################################################ Subj: SoThatsWhy@aol.com Date: 03/28/2001 12:50:18 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1 Bill, I am curious why you have returned to AOL, a service for which you must pay, instead of sticking with free email services like HotMail. Good screen name you chose: "SoThatsWhy". Though your choice seems strange, considering the story behind it: At a presentation I attended, Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, revealed that many colleges, especially those in the "Bible Belt", do not teach evolution to their biology students, so many degreed biologists out there have actually had little or no training in evolution. Even the biology department at the university that she taught at failed to teach evolution to its students. Then she related her own experiences teaching the lower-division physical anthropology course, in which she definitely did cover evolution. Every semester, a few biology seniors would enroll in her class looking to fulfill a general-ed requirement with an easy A (Foolish lads! She made them work for their grades.). In every such case, at some point while covering evolution, she would see the "ah-ha!" light suddenly come on in those students' heads as they said to themselves, "So THAT'S why ..." Suddenly, that massive collection of seemingly unrelated facts and factoids they had be en studying and having to memorize for the past four years all fit together and made sense! Dr. Scott offered this as living confirmation of Dobzhansky's famous quote, that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. And now you know the rest of the story. "Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole." (Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Biology Teacher, 25:125-129, p. 129) PS My wife and I love science and find it interesting in part because we can see how so many parts of it fit together; it makes sense to us. My sister's older son hated science in school, because it didn't make any sense to him and he couldn't see how any of it fit together. To him, science was nothing but a jumble of unrelated facts that he had to memorize. Being able to see the meaningful picture as a whole does make a very big difference. ################################################ Subj: Re: SoThatsWhy@aol.com Date: 03/29/2001 08:51:21 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Hi Dave. I went back to aol because my wife and I have many friends with aol and we frequently make a chat room and go at it. I also like it because I have met intersting people on it. For instance when my baby girl had arthritis, I met a few physicians on line, and a few parents of children with JRA and received a wealth of knowledge from them. Sincerely, I hope all is well with you and your family. Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: SoThatsWhy@aol.com >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:50:18 EST > >Bill, I am curious why you have returned to AOL, a service for which you >must pay, instead of sticking with free email services like HotMail. > >Good screen name you chose: "SoThatsWhy". Though your choice seems >strange, considering the story behind it: > >At a presentation I attended, Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the >National Center for Science Education, revealed that many colleges, >especially those in the "Bible Belt", do not teach evolution to their >biology students, so many degreed biologists out there have actually had >little or no training in evolution. Even the biology department at the >university that she taught at failed to teach evolution to its students. >Then she related her own experiences teaching the lower-division physical >anthropology course, in which she definitely did cover evolution. Every >semester, a few biology seniors would enroll in her class looking to >fulfill a general-ed requirement with an easy A (Foolish lads! She made >them work for their grades.). In every such case, at some point while >covering evolution, she would see the "ah-ha!" light suddenly come on in >those students' heads as they said to themselves, "So THAT'S why ..." >Suddenly, that massive collection of seemingly unrelate! >d facts and factoids they had be >en studying and having to memorize for the past four years all fit together >and made sense! Dr. Scott offered this as living confirmation of >Dobzhansky's famous quote, that nothing in biology makes sense except in >the light of evolution. > >And now you know the rest of the story. > > >"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the >most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a >pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious, but making no >meaningful picture as a whole." >(Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Biology Teacher, 25:125-129, p. 129) > > >PS >My wife and I love science and find it interesting in part because we can >see how so many parts of it fit together; it makes sense to us. > >My sister's older son hated science in school, because it didn't make any >sense to him and he couldn't see how any of it fit together. To him, >science was nothing but a jumble of unrelated facts that he had to >memorize. > >Being able to see the meaningful picture as a whole does make a very big >difference. > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (rly-yg02.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.2]) by air-yg04.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:51:21 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f33.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.33]) by rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:50:58 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:50:51 -0800 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:50:51 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: SoThatsWhy@aol.com Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:50:51 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2001 15:50:51.0953 (UTC) FILETIME=[082B2A10:01C0B868] ################################################ Subj: Re: Creation Science Meeting Date: 11-Apr-01 11:41:21 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 Bill: Whom is Hovind going to debate? How could I get in touch with that person? ################################################ Subj: Re: Creation Science Meeting Date: 12-Apr-01 07:14:31 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Hi Dve! Here is the latest word I got, which came after I sent out the e amil. They have not been able to find anyone who will debate him! They gave me a flyer saying there was going to be a debate, but so far no luck. And there also is some pending paper work on getting the room, but I was told that was routine. Would you debate him? If so please let me know ASAP. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Creation Science Meeting >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:41:17 EDT > >Bill: >Whom is Hovind going to debate? How could I get in touch with that person? > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (rly-yd05.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.5]) by air-yd02.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:14:31 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f12.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.12]) by rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:14:07 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:13:55 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:13:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Creation Science Meeting Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:13:55 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Apr 2001 14:13:55.0808 (UTC) FILETIME=[CF425E00:01C0C35A] ################################################ Subj: Re: Creation Science Meeting Date: 12-Apr-01 12:24:53 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 The person you seek would need to be a good public speaker. I am not. Besides, I know too much about those "debates" to get suckered into one. When are you going to honor your agreement to debate me on-line? ################################################ Subj: Re: Creation Science Meeting Date: 13-Apr-01 21:18:18 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com So far we have not found a debater for Dr. Kent Hovind. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Creation Science Meeting >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:24:51 EDT > >The person you seek would need to be a good public speaker. I am not. >Besides, I know too much about those "debates" to get suckered into one. > >When are you going to honor your agreement to debate me on-line? > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xa04.mx.aol.com (rly-xa04.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.73]) by air-xa05.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 00:18:18 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f25.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.25]) by rly-xa04.