chuck >Smith's >church). > >There was another girl in that French class who wore leg braces and used >crutches. 20 years later, I met her again at an Atheists United brunch. I >told her about that girl from French class having married my brother-in-law >and she then told me that they used to be best friends and how that had >ended. Let's call my brother-in-law's wife, "P", and the crippled girl, >"L". >They were the best of friends. P would spend a lot of time with L, driving >her places, etc. P would also invite L to church every chance she could >and >L would accept most of the time, but with personal reservations. P would >try >to talk L into converting, but L never would. Finally one day, L had to >tell >P that there was no chance at all that she would ever convert. >Immediately, >P wouldn't have anything more to do with L. This told the both of us that >all P was ever really interested in was converting L. > >I have encountered the same thing in creation/evolution discussions. I >always wanted to talk about the evidence and the claims, but as soon as >they >could they started trying to convert me (sound familiar, Bill?). When they >finally realized that they could never convert me, they suddenly lost all >interest in the discussion. > >P has done a number of things to lower herself in the family's eyes, so >they >are not very accepting of her. The religion thing probably doesn't help >much >either. Ironically, I, the family atheist, am pretty much the warmest and >best friend that P, the "Jesus Freak chick", has in the family -- besides >her >husband, of course -- and have had to try to defend her at times in >absentia. > > >BTW, the other night, my wife was voicing some complaint about P and I >recounted the P&L story again and added the parallel with creationist >behavior, just to feel out her mood about creationism. The temperature in >the room immediately dropped about 10 degrees. Even though that should >have >felt more comfortable on such a hot night, it did not. > > >So, when we hear all this talk of "Christian love" and "Christian family >values", we immediately see it for the hypocrisy that it is. > >### END DWise1's Reply ### > > >PS >If you want to try your hand at CGI programming but cannot find a server >that allows you to run your own programs, check out Tripod.com . You can >get a free 50MB site into which you can upload and run your own CGI >programs. I know that Perl is supported, but I am not sure what other >languages are as well. > >If you are interested, go to http://www.tripod.com to learn more. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zb01.mx.aol.com (rly-zb01.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.1]) by air-zb01.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 04:55:55 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f69.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.69]) by rly-zb01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 04:55:39 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:55:38 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.49 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.49] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: @juno.com Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:55:38 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2000 08:55:38.0528 (UTC) FILETIME=[E88EB200:01C00CDF] Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 23-Aug-00 02:00:03 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, EALPURCELL@juno.com Wait! Who is the judge? I need to ask the judge for you to produce your reply to my invitation to eat at Dennys. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , , >Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to >you >Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:29:30 EDT > >As you all are aware by now, Bill has chosen to treat this matter as a >trial. I have chosen to take him up on it. > >As I pointed out in my reply from yesterday (re-sent this morning to the >witnesses), because Bill has accused me of wrong-doing, that makes me the >defendent, not Bill. Furthermore, although I used terminology from >criminal cases, having refered to Bill as the prosecutor, upon reflection I >have decided that what we really have here is a civil case, which would >Bill would be the plaintiff and I would be the defendent. That is how I >will proceed here. > >The plaintiff in a civil case is required to tell the court what his >complaint against the defendent is and to support his accusations with >evidence or convincing argument in order to show that the defendent had >indeed done him wrong and precisely what it is that the defendent had done. > So far as the plaintiff, Bill has failed to do either. He has called >upon me, the defendent, to present portions of the transcript as evidence, >which I would gladly do and have been offering to do all along, but he has >not given us enough information to identify which portion of the transcript >he wants, despite the fact that I had repeatedly requested that information >for that very purpose. > >Bill did specifically request one of his own messages plus my response >thereto, but the message he described does not exist; I never received the >message that he described. I did find a message that came the closest so I >posted both it and my reply thereto, as you witnessed in my message that I >had to resend to you this morning (22 Aug 00). However, I do not believe >that my reply is what Bill was looking for. In order for me to present the >necessary messages, Bill must provide us with the information that we need >and that I have repeatedly requested. > >Sadly, judging from prevailing and characteristic trends in Bill's past >behavior, I doubt very much that Bill will provide us with that >information. Therefore, in order to expedite the proceedings, I must >present to the court that factual portion of Bill's case which is known to >us: his actual accusations against the defendent, me. What statements of >mine that these accusations are supposed to be based on is still known only >to Bill. > >### BEGIN BILL'S ACCUSATORY MESSAGES ### >================================ >Subj: Re: Dennys >Date: 02-Aug-00 23:28:12 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: DWise1@aol.com > >Then lets just stop wasting time e mailing each other. > >I probably have met thousands of Christians in my travels and would say 2 >were the type you fear. > >Your bigoted attacks on me and my wife are cruel and I prefer that you go >your way....and I will go mine. You think I am some evil wicked person out >to destroy society, I think not, since I really do have many many friends >(most non christian). > >You may think I am wacked for beleiving in God, thats fine, but I am tired >of you personally insulting me on the level of a name calling 2nd grader. > >Good bye, look