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 00:17:58 2000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:17:57 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.168 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 04:17:57 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.168] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Creation Science Meeting Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 04:17:57 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2001 04:17:57.0809 (UTC) FILETIME=[E2A83A10:01C0C499] ################################################ Subj: Re: Creation Science Meeting Date: 17-Apr-01 17:36:52 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: Budikka, DWise1 Bill, I'm sorry that I had forgotten about him. I do know somebody who wants to debate Kent Hovind. He says he's been trying for years to get Hovind to debate him on-line and Hovind has steadfastly refused to. Contact budikka at budikka@aol.com , to whom I have CC:'d this email. Then suggest it to Hovind. Be sure to tell us what Hovind's answer is. BTW, I have duly noted your complete avoidance of the question of when you are going to honor your agreement to debate me on-line. ################################################ Subj: What Role Truth? Date: 19-Apr-01 13:03:18 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 Bill, on 20 Oct 2000, you wrote to Mark: "This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important than anything? Yes." In response, on 30 Oct 2000 I wrote to you: "Even more important than Truth? So you would willfully lie for the sake of your religious cause and for its advancement?" Bill, you never answered that question. It is a very serious question, asked in all earnestness and demanding an answer. What IS the role of truth in your creationist ministry? DO you believe that faith in God is more important than the truth? WOULD you willfully lie for the sake of your religious cause and for its advancement? I fully expect an answer from you on this question. If nothing else, you MUST be able to ask yourself that question, to think about it seriously, and to answer it to yourself honestly. If you cannot, then you have some very serious problems. And if your theology does condone, or even require, that you deliberately lie for its sake, then your theology has some very serious flaws in it. In that case I would strongly recommend that you scrap that theology and build another one in its place that at least has some kind of moral and ethical value system to it. BTW, in the same 20-Oct email, you told Mark: "Is it life or death to me that you beleive? No. I wish you did, but if you don't thats fine, its your choice, your free will. Its not any chaff my hide." Then why is it that, despite my repeated statements to you that I am immune to all your proselytizing efforts and that you must refrain from such useless and counter-productive efforts with me, that you continued to try to play your proselytizing dirty tricks on me? And in so doing, generate and escalate acrimony between us? Or was that just yet another case of your not telling the truth? PS Mark, I am CC:'ing you on these to keep you appraised of the continuing situation. I know that you find Bill's dishonest ways to be very distasteful, so I do not expect you to join in. It will pay off when I pass on the truth about the "embattled Creationist" teacher Roger DeHart. ################################################ Subj: Whatever Have You Been Fighting? Date: 19-Apr-01 13:04:34 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 Bill, you have been fighting against me tooth and nail all along. But what has me bewildered is why. What do you think you were fighting all this time? Bill, on 19 Aug 2000 you wrote to Mr. Purcell concerning me: "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." Well, you most certainly have not left personal attacks out of it, but then I have become sadly accustommed to your stating the exact opposite of the truth. On 23 Aug 2000, I replied to you: "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." Again, I must insist on an answer. What do you believe my position to be? What "position" have you been fighting against all this time? Why do you identify that "position" as being mine? Exactly HOW have you been attacking it? Again, if you cannot ask yourself this question and answer it honestly, then you have a very serious personal problem. ################################################ Subj: Why Did You Ask Your Polystrate Question? Date: 19-Apr-01 13:05:38 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 Bill, on 25 Jan 2001 you told us this blatant lie: "I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my requqest."[sic -- all misspellings are Bill's] I corrected you on 26 Jan 2001 with a complete explanation of exactly what had happened and who had written what to whom. Including the solid fact that YOU were the one whom YOU had tasked with finding that specific example of a polystrate fossil. Also including the manner in which you tried to quickly weasel out with a minor "rabbit trailing": "Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on me to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the claim they exist! If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they exist, I will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist." (Bill Morgan, 05 Dec 2000) Bill, please also note the fact that you have never made any attempt to produce the example of a polystrate fossil. We have already noted that you have falsely accused me of having committed YOUR crime. Bill, you have the worst and most extreme tendency to project your own faults to others that I have ever seen in anybody else. You know, you really should not skip your medication like that. Also, Bill, you have not answered the simple direct questions I had asked you about your original question: "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" (Bill Morgan, 27 Oct 2000) 1. Bill M, you had asked me: "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" Now it looks like you are trying to distance yourself from the polystrate fossil claim by saying "if [Bill Morgan is] making the claim they exist". Well, are you making the claim that they exist or aren't you? If you are making that claim, then simply say so. 2. If you are not making that claim, then why did you ask me that question in the first place? 3. If you don't know of any examples of polystrate fossils, then why did you ask me for an explanation for them? 4. Were you just bluffing? Bill M, you know that I do not bluff. You should also know that I am in these discussions for the information, so a bluff has no effect on me except to irritate me; I expect all hands to be shown so that all information can be shared. That is, after all, one of the marks of an open and examining mind. 5. Or did I short-circuit your example with my own example of a claim I had researched? Or with my short exposition on how that claim misrepresented geology? 6. Bill M, if you do not know of any specific example of a polystrate fossil, then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect (actually, I was expecting you to mention the Lompoc whale fossil). 7. If you do have a specific example of one, then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect and present it. 8. If you need more time to dig for the references and will need to get back with us on it later, then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect, tell us what little you do know, being sure to point out what you are doubtful about, AND BE SURE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH YOUR PROMISE to get back with us on it. That would include prompt and honest responses to our subsequent inquiries about that example. 9. Just what kind of a problem are polystrate fossils suppose to cause for modern geology? Please be specific. What assumptions about geology are you making? ################################################ Subj: A Polystrate Claim Date: 19-Apr-01 13:06:41 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 Bill and Mark: I told you before about the one creationist polystrate fossil claim that I was able to find that was a specific claim. I had written it up as a library file for CompuServe, but unfortunately I do not have a copy of it and the CompuServe fora have been reorganized so that I cannot find it there. However, I have found other messages which cover most of what my library file said. Creationist Paul Ekdahl's source was Steven Austin, whose source was a 1964 issue of American Journal of Science. Unfortunately, that issue is missing from the Cal-State Fullerton library, apparently being bound. The rest of this email consists of Ekdahl's library file and our subsequent messages: [73317,1727] POLYST 29-Mar-90 1965 Title : POLYSTRATES Keywords: POLYSTRATE A RESPONSE TO DAVID WISE ON NO.13 AND 17... OF 'THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.' list found in lib.15 Press for next or type CHOICES !read A response to David Wise [72747,3317]... on no.13 (Polystrate fossils) [CATASTROPHES IN EARTH HISTORY by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.] 168. Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures: American Jornal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869. Not infrequently, large fossils of plants and animals are found to penetrate several strata. Upright fossil trees known as "kettles" or "polystrate trees" may extend through tens of feet of strata, requiring that the sedimentation occurred rapidly before the trees could rot and fall over. Broadhurst describes trees in Lancashire, England: In 1959 Broadhurst and Magraw described a fossilized tree, in position of growth, from the Coal Measures at Blackrod near Wigan in Lancashire. This tree was preserved as a cast, and the evidence available suggested that the cast was at least 38 feet in height. The original tree must have been surrounded and buried by sediment which was compacted before the bulk of the tree decomposed, so that the cavity vacated by the trunk could be occupied by new sediment which formed the cast. This implies a rapid rate of sedimentation around the original tree... It is clear that trees in position of growth are far from being rare in Lancashire (Teichmuller, 1956, reaches the same conclusion for similar trees in the Rhein-Westfalen Coal Measures), and presumably in all cases there must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation. (p.865-866) Response to no.16 > And could you expound on those "few people" who "have not let outside scientist examine their date""that ancient wood exists which will permit this calibration to be extended"?< David I no longer have my master copy.. so I can not tell you. I good place to ask would be SOR [bbs]. I saw your name on the board a couple of weeks ago. If you post it there... someone might be able to help you. Press ! [73317,1727] POLYST 29-Mar-90 1965 #: 28233 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION 29-Mar-90 21:40:08 Sb: #28067-RESPONSE TO 13 AND 17 Fm: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431 To: Paul Ekdahl 73317,1727 (X) It's not at all unusual for trees on boggy soil to sink into the bog in an upright position. It's a little startling, but the ground in that area is subject to subsidence. I'd be surprised if some HADN'T been found in the coal. BTW, this isn't speculation. I'm from Lancashire. ...Keir Press for next or type CHOICES ! The Religion Forum Subjects Menu Subject (# msgs) #: 41060 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION 08-Jun-90 12:40:20 Sb: "Polystrate Trees"? Fm: David C. Wise 72747,3317 To: Keir Jones 71257,431 > #: 34212 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION > 02-May-90 08:00:59 > Sb: POLYSTRATES > Fm: Paul Ekdahl 73317,1727 > To: KEIR JONES 71257,431 (X) > > > It's not at all unusual for trees on boggy soil to sink into the bog in > > an upright position. > I agree situations like that do happen. But, how do you deal with > polystrate trees that penetrate through millions of years of strata? Do > remember that this is not uncommon. > > Paul Keir: Earlier in his library file, POLYST, Paul had given a reference for this claim: Broadhurst's article from American Journal of Science (1964), "Some Aspects of the Paleoecology of Non-marine Fauas and Rates of Sedimentation in the Lancashire Coal Measures." When I looked it up in the library last week, I found that not only does Broadhurst NOT say that fossil trees "penetrate several strata", but he explicitly points out that of the more than fifty trees fossilized in position of growth in Lancashire, "[w]here trees occur in the roof beds of a coal seam the root system is developed in the beds above the top of the coal; in no case has a tree been observed to pass from the roof into the coal itself." He also points out considerable evidence which contradicts Flood Geology. I have just uploaded into Library 15 a file, POLYST.RSP, which includes the entire text of Paul's POLYST and my findings on the matter. So far, I have found this claim of "poly-strate fossils" to be one of the more common and worse documented of creationist claims. I would like to get Paul to justify that "millions of years of strata" line. So many strawmen, so little time. Press for next or type CHOICES ! The Religion Forum Subjects Menu #: 41177 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION 09-Jun-90 09:37:26 Sb: #41060-#"Polystrate Trees"? Fm: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431 To: David C. Wise 72747,3317 (X) That citation matches my own observations (Both grandfathers and several uncles were Lancashire coal miners) of such trees and the rates of sedimentation. ...Keir There is 1 Reply. Press for next or type CHOICES ! #: 41362 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION 10-Jun-90 09:45:32 Sb: #41177-"Polystrate Trees"? Fm: David C. Wise 72747,3317 To: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431 This "polystrate fossil" claim seems to be trying to discredit modern geology by first forcing a ridiculous view upon it (i.e. that all sediment formed at a constant and strictly uniform rate) and then pointing out some of the many examples of rapid sedimentation. The creationists seems intent on erecting an effigy (or voodoo doll) of evolution and science, which they call their "creation model", and then pronouncing evolution dead because they have destroyed their effigy. Anyway, I have informed Paul of what his reference actually says and have again requested a reference for this claim. Who knows, maybe a miracle will happen and he will start trying to verify his creationists' claims before he posts them. But I'm not holding my breath. Press for next or type CHOICES ! #: 41542 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION 10-Jun-90 20:51:00 Sb: #41362-#"Polystrate Trees"? Fm: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431 To: David C. Wise 72747,3317 (X) Anyone who thinks sedimentation is uniform has a sedimented brain. One only has to look anywhere in the world where rainfall comes in heavy storms with sunny weather between to see that. The layers of mud in Santa Monica Bay are a readily accessible verification of uneven sedimentation. You can even read out the months by the type of debris. It's always amazed me that creationists spend so much time trying to knock down evolution. Sort of like trying to prove the superiority of Goodyear tires by knocking Firestone. Not a practical argument when the next guy rolls up with a Michelin. ...Keir There is 1 Reply. Press for next or type CHOICES ! #: 41671 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION 11-Jun-90 13:11:29 Sb: #41542-"Polystrate Trees"? Fm: David C. Wise 72747,3317 To: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431 Keir: The creationists' dual goal is (1) to kill evolution and (2) to evangelize through creationism. Goal #1 is most readily reached by using their "evolution model" to discredit or at least raise doubts about evolution and any science that might possibly support it. The "evolution model" is a very rich source of strawmen: misconceptions and distortions of evolutionary ideas and claims which the general public cannot readily tell from the real thing. This is one big reason why they never take their "findings" to the scientific community; scientists would see the holes in their arguments immediately. Instead, they target the public and public officials who are not well-schooled in science. The supposed dependence of modern geology on uniform and constant rates of sedimentations is just another of their many strawman arguments. Santa Monica Bay? You live in the LA area? I'm down here in Orange County. Press for next or type CHOICES ! The Religion Forum Subjects Menu ################################################ Subj: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 19-Apr-01 13:07:41 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 Bill, the main problem of your utterly false and vicious slanderous accusations against me is not so much that you had made them, but rather that you have fought so long and hard to prevent any resolution of the problem that you had created with them. Why oh why did you fight so long and hard against resolution and continue to do so? I think that I know the answer, Bill. I think that you know full well that your accusations were totally false and you know full well that our examination of the facts, which is a vital step to resolution, would expose the truth about your accusations. So in order to cover up your previous lies, you had to prevent and obstruct all our attempts to examine the accusations and to resolve the problem. Lies piled upon lies, until you were encased in a tangled web of lies, unable to move. Well, Bill, you don't need to lie anymore. We know what happened. Let the truth set you free. Start by telling us about your accusation of 05 Aug 2000, that I had called you "very nasty names." What were those names? Don't retreat back to your lying "that would be a long email" excuse. Just a few words. That is all it would take. Just a few words is all that it ever would have taken at any point of this long and unnecessarily acrimonious struggle. Let the truth set you free. For the record, this is the FIFTY-FOURTH (54th) time that I have had to request this. And if you feel that your theology requires you to continue to fight against the truth, then I must ask you why. Is the Cause of Christ served by fighting against the truth? Which Christian deity's cause does that really serve? ################################################ Subj: Re: What Role Truth? Date: 19-Apr-01 14:16:35 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net I thought you didn't want to email me anymore. But anyway I stand corrected, nothingis more important than truth. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: What Role Truth? >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:03:17 EDT > >Bill, on 20 Oct 2000, you wrote to Mark: >"This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important than >anything? Yes." > >In response, on 30 Oct 2000 I wrote to you: >"Even more important than Truth? So you would willfully lie for the sake >of your religious cause and for its advancement?" > >Bill, you never answered that question. It is a very serious question, >asked in all earnestness and demanding an answer. > >What IS the role of truth in your creationist ministry? DO you believe >that faith in God is more important than the truth? WOULD you willfully >lie for the sake of your religious cause and for its advancement? > >I fully expect an answer from you on this question. If nothing else, you >MUST be able to ask yourself that question, to think about it seriously, >and to answer it to yourself honestly. If you cannot, then you have some >very serious problems. > >And if your theology does condone, or even require, that you deliberately >lie for its sake, then your theology has some very serious flaws in it. In >that case I would strongly recommend that you scrap that theology and build >another one in its place that at least has some kind of moral and ethical >value system to it. > > >BTW, in the same 20-Oct email, you told Mark: >"Is it life or death to me that you beleive? No. I wish you did, but if >you don't thats fine, its your choice, your free will. Its not any chaff >my hide." > >Then why is it that, despite my repeated statements to you that I am immune >to all your proselytizing efforts and that you must refrain from such >useless and counter-productive efforts with me, that you continued to try >to play your proselytizing dirty tricks on me? And in so doing, generate >and escalate acrimony between us? > >Or was that just yet another case of your not telling the truth? > > >PS >Mark, I am CC:'ing you on these to keep you appraised of the continuing >situation. I know that you find Bill's dishonest ways to be very >distasteful, so I do not expect you to join in. > >It will pay off when I pass on the truth about the "embattled Creationist" >teacher Roger DeHart. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (rly-yd05.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.5]) by air-yd02.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:16:35 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f37.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.37]) by rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:15:58 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:15:56 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:15:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: editor@liberator.net Subject: Re: What Role Truth? Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:15:55 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2001 21:15:56.0019 (UTC) FILETIME=[EC2C3430:01C0C915] ################################################ Subj: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 19-Apr-01 14:21:36 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net I will not lower myself to personally attack your character like you choose to do to me. Have a great day! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:07:41 EDT > >Bill, the main problem of your utterly false and vicious slanderous >accusations against me is not so much that you had made them, but rather >that you have fought so long and hard to prevent any resolution of the >problem that you had created with them. > >Why oh why did you fight so long and hard against resolution and continue >to do so? > >I think that I know the answer, Bill. I think that you know full well that >your accusations were totally false and you know full well that our >examination of the facts, which is a vital step to resolution, would expose >the truth about your accusations. So in order to cover up your previous >lies, you had to prevent and obstruct all our attempts to examine the >accusations and to resolve the problem. Lies piled upon lies, until you >were encased in a tangled web of lies, unable to move. > >Well, Bill, you don't need to lie anymore. We know what happened. Let the >truth set you free. > >Start by telling us about your accusation of 05 Aug 2000, that I had called >you "very nasty names." What were those names? Don't retreat back to your >lying "that would be a long email" excuse. Just a few words. That is all >it would take. Just a few words is all that it ever would have taken at >any point of this long and unnecessarily acrimonious struggle. Let the >truth set you free. > >For the record, this is the FIFTY-FOURTH (54th) time that I have had to >request this. > > >And if you feel that your theology requires you to continue to fight >against the truth, then I must ask you why. Is the Cause of Christ served >by fighting against the truth? Which Christian deity's cause does that >really serve? > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) by air-yd01.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:21:36 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f97.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.97]) by rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:21:23 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:21:22 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:21:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: editor@liberator.net Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:21:22 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2001 21:21:22.0532 (UTC) FILETIME=[AECA2240:01C0C916] ################################################ Subj: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 19-Apr-01 14:30:11 Pacific Daylight Time From: billbeq@yahoo.com (Bill Bequette) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net Jesus loves you yes he does! Jesus loves you! Prayer to God and ask to be forgiven. You will be rewarded 1000 fold. God Bless You! ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Morgan To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: editor@liberator.net Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 9:21 PM Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? I will not lower myself to personally attack your character like you choose to do to me. Have a great day! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:07:41 EDT > >Bill, the main problem of your utterly false and vicious slanderous >accusations against me is not so much that you had made them, but rather >that you have fought so long and hard to prevent any resolution of the >problem that you had created with them. > >Why oh why did you fight so long and hard against resolution and continue >to do so? > >I think that I know the answer, Bill. I think that you know full well that >your accusations were totally false and you know full well that our >examination of the facts, which is a vital step to resolution, would expose >the truth about your accusations. So in order to cover up your previous >lies, you had to prevent and obstruct all our attempts to examine the >accusations and to resolve the problem. Lies piled upon lies, until you >were encased in a tangled web of lies, unable to move. > >Well, Bill, you don't need to lie anymore. We know what happened. Let the >truth set you free. > >Start by telling us about your accusation of 05 Aug 2000, that I had called >you "very nasty names." What were those names? Don't retreat back to your >lying "that would be a long email" excuse. Just a few words. That is all >it would take. Just a few words is all that it ever would have taken at >any point of this long and unnecessarily acrimonious struggle. Let the >truth set you free. > >For the record, this is the FIFTY-FOURTH (54th) time that I have had to >request this. > > >And if you feel that your theology requires you to continue to fight >against the truth, then I must ask you why. Is the Cause of Christ served >by fighting against the truth? Which Christian deity's cause does that >really serve? > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com --------------------
Jesus loves you yes he does!  Jesus loves you! Prayer to God and ask to be forgiven.  You will be rewarded 1000 fold.
God Bless You!
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Morgan
To: DWise1@aol.com
Cc: editor@liberator.net
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard?
I will not lower myself to personally attack your character like you choose to do to me. Have a great day! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: <billyjack1@hotmail.com> >CC: <editor@liberator.net>, <DWise1@aol.com> >Subject: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:07:41 EDT > >Bill, the main problem of your utterly false and vicious slanderous >accusations against me is not so much that you had made them, but rather >that you have fought so long and hard to prevent any resolution of the >problem that you had created with them. > >Why oh why did you fight so long and hard against resolution and continue >to do so? > >I think that I know the answer, Bill.  I think that you know full well that >your accusations were totally false and you know full well that our >examination of the facts, which is a vital step to resolution, would expose >the truth about your accusations.  So in order to cover up your previous >lies, you had to prevent and obstruct all our attempts to examine the >accusations and to resolve the problem.  Lies piled upon lies, until you >were encased in a tangled web of lies, unable to move. > >Well, Bill, you don't need to lie anymore.  We know what happened.  Let the >truth set you free. > >Start by telling us about your accusation of 05 Aug 2000, that I had called >you "very nasty names."  What were those names?  Don't retreat back to your >lying "that would be a long email" excuse.  Just a few words.  That is all >it would take.  Just a few words is all that it ever would have taken at >any point of this long and unnecessarily acrimonious struggle.  Let the >truth set you free. > >For the record, this is the FIFTY-FOURTH (54th) time that I have had to >request this. > > >And if you feel that your theology requires you to continue to fight >against the truth, then I must ask you why.  Is the Cause of Christ served >by fighting against the truth?  Which Christian deity's cause does that >really serve? > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yh03.mx.aol.com (rly-yh03.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.35]) by air-yh03.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:30:11 -0400 Received: from smtp013.mail.yahoo.com (smtp013.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.57]) by rly-yh03.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:29:26 -0400 Received: from 1cust127.tnt41.lax3.da.uu.net (HELO gunsgalore) (63.30.228.127) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 21:29:23 -0000 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <002601c0c916$a64e80c0$7fe41e3f@com> From: "Bill Bequette" To: "Bill Morgan" , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:21:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0023_01C0C8DB.F88F2E60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 ################################################ Subj: Re: What Role Truth? Date: 19-Apr-01 17:30:59 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 >>I thought you didn't want to email me anymore.<< I believe that was Mark who had made that statement, thoroughly disgusted as he was with your evasiveness and other rhetorical trickery. >>But anyway I stand corrected, nothingis more important than truth.<< But how can you reconcile this new position with your repeated and consistent actions against examining the facts and finding the truth? Are you saying that the scales have fallen from your eyes? I will conduct a quick test, then. Let us examine the facts of your accusations against me so that we can resolve the matter. What was I supposed to have written which was an insult to your wife? And what were those "very nasty names" that you accuse me of having called you? ################################################ Subj: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 19-Apr-01 17:38:04 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 >>I will not lower myself to personally attack your character like you choose to do to me.<< Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about?! You have VICIOUSLY attacked my character with your SLANDEROUS accusations! All of them completely and utterly false! Then you have repeatedly and consistently blocked ALL our efforts to resolve the matter! If your determined resistence against resolution has not been to effect a cover-up of the utter falsehood of your slanderous accusations, then why??? Tell us what reason you have for blocking resolution of the problems and acrimony that you have caused with your slanderous accusations! If you do not give a cogent explanation of the motives for your actions, then we can only draw our conclusions from your actions. Give us an explanation. ################################################ Subj: Re: What Role Truth? Date: 20-Apr-01 00:29:48 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net Dave it sounds like a lot of fun, but we covered this ground many times. I won't ever attack your charcter though! Thanks, have a great day. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: What Role Truth? >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:30:58 EDT > > >>I thought you didn't want to email me anymore.<< > >I believe that was Mark who had made that statement, thoroughly disgusted >as he was with your evasiveness and other rhetorical trickery. > > >>But anyway I stand corrected, nothingis more important than truth.<< > >But how can you reconcile this new position with your repeated and >consistent actions against examining the facts and finding the truth? Are >you saying that the scales have fallen from your eyes? > >I will conduct a quick test, then. Let us examine the facts of your >accusations against me so that we can resolve the matter. What was I >supposed to have written which was an insult to your wife? And what were >those "very nasty names" that you accuse me of having called you? > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xb01.mx.aol.com (rly-xb01.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.102]) by air-xb04.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:29:48 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (f20.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.20]) by rly-xb01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:29:34 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:29:34 -0700 Received: from 152.163.207.212 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:29:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.207.212] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: editor@liberator.net Subject: Re: What Role Truth? Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:29:33 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Apr 2001 07:29:34.0043 (UTC) FILETIME=[A56CD2B0:01C0C96B] ################################################ Subj: Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 20-Apr-01 00:33:22 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net you said: Then you have repeatedly and consistently blocked ALL our efforts to resolve the matter! I think that is wrong since I offered about 54 thimes to meet with you person to person like two social humans beings. How can you say I blocked all efforts when you refused to eat wtih me? Are you denying this truth that I have tried for years to reconcile our friendship by meeting at Dennys? Are you? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:38:04 EDT > > >>I will not lower myself to personally attack your character like you >choose to do to me.<< > >Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about?! > >You have VICIOUSLY attacked my character with your SLANDEROUS accusations! >All of them completely and utterly false! > >Then you have repeatedly and consistently blocked ALL our efforts to >resolve the matter! > >If your determined resistence against resolution has not been to effect a >cover-up of the utter falsehood of your slanderous accusations, then why??? > >Tell us what reason you have for blocking resolution of the problems and >acrimony that you have caused with your slanderous accusations! > >If you do not give a cogent explanation of the motives for your actions, >then we can only draw our conclusions from your actions. Give us an >explanation. > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (rly-zc01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.1]) by air-zc03.mail.aol.com (v78.25) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:33:22 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (f45.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.45]) by rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:32:42 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:32:34 -0700 Received: from 152.163.207.212 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:32:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.207.212] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: editor@liberator.net Subject: Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:32:34 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Apr 2001 07:32:34.0460 (UTC) FILETIME=[10F645C0:01C0C96C] ################################################ Subj: Re: What Role Truth? Date: 20-Apr-01 07:00:55 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 >>Dave it sounds like a lot of fun, but we covered this ground many times.<< Yes we have, but only because you keep running from the truth and refuse to deal with the problems that YOU have created. Take responsibility for your actions and let us get this all straightened out so that we can finally put it to rest. Refuse to take responsibility for your actions and this matter will never be over. >>I won't ever attack your charcter though!<< That is a lie! You HAVE attacked my character! REPEATEDLY! MALICIOUSLY! THAT IS WHAT YOUR VICIOUS SLANDEROUS ACCUSATIONS WERE AND STILL ARE! http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/j_accuse.html You are still unilaterally blocking resolution of this matter that YOU have caused with your LIES! You have preached that you and your followers serve truth, yet almost all of your actions have been to OPPOSE truth and to flee from it in terror. What you preach and what you practice are diametrically opposed to each other. That is called hypocrisy and one who practices hypocrisy is called a hypocrite. One thing I definitely noticed from reading the New Testament was that Jesus seemed to direct his greatest hatred against hypocrites. After all the hypocrisy that you have practiced and show full intent of continuing to practice, would you really want to have to face your Jesus and be judged? If you truly serve truth, then SERVE TRUTH. If you do not truly serve truth, then continue as you have and you will have your reward (Matt 6:5). For the FIFTY-FIFTH TIME, let us resolve this matter! ################################################ Subj: Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 20-Apr-01 07:27:38 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 >>I think that is wrong since I offered about 54 thimes to meet with you person to person like two social humans beings.<< All those invitations were were more of your damned "RABBIT TRAILS"! You repeatedly use your damned "rabbit trails" as a thoroughly dishonest trick to avoid the real issues at hand! It is my duty, in accordance with YOUR OWN TEACHINGS, to not allow you to use your "rabbit trails". Meeting with you socially would accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING towards the resolution of the mess that YOU have created with YOUR SLANDEROUS ACCUSATIONS! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! Instead, such a meeting would open up even more opportunities for you lay even more "rabbit trails"! NFW! BTW, you preach that "rabbit trails" are a dishonest tactic that must be prevented, yet in practice you use "rabbit trailing" all the time. What you preach is diametrically opposed by what you practice. That is called hypocrisy and we who have read the Bible know that Jesus expressed especial hatred for hypocrites. Also, your response here is yet another of your damned "rabbit trails". The question still stands unanswered: Why do you repeatedly and consistently block ALL our efforts to resolve the matter? Why are you fighting resolution so long and hard? >>How can you say I blocked all efforts when you refused to eat wtih me?<< I have explained it to you over and over and over and over again. So, as I have already told you (though as usual you have refused to listen), I posted a web page to refer you to when you ask that question. http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/dennys.html . But since I expect you to yet again avoid the truth and the facts, the skinny is that your totally unwelcome invitations have been nothing but "rabbit trails" intended to let you avoid facing up to your actions, thus avoiding a resolution. If you truly believe that Denny's would resolve this matter, then EXPLAIN TO US COGENTLY WHY AND HOW! I have repeatedly requested that explanation and you have repeatedly and steadfastly refused to give such an explanation. That refusal is evidence that you do indeed intend to use Denny's to prevent resolution. A resolution requires that we examine the facts and arrive at the truth. The venue that you keep insisting on would prevent that. Duh? >>Are you denying this truth that I have tried for years to reconcile our friendship by meeting at Dennys? Are you?<< Oh, I do not deny that you keep brandying that word "friendship" about, like Bill Bequette expresses his deep hatred by brandying about the word "love". It is hypocritical. You speak of friendship, yet you have consistently practiced adversity. Remember, your own religion teaches that Jesus hates hypocrites. I have offered this to you before, yet you refused. If you really want to practice friendship, then let us examine the facts of your accusations so that we can resolve the matter! You can start by telling us just what I was supposed to have written that "trashed [your] wife"? What were some of those "very nasty names" that you claim I had called you? If you refuse to allow us to resolve this matter, then you are showing us that your desire for friendship has never been genuine and that it was nothing but a dishonest hypocritical ploy. Bill, why are you so terrified of resolving this matter? ################################################ Subj: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 20-Apr-01 12:13:09 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billbeq@yahoo.