in the mirror, >Bill > >================================ > >Subj: Re: Dennys >Date: 03-Aug-00 23:18:25 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: DWise1@aol.com > >I am sorry, I will not spend any more time listening to you insulting my >wife and I. I triesd so hard to talk to you but your wife and you can not >stop labelling us as evil. > >May God Bless you. > >Bill >================================ > >Subj: Re: Dennys >Date: 05-Aug-00 10:38:46 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: DWise1@aol.com > >You called you very nasty names. I think a kind hearted person would >apologize. > >I never insulted your wife. >================================ > >Subj: Re: Dennys >Date: 07-Aug-00 20:38:54 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: DWise1@aol.com > >Wow. You're blind. you said what your wife thought of those who beleive >in >Gid and I insulted her? > >You're kinda spooky. >================================ > >Subj: Re: "Concession of Defeat" >Date: 10-Aug-00 11:20:34 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: DWise1@aol.com > >I can't reason with someone in denial. So if you think my wife and I are >evil and wicked, the world's most sinister people fine, think that. > >I am able to disagree with someone's position without personal attacks and >labelling them and refusing to meet them becasue of their beliefs. > >### END BILL'S ACCUSATORY MESSAGES ### > > >These are the messages in which Bill made his accusations against me. They >are quoted here in their entirety. As I see it, there are ten accusations >that Bill has made against me: > >1. Having conducted "bigoted attacks on [him] and [his] wife" > >2. Thinking he is "some evil wicked person out to destroy society". > >3. Thinking he is "wacked for beleiving in God". > >4. "[P]ersonally insulting [him] on the level of a name calling 2nd >grader." > >5. "[I]nsulting [his] wife and [him]. > >6. That my wife and I had labelled him and his wife as evil. > >7. Calling him "very nasty names." > >8. That I had told him "what [my] wife thought of those who beleive in >Gid". > >9. That I would think he and his wife "are evil and wicked, the world's >most sinister people". > >10. That I refuse to meet him because of his beliefs. > > >These are the accusations that Bill has made against me. One is >specifically also made against my wife (#6); possibly more, but it is >difficult to tell because English fails to distinguish between the singular >and plural second person pronoun (ie, "you" can mean either a single person >or a group of people; without sufficient context there is no way to tell). > >In the courtroom setting that Bill has forced us into, his role is that of >plaintiff and mine is that of defendent. Whether this were a civil or a >criminal case, as plaintiff/prosecutor Bill is required to present his case >against me, the defendent. > >The ten accusations listed above form the body of Bill's allegations >against me. I have no knowledge of having done these things. I have >reviewed the transcript and cannot find where I had done any of these >things. I honestly do not know what Bill is talking about. I have asked >him repeatedly to tell us what he believes that I had said, but he has >steadfastly refused to do so. I have seen a few possible passages which >Bill could have misinterpreted or misunderstood and so have led himself to >believe these things of which he accuses me, but, until Bill tells us what >I am supposed to have said, that would only be idle speculation on my part. > >As plaintiff/prosecutor, Bill is required to present his case against me, >the defendent. We know what Bill's specific accusations against me are, >but only because I have presented them here. Now we need for Bill to >support those accusations. He has access to the complete transcript, as do >we all. He has always had access to what he thinks he remembers that I had >said, to which access has been unilaterally denied to the rest of us (with >the possible exception of Mr. Purcell, since he and Bill do not keep their >communications open to the group as Mark and I do). > >Now that Bill has escalated this matter into a trial, he can no longer >avoid supporting his accusations against me. Please notice that in his >opening remarks, which is what his "Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense >which I now offer to you" message of 19 Aug 2000 18:30:10 EDT was, he again >failed to state what I was supposed to have said, even though he did >finally at least allude to which message he was talking about. > >If Bill continues to refuse to support his accusations against me, I would >have to ask that the court seriously consider issuing a subpoena for that >information. Should that fail, then I would have to ask the court to >consider charging Bill with filing a frivolous suit. > >Of course, as always, I hope that we can get this matter resolved quickly, >amiably, and truthfully. Unfortunately, that's up to Bill. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (rly-yg01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.1]) by air-yg01.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 05:00:03 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f21.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.21]) by rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 04:59:38 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:59:19 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.49 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.49] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: editor@liberator.net, EALPURCELL@juno.com Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:59:18 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2000 08:59:19.0405 (UTC) FILETIME=[6C35D9D0:01C00CE0] Subj: Fwd: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 23-Aug-00 12:40:14 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com BILL! You forgot to CC: your message! So I am hereby forwarding it to all parties. ----------------- Forwarded Message: Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 23-Aug-00 01:55:55 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: @juno.com Wait, I thought I was the defendant and Everett was my Johnny Cochran! Did you know my grandmothers maiden name is Cochran? But I do not think we are related. I know what histrionics is. I love reading about World War 2! I admited under cross examination I do not save these emails, but after I invited you to Denny's many nasty words that were anti religious were sent electronically. I am confident you have the reply to Denny's email and I subpenoa it and will not let you Fawn Hall it. Remember her? You really should meet my wife and I. Yes, she is a saint! But I think you have the wrong opinion of me. My fault is that I am too Quixotical for some people and Saint Jennifer accepts this...we have a lot of fun. Even if we never agreed on human origins, I have several friends who think I am indeed crazy for believing the central nervous system is the result of design, you would see I am a nice dude. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , <"editor@liberator.net EALPURCELL"@juno.com> >Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to >you >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:09:45 EDT > >Geez, Bill! Enough already with the histrionics [please be sure to look >this one up in the dictionary]! All we have to do is request that you tell >us what you are talking about and you go into a big act of being some kind >of martyr who's being put on trial! > >You accused me repeatedly of having insulted your wife, but so far, I >cannot even find where I had said anything at all about her. Well, I'm >going to say something about her right now. If this is also how you act in >person, then she must be a saint to be able to put up with you. > > >This is not a trial. Like most disagreements, it should never have to go >that far. But all too often there is one party, such as yourself, who >refuses to work things out and insists on making a court case out of what >should have stayed a small matter. Boy, Bill, the lawyers must really love >all the work that you create for them! > >OK, since you have invoked the courtroom metaphor, meaning that you want to >force the issue to go to court, let's examine your metaphor. > >I don't know how you manage to do it, but you got everything all turned >around. You've reversed the roles yet again! You're not the defendent. >*I* am the defendent. YOU have accused ME of crimes against you and your >wife. YOU have accused ME of having insulted her and of having called YOU >"very nasty names." That makes YOU the prosecutor. > >As prosecutor, it is YOUR job to present your case against me. The problem >we've been having is that YOU have been refusing to do YOUR job. The >defendent, ME, cannot do his job, which is to answer the case presented >against him, until the prosecutor, YOU, has presented it. > >Your other problem is that you've got an evidence room that would make the >LAPD's (in re the Simpson case) look like Sherlock Holmes'. Therefore, it >is up to me to supply the evidence, which I do gladly. I have repeatedly >offered to present it. All I needed was some indication from you of what >you believed that I had said. You refused to say. You still have not said >what it was that you think I said. How can I present the message that you >are refering to if you refuse to tell us anything about the message? > >Please, what was I supposed to have said that was an insult to your wife? >I may have missed it, but I looked through the transcript just now and I >could not find where I had made any reference at all about your wife; to my >knowledge the second paragraph of this message contains the only direct >reference I have ever made about your wife. > >Please, what were some of the "very nasty names" that I was supposed to >have called you? It really would help the court to determine which message >is the one that you are talking about. > >How can I possibly "present as evidence before the court the transcript >[you are] about to address" if you refuse to give me any clues about which >part of the transcript that should be? > >C'mon, Bill the Prosecutor. Do your job! > > >In the meantime, I have gone the extra mile. I have provided the >transcript. The ENTIRE transcript, from 1996 to the present (though not >including this message). It is on my web page "Transcripts of the E-Mail >Correspondence Between Bill Morgan and DWise1" which I just created today >at >http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . Simply point your web >browser there and download the files that contain the transcipt. They are >of no special format, just plain old text files. Since I had encoded their >date in the file extension instead of using the .TXT extension, you may >need to tell your viewer program to list "All Files" when you open one. >For that reason, I would recommend that you download them into their own >separate directory/folder. > > > >>My claim of being insulted by Mr. Wise was after my warm and generous >invitation to meet him with his wife (I told him I would bring my wife) to >dinner at Denny's, in order to discuss human origins. >.. > >I would like Mr Wise to present as evidence his response to my in vitiation >to eat at Denny's with our wives. I claim it as insulting the words he >connected with my deep sincere personal beliefs.<< > >In order to expedite matters, I would like to fulfill that request. >Unfortunately, I cannot, because no such invitation exists. Instead, I >will present here the closest thing that I could find to what Bill is >describing. > >I am looking forward to Bill's explanation of how this supports his >accusations that *I* had insulted his wife (whom he hadn't even mentioned >at this point within this context -- in an entirely different topic, he did >mention she'd be out of town soon) and that *I* had called him "very nasty >names". Please be very specific, Bill. > >And hopefully you will finally provide us with the information we need. Or >does the court need to issue a subpoena? > >### BEGIN Bill's Invitation ### > >Subj: Dennys >Date: 30-Jul-00 15:49:05 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: DWise1@aol.com > >Lets meet at a Dennys. You can bring your wife! We mayeven become good >friends who disagree on our origins. > >### END Bill's Invitation ### > >### BEGIN DWise1's Reply ### > >Subj: Re: Dennys >Date: 31-Jul-00 17:07:28 Pacific Daylight Time >From: DWise1 >To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: DWise1 > > >>Lets meet at a Dennys. You can bring your wife! We mayeven become good >friends who disagree on our origins.