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1 Bill B, after you had said that you never wanted to hear from us again, here you are sending us emails again. Your act automatically nullifies any obligation we have to not email you. Therefore, you have opened yourself up for a reply, which this is. If you are going to behave yourself this time and engage in discussion, then OK. But if you are going to just cause more trouble and put on your usual "Christian jerk" act, then I would much rather you stay away and keep your hateful, hypocritical nose out of our business. I will proceed under the former assumption, that you are wanting to engage in discussion. >>Jesus loves you yes he does! Jesus loves you! Prayer to God and ask to be forgiven. You will be rewarded 1000 fold. God Bless You! << Wrong, Bill B. Read the Bible. Jesus expressed especial hatred for hypocrites. You and Bill M are in some very serious trouble (see below). Bill Morgan says that he does not make personal attacks against my character, yet that is EXACTLY what he has done with his slanderous accusations! His words are contradicted by his actions! That, by definition, is hypocrisy. And Jesus hates that stuff! Like the way that you prattle on about love, yet your actions and attitude are full of hatefulness. That means that you are also practicing hypocrisy. The question is why Bill M has been fighting so long and hard AGAINST resolution. Bill M just rabbit-trailed around the question. You ignored it completely. Why IS Bill M fighting so hard against resolution? And why do you keep encouraging him in doing the wrong thing, the hateful thing, the hypocritical thing? Now to some unfinished business: As I said before, I am totally mystified as to why Bill M had dragged you into this in the first place. I think I know what had led to it, but Bill M completely screwed up in his delivery. For a long time, Bill M had been trying to pressure me into a personal meeting. For one thing, he was blatantly "rabbit trailing", ie avoiding the topic under discussion by changing the subject to something entirely different. For another, I am very shy and so was very apprehensive about how such a meeting would go, especially since Bill M had promised to make it very unpleasant by trying to proselytize at me even though I had warned him against such a futile effort. In response to his insisting on what a wonderful guy he is, I requested that he back up that claim (especially considering the myriad unsubstantiated and contrary-to-fact claims he had already made to me). In particular, I wanted to know how the alleged meetings had gone and what the "skeptics" involved thought of how Bill M had conducted himself in terms of his "rabbit trailing" and responding to questions. Since it would be extremely difficult for me to be able to meet with him, most of my concern there was whether Bill M would make all t hat effort on my part a complete and total waste of time and effort. DWise1 to Bill Morgan, 09 Sep 2000 18:37:12 EDT: "Please tell us, Bill. How many SKEPTICS (as you refer to us in polite society) have actually taken you up on your offer? How did the meetings go? AND, please put us in touch with those other skeptics so that we can check your story against theirs. Sorry that that is necessary, but you have demonstrated a penchant for having your imagination completely rewrite history." DWise1 to Bill Morgan, 09 Sep 2000 15:46:02 Pacific Daylight Time: "I want references. I want to hear the testimonies of other "skeptics" who have accepted your invitations. No "choir members", but rather those you call "skeptics", "atheists", and "evolutionists". And I want to hear FROM THEM, not from your own "memory" (or hallucinations based loosely thereupon)." So what did Bill M do? On 11 Sep 2000, two days later, he brought in you, a "choir member": "Now, here to present testimony is Mr. William Newton Bequette. A former co worker, former skeptic and antagnostic toward Christianity and the Bible. For many years we worked together and had different world views. "Question to Mr. Bequeet, be honest, when you were a skeptic, was I obnoxious, rude, offensive, confrontational, boarish, snide, insulting, condenscending, brash, crude, arrogant, crass in any way shape or form when we differed on world views?" As I pointed out to you immediately, Bill B, Bill M's question to you had absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Bill Morgan had lied to you! Besides which, you didn't even come close to fitting the profile! I needed to hear from a "skeptic" (ie, somebody not already won over to Bill M's side) who was meeting Bill M for the first time through one of his emailed invitations. That wasn't you; you met him at work and had already gotten to know him personally before he started working on turning you. I needed to hear from a "skeptic" who would be able to discuss and evaluate Bill M's conduct more objectively. That also wasn't you; you had already been turned before you were brought in. I have always questioned by Bill M had dragged you in. And sadly, you have detracted greatly from what we could have accomplished. Which is a pity, since you could have done good deeds by keeping Bill M honest. Instead, you encourage him to do more and more evil. Are you by any chance his Familiar? Now on to the unfinished business that you had blown off before: -Subj: Re: fish heads -Date: 02/10/2001 12:59:04 Pacific Standard Time -From: DWise1 -To: billbeq@mediaone.net -CC: spambuster@gigagod.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com -CC: DWise1 Bill B, since you have decided to return, I may now ask you a couple questions that are outstanding (ie, that I had either not had a chance to ask yet or that I had asked but you have not responded to). First, on 14 Dec 2000 at 1235 PST, I wrote to you: "You now see that Bill Morgan had just made up his charge about what my web page says concerning licensed engineers. Based on his groundless charge, you had accused me of having slandered him. This means that your own accusation was groundless and unwarranted. "I am waiting for you to explain your actions and to apologize." Well, Bill B? What do you have to say for yourself? Second, on 5 Oct 2000 at 1542 PDT, you wrote to me: "Mr Wise what is your best explanation for the origin of life?" The [multi-part] question I wanted to ask you at the time, but did not have the time for (what with fighting Bill Morgan's obstructionist behavior and a horrendous work-load) was, and which I do pose to you now: Why did you ask me that question? What were you planning to accomplish by it? Did you really want to see the answer or is it part of a ploy? Here are my reasons for asking you those questions. They should help you understand the questions better, which should also help you in answering them. First, it was immediately obvious to me that you were shilling for Bill M. He could not pressure me himself to answer his question, because I had correctly identified his question as yet another of his "rabbit trail" tricks and quoted HIS OWN TEACHING that I must not answer his question, but rather insist that he first answer MY question(s) which I had already asked him and which he had never answered. I strongly suspect that in a private communiqué he proposed that you help him avoid having to admit his hypocrisy by having you ask the question instead. Therefore, it appears to me that you had no other reason for asking that question other than to front for Bill M. And what were Bill M's reasons for asking that question? Nothing honest, we know that! When he tried the same trick on a friend of mine, Bill M lied and said that he really wanted to hear the answer. We know that that is not true because I have answered every single one of those questions of Bill M's and every single time he avoided the answer (usually, he would drop the subject completely, just as he did with my answer to his origin-of-life question, and a few times he would try to bluff that I hadn't given him an answer, just as he started to do with my answer to his origin-of-life question -- see my page on it at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/bills_questions.html ). Bill M even let slip to my friend that trying to answer that question would make my friend look stupid, so Bill M's intention in asking it is to discredit the other person, to make them look stupid. And when used against a single person, it is meant to make that person FEEL stupid. It's an old proselytizing trick. You see it done in many proselytizing tracts, like Chick Pubs and Bill M's own "Weird Science" and "Weird Tour." Bill M even emailed us all a sample dialog using it. You know how it goes: the Christian asks the Atheist some questions that the Atheist cannot answer, then the Atheist gets all confused and turned around, so that he is ready to accept the "answer" that the Christian feeds him. In Bill M's dreams, it's a form of instant brainwashing. He probably used it on you too while he was turning you, though he had more time to play with your mind, so he was probably more subtle about it. That's obviously the script that he's been trying to use on me too, only I kept ruining his script by answering his questions, which Bill M has no idea how to handle. So he just runs away. So, Bill B. Was that also your own intention when you ask me the origin-of-life question? If not, then what was your reason for asking it? ################################################ Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal Date: 20-Apr-01 12:15:29 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 -Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal -Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 5:29:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time -From: "Bill Morgan" >Excellent E mail! I do like Kent Hovind, but some of his claims make my eye balls roll. But I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Anyone who writes a glot or speaks a lot has made mistakes. They should belly up tot he bar and confess these mistakes.