<< > >You are really quite unbelievable, Bill. Don't you ever pay attention? >You >already know full well that the answer is no. And you already know full >well >why not, unless you need to have it listed out yet again. Why are you >wasting all this time, instead of just getting on with the discussion? Or >are you wasting this time on purpose? > >And as for inviting my wife along, that's the second worst idea you've come >up with! [borrowing from that old vaudeville line which Maxwell Smart used >so >often] > >First, there is a set of topics that I have had interest in over the years, >but which my wife considers a waste of my time (as I said, she has her own >plans for my "copious spare time"). I have learned through experience that >life runs a lot smoother if she doesn't see me spending any time on any of >those topics. Therefore, when she is around, I am careful not to seen nor >heard discussing, reading about, or writing about any of those topics. > >Therefore, if my wife is present, then we cannot discuss >creation/evolution. >The entire purpose for such a meeting would be defeated. So why even try >to >meet in the first place? > >Second, if my wife and I are going to meet somebody somewhere, it has to be >for a very good reason that she has bought into completely. She doesn't >care >in the least bit about the "creation/evolution" issue except that she has >already decided that creationists are a pack of idiots and fools who are >typical fundamentalists. And she considers fundamentalists to be a pack of >religious fanatics and fools who refuse to listen to reason and with whom >one >cannot carry on a normal conversation. In her eyes, there would be >absolutely no good reason to go meet with a fundamentalist AND a >creationist >for the purpose of discussing creation/evolution with him. > >My wife would be a hostile member of the party, further defeating the >purpose >of such a meeting AND defeating the purpose of keeping her out of the loop >in >the first place: namely the maintenance of marital bliss. WhatEVER was I >thinking when I decided to drag to her along to such a useless and utter >waste of a meeting and whatEVER was I thinking when I decided to WASTE my >precious time like that and whatEVER was I thinking ... [nagga-nagga-nagga >ad >infinitum]. > >Third, it would still not solve the problem of my not being able to hear >you >clearly in the restaurant. And if I did not wish to sit with you >cheek-to-cheek before, I REALLY would not want to do so with my wife >present. > >Therefore, offering to invite my wife along is a HORRIBLE idea. > > >Now, I need to tell you a little story to explain some of my wife's strong >feelings about fundamentalists. > >She is the oldest of four children. Her family is one of the most >accepting >and loving families I have ever met. They don't just say "mi casa, su >casa"; >they live it. All four kids grew up in this warm, loving, and nurturing >environment. Family is very important to them. They visit and call each >other almost every day. We all get together every week for supper; >sons-in-law, grandchildren, everybody. Except for her brother's family. > >Circa 1980, while I was in the war (Air Force slang for being on active >duty), her brother became a fundamentalist and started going to Chuck >Smith's. They started training him in proselytization and he immediately >started working on his family members. He nearly tore that loving, >nurturing >family apart. The youngest sister just refused to even talk to him at all. >The second-youngest was less strong-willed and soon she was having >nightmares >from the stories he was telling her about Jesus' anger towards and hatred >of >the unrepentant. To try to keep the peace, his mother went to services >with >him a few times, but it all seemed too cult-like to her and it seemed like >Chuck Smith was hypnotizing them. > >Finally, she had to refuse to go anymore, which signalled to her son that >she >would not be converted. Now normally, he is extrememly even-tempered and >most of the time hardly expresses any emotion at all. But there he stood >before her, trembling and seething with rage and anger, denouncing her. >For >his mother to have to stand there and see what this Christian cult had done >to her only son ... driving a knife through her heart would have been >infinitely more merciful. > >She had to forbid all discussion of religion in the house and could only >allow him to visit (he was already living on his own by then) if he >promised >not to say anything at all about religion. The subject was strengst >verboten >("most strictly forbidden"). Now, twenty years later, he has calmed down a >bit (actually, he did calm down very shortly after the blow-up) and there >is >no longer a total ban on religious discussion at my in-laws' house, but it >is >also not encouraged and my mother-in-law immediately steps in if it ever >becomes the least bit heated. Fundamentalism has left an enduring scar. > >My mother-in-law is an even more loving grandmother than she is a mother >and >it breaks her heart that she hardly ever gets to see her son's daughter and >that her granddaughter hardly ever gets to see her eight cousins, most of >whom understand Spanish (except for the baby) whereas she does not. They >will come on the very special occasions (eg, birthdays, anniversaries, >major >holidays), but more often than not he will just come alone and only to the >special occasions. > >His wife is about five years older than he is. Coincidentally, in 1970 we >were in the same French class at Santa Ana College, at which time she was >already attending Chuck Smith's tiny church on Greenhope and Sunflower (I >saw >her there one night when they were offering Hebrew lessons). I didn't know >her very well at the time; I mainly remember others refering to her as "the >Jesus Freak chick" (since you're too young to remember, it was around 1970 >that hippies started converting to fundamentalism, sparking the "Jesus >Freak" >movement, which in Orange County seemed to center mainly around Chuck >Smith's >church). > >There was another girl in that French class who wore leg braces and used >crutches. 20 years later, I met her again at an Atheists United brunch. I >told her about that girl from French class having married my brother-in-law >and she then told me that they used to be best friends and how that had >ended. Let's call my brother-in-law's wife, "P", and the crippled girl, >"L". >They were the best of friends. P would spend a lot of time with L, driving >her places, etc. P would also invite L to church every chance she could >and >L would accept most of the time, but with personal reservations. P would >try >to talk L into converting, but L never would. Finally one day, L had to >tell >P that there was no chance at all that she would ever convert. >Immediately, >P wouldn't have anything more to do with L. This told the both of us that >all P was ever really interested in was converting L. > >I have encountered the same thing in creation/evolution discussions. I >always wanted to talk about the evidence and the claims, but as soon as >they >could they started trying to convert me (sound familiar, Bill?). When they >finally realized that they could never convert me, they suddenly lost all >interest in the discussion. > >P has done a number of things to lower herself in the family's eyes, so >they >are not very accepting of her. The religion thing probably doesn't help >much >either. Ironically, I, the family atheist, am pretty much the warmest and >best friend that P, the "Jesus Freak chick", has in the family -- besides >her >husband, of course -- and have had to try to defend her at times in >absentia. > > >BTW, the other night, my wife was voicing some complaint about P and I >recounted the P&L story again and added the parallel with creationist >behavior, just to feel out her mood about creationism. The temperature in >the room immediately dropped about 10 degrees. Even though that should >have >felt more comfortable on such a hot night, it did not. > > >So, when we hear all this talk of "Christian love" and "Christian family >values", we immediately see it for the hypocrisy that it is. > >### END DWise1's Reply ### > > >PS >If you want to try your hand at CGI programming but cannot find a server >that allows you to run your own programs, check out Tripod.com . You can >get a free 50MB site into which you can upload and run your own CGI >programs. I know that Perl is supported, but I am not sure what other >languages are as well. > >If you are interested, go to http://www.tripod.com to learn more. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zb01.mx.aol.com (rly-zb01.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.1]) by air-zb01.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 04:55:55 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f69.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.69]) by rly-zb01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 04:55:39 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:55:38 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.49 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.49] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: @juno.com Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:55:38 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2000 08:55:38.0528 (UTC) FILETIME=[E88EB200:01C00CDF] Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 23-Aug-00 12:41:47 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com >>Wait, I thought I was the defendant and Everett was my Johnny Cochran!<< No, Bill. You accused me. You filed the lawsuit in order to support those accusations against me. The defendent in a civil case never files the lawsuit; it is always the plaintiff that files the complaint and the lawsuit. That is why he is called the "plaintiff". The defendent then needs to defend himself against the complaint. That is why he is called the "defendent". Clearly in this situation, you are the plaintiff and I am the defendent. If the judges (ie, Liberator and Mr. Purcell) disagree with me on this matter, then I ask that they so state. For that matter, even if they agree with me on this matter, I would like them to so state, so that it may become clearer to Bill what is going on. >> Did you know my grandmothers maiden name is Cochran? But I do not think we are related.<< [Hallway discussion which has nothing to do with the case] Well, it may be possible for you to be related if you were to go back far enough. Though given the old tradition of slaves adopting their masters' or former masters' surnames confuses the matter and makes it more unlikely that you are actually related. Similarly, Wise is usually an anglization of several possible German names, so that it is unlikely that any two Wises picked at random would be related to each other; eg. Dr. Kurt Wise, well-known creationist, and Dr. Donald Wise, non-creationist and author of an article on creation science [see http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm]. >>I know what histrionics is. I love reading about World War 2!<< Huh? Whatever does WWII have to do with histrionics? Bill, look the word up. Find out what it means. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "history". The two words are not even related; "history" comes from Greek and "histrionics" comes from Etruscan through Latin (most dictionaries would go no further back than Latin). Even the meanings of the roots are entirely different. HINT: look at related words, such as "histrion", for the etymology. As for your interest in WWII, I do hope that you have cable or satellite so that you can receive History Channel, Discovery Channel, and The Learning Channel. In one comic strip a couple years ago that cluster was refered to as "The Testosterone Channel" because of all the war material they carry. And materiel, too. Unfortunately, some cable companies do not carry the full cluster (if the channel isn't owned by the cable company's parent mega-corporation, then you probably will never see it carried). >> I admited under cross examination I do not save these emails, ... << How could you have when there has been no cross examination yet? How could there be any cross-examination when the plaintiff hasn't even presented his case yet? Besides which, there never was any question about whether you save any emails. For that matter, it hasn't been established that you even read your email (refer to your not having seen my compliance to your request for a specific message -- twice). >> ... but after I invited you to Denny's many nasty words that were anti religious were sent electronically.<< What were those words? Knowing that will help us to identify the offending message. That information is part of the plaintiff's case, so it needs to be presented. By the plaintiff. That means by you, Bill. Also, we see that now you are accusing me of electronically sending "many nasty words that were anti religious". Should we make that Accusation #11? Remember that in presenting your case, you need to show that I had indeed done as you have accused me. That means that you need to be able to point to the specific wording in the messages and then show that that wording does indeed constitute that of which you have accused me. I am particularly interested in seeing your evidence for this new accusation since I am a religious man (just not of YOUR particular religion). If you refuse to even present your case against me, then that demonstrates that your accusations were false and your lawsuit is frivolous. Therefore, you do need to present your case. I will help you with the evidence as much as I can, but first you need to tell us what those "nasty words" were so that we can identify the applicable messages. I believe that the judges (ie, Liberator and Mr. Purcell) can see that we cannot proceed without the information that you are withholding from us. I must ask the judges that they also communicate to Bill our need for that information and the reasonableness of our requesting that information and the unreasonableness of Bill's withholding of that information. >> I am confident you have the reply to Denny's email and I subpenoa it and will not let you Fawn Hall it. Remember her?