<< Of course we shouldn't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, but we also shouldn't want to let a rotten apple spoil the entire barrel! [are we done with the cliches yet? ] But, Bill M, what about those claims that "make [your] eye balls roll"? What do/would you do about them? Are they just slips of the tongue, misspeaking, or are they basic and fundamental errors? Let's assume a purely hypothetical situation of you going to see Kent Hovind speak [grin -- ie, such a situation is not hypothetical]. When you do, you are sure to hear him make claims that will "make [your] eye balls roll." At that point, look around you. Are everybody else's eye balls rolling? Or are they lapping it all up like a dog lapping Parmesan cheese? You could tell that claim was wrong, but they couldn't. They actually believe that that claim is true. And you can bet that they will repeat it to their non-believer friends, some of whom, like you, know enough that their eye balls will roll? What will your fellow Hovindites' reaction be when those friends correct those blatantly false claims? Severe denial in which they accuse their friends of insulting their spouse, calling them "very nasty names", committing "hate crimes", and several other malicious slanders? [any resemblance to yourself is purely intentional] Or will they realize their idol, Kent Hovind, had not told them the truth? Will they then become suspicious of all the other things Hovind had told them? Or what other creationists had told them? Will they start to check all those claims out discover how many of them are wrong or even deceptive? And what about their religious leaders who endorse those claims and teach that their faith depends on those claims being true? Will it drive your fellow Hovindites to the brink of atheism? And what about your non-believer friend whom you were able to talk into accompanying you to that Hovind presentation? His eye balls rolled too, you know. Now he knows for sure that creation science is ludicrous and false. And since he keeps being told by creationists that Christianity depends on creation science claims being true, now he also "knows for sure" that Christianity is likewise ludicrous and false. Now you will never be able to convert him. Here are a few exerpts from a devout CHRISTIAN's testimony (Dr. Allan H. Harvey, "Science and Christian Apologetics" at http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/apologetics.html -- these are his own words, formed long before he had ever even heard about me, let alone what I have written): "Albert knew that the claims of so-called “creation science” about the Earth being only 6000 years old and so forth were ridiculous, like saying the Earth was flat. Can’t blame him for not wanting to be associated with that nonsense. But what’s worse is that that was the first thing that came to Albert’s mind about Christianity. Not the death and resurrection of Jesus. Not even the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments. The anti-science noise had drowned out the Gospel so all Albert had heard was a false Gospel, one that was centered in a particular interpretation of Genesis rather than being centered in Christ. [Gal. 1:6-9] "My concern is what can we do to correct the misconceptions that people have (both people like Albert and some Christians) that the findings of science (geology, astronomy, biological sciences [including evolution]) are incompatible with Christianity, that embracing Jesus means rejecting science. And it’s a serious problem. It’s serious because there are people like Albert out there who know science, and we put stumbling blocks in the way of them even considering Jesus. "But it’s also serious because of its effects on Christians, and I’m especially worried about children. If we teach our children that they have to choose between science and faith, we're setting them up for a fall. Because some of them are going to grow up and study the real world God made and learn that what the church has told them about science is false. If we’ve taught them that the Gospel or the truth of the Bible depends on those things, then its like the house built on sand, their foundation gets washed away, and their faith may go with it. I think Jesus had some words about those who set people up to stumble on issues like this: [Luke 17:1-2] “Stumbling blocks are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.” " [DWise1: Bill, I'm positive that I saw a stone quarry less than a block down the road from the ICR! Location, location, location!] He continues: "Maybe my most important message today is that this “God of the Gaps” theology is wrong. The reason it’s wrong is that God is sovereign over nature. (Take-home point #2) The Bible tells us that everything that exists is upheld by God’s power. God isn’t just in the gaps, he’s the creator and sustainer of the whole fabric of creation, including the things we call “natural.” So what does God’s sovereignty over nature mean for our apologetics? It means that science isn’t any threat to Christianity. Scientific results don’t count as points against God, they’re just uncovering how God did things. It means that if somebody has the idea that some scientific explanation (evolution or whatever) has eliminated God, the wrong thing to do is to argue against the science – that’s defending the God of the Gaps and it’s a losing strategy (unfortunately, it’s the strategy of a lot of Christians). The right thing to do is to rememb er that God is sovereign over nature, that the atheist argument that natural explanations mean God is absent isn’t science, it’s completely unjustified philosophy. We can tell people that natural explanations may eliminate the God of the Gaps, but they don’t eliminate the Christian God. "Now that I’ve pointed out our two apologetic problems (trying to make the Bible a science textbook, having a God of the Gaps rather than God who is sovereign over nature), where do we go from here? "First, we can get our own house in order. We can learn to read the Bible with its purposes in mind, and not try to ask it questions it isn’t trying to answer. We can reject any false Gospel that depends on a particular interpretation of how God created. We can affirm God’s sovereignty over nature and reject the “God of the Gaps.” If we can keep our children away from that horrible teaching that says Genesis 1 has to be true according to somebody’s narrow literal interpretation or else we might as well throw our Bibles in the trash, and if we can get them to understand that scientific explanations don’t mean God didn’t do something, they just tell us how God did something, they’ll be much better prepared to face the world. "Second, we can be ready to give people good answers. If they say that science contradicts the Bible, we can tell them that the Bible isn’t making any scientific claims about those things. If they think that scientific explanations have eliminated God, rather than argue against the science, we can point out that natural explanations of how things happened don’t eliminate the Christian God, because our God is in charge of the whole picture, not just the gaps where we don’t have explanations. If they want to argue “creation vs. evolution,” we can point out that it’s not a “versus” – those aren’t mutually exclusive opposites, they’re answers to two different questions. “Creation” is the answer to “What is all this?” All this is the creation of God. “Evolution” is the answer, or a plausible answer, to the different question, the less important question, “How did God do it?” " Dr. Harvey also has an essay on the "God of the Gaps", which I would also recommend. Think about it, Bill. How much damage do false creationist claims do? Or outright deliberate lies? Despite what your theology appears to tell you, truth and honesty ARE the better way. ################################################ Subj: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 20-Apr-01 12:17:30 Pacific Daylight Time From: billbeq@yahoo.com (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, editor@liberator.net, dwise1@aol.com Strong words from someone who does not even know me. You sound so angry! I wish you well. Jesus loves you! God Bless :) Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billbeq@yahoo.com Cc: billyjack1@hotmail.com ; editor@liberator.net ; dwise1@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:13 PM Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Bill B, after you had said that you never wanted to hear from us again, here you are sending us emails again. Your act automatically nullifies any obligation we have to not email you. Therefore, you have opened yourself up for a reply, which this is. If you are going to behave yourself this time and engage in discussion, then OK. But if you are going to just cause more trouble and put on your usual "Christian jerk" act, then I would much rather you stay away and keep your hateful, hypocritical nose out of our business. I will proceed under the former assumption, that you are wanting to engage in discussion. >>Jesus loves you yes he does! Jesus loves you! Prayer to God and ask to be forgiven. You will be rewarded 1000 fold. God Bless You! << Wrong, Bill B. Read the Bible. Jesus expressed especial hatred for hypocrites. You and Bill M are in some very serious trouble (see below). Bill Morgan says that he does not make personal attacks against my character, yet that is EXACTLY what he has done with his slanderous accusations! His words are contradicted by his actions! That, by definition, is hypocrisy. And Jesus hates that stuff! Like the way that you prattle on about love, yet your actions and attitude are full of hatefulness. That means that you are also practicing hypocrisy. The question is why Bill M has been fighting so long and hard AGAINST resolution. Bill M just rabbit-trailed around the question. You ignored it completely. Why IS Bill M fighting so hard against resolution? And why do you keep encouraging him in doing the wrong thing, the hateful thing, the hypocritical thing? Now to some unfinished business: As I said before, I am totally mystified as to why Bill M had dragged you into this in the first place. I think I know what had led to it, but Bill M completely screwed up in his delivery. For a long time, Bill M had been trying to pressure me into a personal meeting. For one thing, he was blatantly "rabbit trailing", ie avoiding the topic