<< As I already stated in another email I'm sending at the same time as this one, I have already submitted the specific email that you had requested to all four parties involved AND I have made the ENTIRE transcript of our correspondence available for downloading. You yourself have already received TWO copies of the email containing the requested message and the URL of the web page which provides the entire transcripts. As I also already stated in that other email, it is obvious to me that the message that you had requested is not the one that you wanted. In order to identify the messages that contain the offending wordings and that you want to have presented, you must give us enough information to be able to make that identification. You have thus far steadfastly refused to provide that information. Please provide that information so that we may proceed. >>You really should meet my wife and I. Yes, she is a saint! But I think you have the wrong opinion of me. My fault is that I am too Quixotical for some people and Saint Jennifer accepts this...we have a lot of fun. Even if we never agreed on human origins, I have several friends who think I am indeed crazy for believing the central nervous system is the result of design, you would see I am a nice dude.<< I am forever amazed that women can put up with us men, though certainly more than a few men deserve their own medals as well . Guess that is part of what makes life worthwhile. Let me share a little something from the Mexican culture: la media naranja (the half of an orange). My wife's grandmother told her the story that before we are conceived, we are already paired together, like the two halves of one intact orange, and are whole. But then God cuts each orange in two, separating the two halves and sending them to two different places to be born and to grow up, half of what we should be. So we search the earth for our missing half, our media naranja, and when we find (in our case) her, then we marry her and can become whole again. Next year will be our 25th anniversary, for which I plan to find two media naranjas in silver. As for my opinion of you, that has been formed by observing your conduct on-line. Now, as I have said before, I'm sure that in normal social and working settings, you're a really nice guy. The same has been said of me. But on-line you have taken on an adversarial role and have consistently employed tactics that even you do not approve of, namely the laying down of "rabbit trails". Now, if we were to meet in person, it would most probably not be in the workplace and quite probably not socially. We both travel in very different social circles Our social circles normally involve church and close friends, though it may soon also involve salsa. From what I have seen, there is nothing about your social circles that could induce my wife to want to visit them and I personally am not a social butterfly (most of my Navy evenings are spent studying and working on programming projects). Therefore, that only leaves us with meeting in order to discuss creation/evolution, which you have now rendered absolutely impossible. First, you would likely carry your adversarial role into the meeting, albeit masked by your smooth proselytizer's façade. Second and even worse, you would likely carry over your evasive "rabbit trail" tactics. But third and most deadly, you have demonstrated here an inability to follow what is going on and a tendence to "remember" things that were never said and that had never happened (at least not how you remember them). For example, there were several times when we'd be trying to discuss something (well, I'd be trying whereas you'd be "rabbit trailing") and you would suddenly have to ask what I was talking about. You also have demonstrated a kind of "selective blindness" in which you completely miss the salient points of a message, even when it is spelled out to you as clearly as possible. A more recent and specific example is your misinterpreting what I had said about why I am reluctant to attend your meetings which led to you "misquoting" me in the newsletter (ie, you claimed to have quoted me, whereas all you had done was to paraphrase what you thought I had said). It took about a dozen messages from me to get you to realize 1) that you had made a mistake and 2) to get you to commit to taking corrective action (I still need confirmation of your having made the correction that you had promised). If I had not been able to show you exactly what I had written, that would never have been resolved. Yet another example is this civil court case you've dragged us into. It is very apparent to me that you had yet again misunderstood and/or misinterpreted what I had written and have imagined something different which you are now upset over. This time, it is proving to be even more difficult to get you to the point of examining what was actually said, but once we get to that point we should be able to resolve this matter as well. Now, just think of what would have happened if there were no transcript. You would still believe that I feared an inquisition from the CSAOC members and would still be spreading that story (unfortunately, I cannot feel completely certain that you are not still spreading that story, nor can I feel confident that you had announced the correction at the last meeting). And there would be no way possible to resolve the current situation; you would continue to hold against me things that I had not even said or done and would be presenting those imagined slights as evidence of how horrible these "evilutionists" are. That presents us with a definite problem, should we ever meet in person or on the phone to discuss creation/evolution. Without a complete and completely accurate and completely legible record of everything that was actually said and by whom, there would be no way to resolve any differences that would arise due to mis-hearing something (as I could very well do because of my degraded hearing, especially in a restaurant), to our mis-speaking (it could very well happen to either of us), to misunderstanding or misinterpreting something (as you have demonstrated the tendency to do), or just plain to imagining something that hadn't been said (as you have also demonstrated the tendency to do). I would not be able to say a single thing without the fear of having it turned into something that it never was and was never intended to be. Therefore, you, Bill Morgan, have rendered absolutely impossible any substantive verbal discussion between us. All substantive discussions between us MUST be in writing, so that we have a record of what was said so that we have at least some chance of resolving any difficulties or misunderstandings stemming from that discussion. The absolute necessity of this should be apparent even to you, Bill. Though, last Saturday on my way to Fry's one possible exception did occur to me. About the only reason I could find for meeting with you personally would be if I should ever want to do field study of current proselytizing techniques using creation science. I'm sure that you would be more than happy to lay your spiel on me, though you would undoubtedly not be happy as I would analyze it and ask you probing questions about your techniques and specifically what effect they are supposed to have. Plus, I could not say anything substantive to you throughout the entire meeting, for the obvious reasons cited in the paragraphs above. Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 23-Aug-00 12:43:06 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com >>Wait! Who is the judge?<< It would appear that we have a two-judge panel consisting of Liberator and Mr. Purcell. Though I have an interested third party in Washington State who might want to sit in as well. He has given me a lot of background information on Roger DeHart; boy, what a piece of work that guy is! He's being more careful now about what he says in class because the Discovery Institute seems to be grooming him for a landmark court case (kind of a reverse John Scopes), but in the past his biology class presentation was blatant creationism with direct religious references and with virtually no coverage of evolution. If you weren't wasting our time with your histrionic "rabbit trails" I could have told you about that already. >>I need to ask the judge for you to produce your reply to my invitation to eat at Dennys.<< I already did that at the end of the day on Monday, but my copying of the judges' addresses into the CC: box got screwed up. As soon as I read the "undeliverable" message the next morning I re-sent it. That means that they got their copy Tuesday morning and you got TWO copies. You know, it would be a lot easier to follow what's going on if you were to actually read your email. As I already told you, the particular email message that you described does not exist; I never received such an email. However, I did receive one inviting my wife and myself to Denny's though with absolutely no mention of your wife, so I distributed that one AND MY REPLY THERETO AS PER YOUR REQUEST[CAPS for emphasis]. Therefore, you would be wasting the judges' time asking them to get me to produce the messages you requested because I have already done that. Read your email. Looking at my reply that you had requested, I am at a complete loss how you could have based your accusations against me on it. It seems obvious to me that you are thinking about another message, but I simply do not know which one it could be. That is why I have repeatedly asked you to tell us what I am supposed to have said, as close as you can remember to the actual wording, so that we can find a message that seems to come close. Since you have accused me of having called you some "very nasty names", repeating to us what you remember those names to have been would help immensely in identifying the desired message. So please just tell us. As I also said in that very same email, I have posted the ENTIRE transcript of our correspondence where all of you can download it. So I have gone the extra mile on your request. BTW, you seem to have missed the point that *I* had to start to present YOUR case FOR YOU; specifically the things that you have accused me of saying and doing. As you should have seen (assuming that you read it), I took the accusations directly from your own messages. The context of those messages can be found in the MORGAN.00 text file that I have made available for downloading as announced in my reply to your issuance of your lawsuit. If you disagree with what I listed the accusations as being, then you need to address the court on that matter. Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 23-Aug-00 12:43:58 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com Bill, please refer to part of a paragraph in your opening remarks: >Subj: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you >Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 6:30:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time >From: "Bill Morgan" >To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: editor@liberator.net, EALPURCELL@juno.com > > ... > ... I strongly disagree with [DWise1's] position, I have >challenged and attacked his position, I feel it is a weak position, but I >gladly leave the personal attacks out of it.<< > > ... Excuse me, Bill, but when have you ever "challenged and attacked [my] position"? I cannot remember you ever doing any such thing in our entire correspondence. Instead, you have a long and consistent history of avoiding discussion by either laying down "rabbit trails" or by running away from the topic. For that matter, Bill, with all due respect, I do not believe that you even know what my position is, even though I have presented it to you more than once. And if you do not know what my position is, then how could you consider it to be weak? And how could you challenge something that you know nothing about? Let alone attack it? Could you please tell us all here what my position is? Then could you please tell us all here, briefly, why you "strongly disagree with [it]"? Then could you please tell us all here, briefly, why you "feel it is a weak position"? Then could you please tell us all here how you "have challenged and attacked [it]"? Curious minds want to know. While we're at it, in your "Witnessing Tips #3" [at http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article34.htm], you write: "DON'T; Go down rabbit trails. If you raise the question "How did life originate?" and they quickly say "well who made God?" keep the discussion on your question, tell them you will answer that later, but first you want an answer to yours." Now, it appears obvious to me that you are telling your students that this is an unacceptable tactic for your mark to use. I agree. It is a diversionary tactic intended to avoid a difficult question or issue by drawing the asker's attention (and that of any audience present) off onto a different entangling topic from which, it is hoped, they can never return to the original question/issue. I would agree that deliberate use of this tactic would be dishonest and deceptive. At the "Nature of Nature Conference", an intelligent design conference, in Waco (I could find no dates given, but it was before late-April of this year), Glenn R. Morton kept encountering a similar tactic used by a speaker during a question-and-answer period when confronted by a difficult question. The speaker would go off on a tangent and answer the tangent but never return to the original question. Only according to Morton's report, much of the audience wouldn't fall for it. It's very interesting reading at http://home.flash.net/~mortongr/wacoconf.htm . He also said a number of things right in line with my position, but I'll have to save those until after you have told us what you understand my position to be. Now, Bill, my question to you is: 1) Why do you warning against the "rabbit trails" tactic? 2) Do you think it dishonest? 3) Why do you forbid your followers to allow its use at the same time that you use it so pervasively as your modus operandi? Curious minds want to know. ################################################### Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 24-Aug-00 08:09:09 Pacific Daylight Time From: editor@liberator.net (Mark) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, EALPURCELL@juno.com <> From the get-go, Bill has been playing games. He has no intention of clearing up matters. He has every intention of slamming science to either 1) sell works of his own, 2) make a name for himself as a science-basher, and/or 3) promote Christianity when scientific theories are more convincing and backed by evidence. It is clear that Bill's motives are not centered on truth and integrity. 'Nuff said. Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yh04.mx.aol.com (rly-yh04.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.36]) by air-yh04.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:09:09 2000 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yh04.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:08:45 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA50061; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:07:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from editor@liberator.net) Message-ID: <001f01c00ddd$32175fa0$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: , Cc: , References: <200008231943.MAA03313@fire.he.net> Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:08:42 -0500 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 24-Aug-00 10:05:45 Pacific Daylight Time From: ealpurcell@juno.com (Everett W Purcell) To: editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com, EALPURCELL@juno.com I have been undated by a surplus of E-mail that keeps me from other important things. I believe this is mostly game playing on your part. Bill Is a close friend of mine and a man of integrity. He is a professional man and one to be taken seriously. If you want to end this mess, just end it. This childs play has gone far enough. Everett On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:08:42 -0500 "Mark" writes: ><this >matter, then I ask that they so state. For that matter, even if they >agree >with me on this matter, I would like them to so state, so that it may >become >clearer to Bill what is going on.>> > >>From the get-go, Bill has been playing games. He has no intention of >clearing up matters. He has every intention of slamming science to >either >1) sell works of his own, 2) make a name for himself as a >science-basher, >and/or 3) promote Christianity when scientific theories are more >convincing >and backed by evidence. > >It is clear that Bill's motives are not centered on truth and >integrity. > >'Nuff said. > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-za03.mx.aol.com (rly-za03.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.99]) by air-za05.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:05:45 -0400 Received: from m5.boston.juno.com (m5.boston.juno.com [63.211.172.68]) by rly-za03.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:05:22 -0400 Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"AjnNv9TpWwkNhqMWiBVagqCu+ZCOFD9zK13E9UDgS5JXA7mwEsnQZw=="> Received: (from ealpurcell@juno.com) by m5.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id FF9LHK4V; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:05:13 EDT To: editor@liberator.net Cc: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com, EALPURCELL@juno.com Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Message-ID: <20000824.090525.4559.2.EaLPurcell@juno.com> References: <200008231943.MAA03313@fire.he.net> <001f01c00ddd$32175fa0$052a03c7@liber8r> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 4-39 From: Everett W Purcell Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:05:13 EDT Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 24-Aug-00 12:49:59 Pacific Daylight Time From: editor@liberator.net (Mark) To: ealpurcell@juno.com (Everett W Purcell) CC: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com, EALPURCELL@juno.com I received the following e-mail from Everett. I wholeheartedly disagree with his take on Bill but I cannot disagree with his conclusion. I hereby must insist that I be removed from future e-mails regarding Bill. I do not believe Bill is interested in attaining truth nor is he willing to play fair. Therefore, further discussion with him is pointless. May the debate continue but don't include me in the future. Thank you. Mark Liberator The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Everett W Purcell To: Cc: ; ; Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 12:05 PM Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you I have been undated by a surplus of E-mail that keeps me from other important things. I believe this is mostly game playing on your part. Bill Is a close friend of mine and a man of integrity. He is a professional man and one to be taken seriously. If you want to end this mess, just end it. This childs play has gone far enough. Everett On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:08:42 -0500 "Mark" writes: ><this >matter, then I ask that they so state. For that matter, even if they >agree >with me on this matter, I would like them to so state, so that it may >become >clearer to Bill what is going on.>> > >>From the get-go, Bill has been playing games. He has no intention of >clearing up matters. He has every intention of slamming science to >either >1) sell works of his own, 2) make a name for himself as a >science-basher, >and/or 3) promote Christianity when scientific theories are more >convincing >and backed by evidence. > >It is clear that Bill's motives are not centered on truth and >integrity. > >'Nuff said. > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) by air-yd04.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:49:59 -0400 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:49:38 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA93939; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:46:08 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from editor@liberator.net) Message-ID: <000601c00e04$1fc77fc0$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Everett W Purcell" Cc: , , References: <200008231943.MAA03313@fire.he.net><001f01c00ddd$32175fa0$052a03c7@liber8r> <20000824.090525.4559.2.EaLPurcell@juno.com> Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:47:22 -0500 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ################################################### ################################################### ################################################### ################################################### ################################################### ################################################### ###################################################