under discussion by changing the subject to something entirely different. For another, I am very shy and so was very apprehensive about how such a meeting would go, especially since Bill M had promised to make it very unpleasant by trying to proselytize at me even though I had warned him against such a futile effort. In response to his insisting on what a wonderful guy he is, I requested that he back up that claim (especially considering the myriad unsubstantiated and contrary-to-fact claims he had already made to me). In particular, I wanted to know how the alleged meetings had gone and what the "skeptics" involved thought of how Bill M had conducted himself in terms of his "rabbit trailing" and responding to questions. Since it would be extremely difficult for me to be able to meet with him, most of my concern there was whether Bill M would make all t hat effort on my part a complete and total waste of time and effort. DWise1 to Bill Morgan, 09 Sep 2000 18:37:12 EDT: "Please tell us, Bill. How many SKEPTICS (as you refer to us in polite society) have actually taken you up on your offer? How did the meetings go? AND, please put us in touch with those other skeptics so that we can check your story against theirs. Sorry that that is necessary, but you have demonstrated a penchant for having your imagination completely rewrite history." DWise1 to Bill Morgan, 09 Sep 2000 15:46:02 Pacific Daylight Time: "I want references. I want to hear the testimonies of other "skeptics" who have accepted your invitations. No "choir members", but rather those you call "skeptics", "atheists", and "evolutionists". And I want to hear FROM THEM, not from your own "memory" (or hallucinations based loosely thereupon)." So what did Bill M do? On 11 Sep 2000, two days later, he brought in you, a "choir member": "Now, here to present testimony is Mr. William Newton Bequette. A former co worker, former skeptic and antagnostic toward Christianity and the Bible. For many years we worked together and had different world views. "Question to Mr. Bequeet, be honest, when you were a skeptic, was I obnoxious, rude, offensive, confrontational, boarish, snide, insulting, condenscending, brash, crude, arrogant, crass in any way shape or form when we differed on world views?" As I pointed out to you immediately, Bill B, Bill M's question to you had absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Bill Morgan had lied to you! Besides which, you didn't even come close to fitting the profile! I needed to hear from a "skeptic" (ie, somebody not already won over to Bill M's side) who was meeting Bill M for the first time through one of his emailed invitations. That wasn't you; you met him at work and had already gotten to know him personally before he started working on turning you. I needed to hear from a "skeptic" who would be able to discuss and evaluate Bill M's conduct more objectively. That also wasn't you; you had already been turned before you were brought in. I have always questioned by Bill M had dragged you in. And sadly, you have detracted greatly from what we could have accomplished. Which is a pity, since you could have done good deeds by keeping Bill M honest. Instead, you encourage him to do more and more evil. Are you by any chance his Familiar? Now on to the unfinished business that you had blown off before: -Subj: Re: fish heads -Date: 02/10/2001 12:59:04 Pacific Standard Time -From: DWise1 -To: billbeq@mediaone.net -CC: spambuster@gigagod.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com -CC: DWise1 Bill B, since you have decided to return, I may now ask you a couple questions that are outstanding (ie, that I had either not had a chance to ask yet or that I had asked but you have not responded to). First, on 14 Dec 2000 at 1235 PST, I wrote to you: "You now see that Bill Morgan had just made up his charge about what my web page says concerning licensed engineers. Based on his groundless charge, you had accused me of having slandered him. This means that your own accusation was groundless and unwarranted. "I am waiting for you to explain your actions and to apologize." Well, Bill B? What do you have to say for yourself? Second, on 5 Oct 2000 at 1542 PDT, you wrote to me: "Mr Wise what is your best explanation for the origin of life?" The [multi-part] question I wanted to ask you at the time, but did not have the time for (what with fighting Bill Morgan's obstructionist behavior and a horrendous work-load) was, and which I do pose to you now: Why did you ask me that question? What were you planning to accomplish by it? Did you really want to see the answer or is it part of a ploy? Here are my reasons for asking you those questions. They should help you understand the questions better, which should also help you in answering them. First, it was immediately obvious to me that you were shilling for Bill M. He could not pressure me himself to answer his question, because I had correctly identified his question as yet another of his "rabbit trail" tricks and quoted HIS OWN TEACHING that I must not answer his question, but rather insist that he first answer MY question(s) which I had already asked him and which he had never answered. I strongly suspect that in a private communiqué he proposed that you help him avoid having to admit his hypocrisy by having you ask the question instead. Therefore, it appears to me that you had no other reason for asking that question other than to front for Bill M. And what were Bill M's reasons for asking that question? Nothing honest, we know that! When he tried the same trick on a friend of mine, Bill M lied and said that he really wanted to hear the answer. We know that that is not true because I have answered every single one of those questions of Bill M's and every single time he avoided the answer (usually, he would drop the subject completely, just as he did with my answer to his origin-of-life question, and a few times he would try to bluff that I hadn't given him an answer, just as he started to do with my answer to his origin-of-life question -- see my page on it at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/bills_questions.html ). Bill M even let slip to my friend that trying to answer that question would make my friend look stupid, so Bill M's intention in asking it is to discredit the other person, to make them look stupid. And when used against a single person, it is meant to make that person FEEL stupid. It's an old proselytizing trick. You see it done in many proselytizing tracts, like Chick Pubs and Bill M's own "Weird Science" and "Weird Tour." Bill M even emailed us all a sample dialog using it. You know how it goes: the Christian asks the Atheist some questions that the Atheist cannot answer, then the Atheist gets all confused and turned around, so that he is ready to accept the "answer" that the Christian feeds him. In Bill M's dreams, it's a form of instant brainwashing. He probably used it on you too while he was turning you, though he had more time to play with your mind, so he was probably more subtle about it. That's obviously the script that he's been trying to use on me too, only I kept ruining his script by answering his questions, which Bill M has no idea how to handle. So he just runs away. So, Bill B. Was that also your own intention when you ask me the origin-of-life question? If not, then what was your reason for asking it? --------------------
Strong words from someone who does not even know me.  You sound so angry!  I wish you well.  Jesus loves you!
God Bless :)
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: DWise1@aol.com
To: billbeq@yahoo.com
Cc: billyjack1@hotmail.com ; editor@liberator.net ; dwise1@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard?
Bill B, after you had said that you never wanted to hear from us again, here you are sending us emails again.  Your act automatically nullifies any obligation we have to not email you.  Therefore, you have opened yourself up for a reply, which this is. If you are going to behave yourself this time and engage in discussion, then OK.  But if you are going to just cause more trouble and put on your usual "Christian jerk" act, then I would much rather you stay away and keep your hateful, hypocritical nose out of our business. I will proceed under the former assumption, that you are wanting to engage in discussion. >>Jesus loves you yes he does!  Jesus loves you! Prayer to God and ask to be forgiven.  You will be rewarded 1000 fold. God Bless You! << Wrong, Bill B.  Read the Bible.  Jesus expressed especial hatred for hypocrites.  You and Bill M are in some very serious trouble (see below). Bill Morgan says that he does not make personal attacks against my character, yet that is EXACTLY what he has done with his slanderous accusations!  His words are contradicted by his actions!  That, by definition, is hypocrisy.  And Jesus hates that stuff!  Like the way that you prattle on about love, yet your actions and attitude are full of hatefulness.  That means that you are also practicing hypocrisy.    The question is why Bill M has been fighting so long and hard AGAINST resolution.  Bill M just rabbit-trailed around the question.  You ignored it completely.  Why IS Bill M fighting so hard against resolution?  And why do you keep encouraging him in doing the wrong thing, the hateful thing, the hypocritical thing? Now to some unfinished business: As I said before, I am totally mystified as to why Bill M had dragged you into this in the first place.  I think I know what had led to it, but Bill M completely screwed up in his delivery. For a long time, Bill M had been trying to pressure me into a personal meeting.  For one thing, he was blatantly "rabbit trailing", ie avoiding the topic under discussion by changing the subject to something entirely different.  For another, I am very shy and so was very apprehensive about how such a meeting would go, especially since Bill M had promised to make it very unpleasant by trying to proselytize at me even though I had warned him against such a futile effort.  In response to his insisting on what a wonderful guy he is, I requested that he back up that claim (especially considering the myriad unsubstantiated and contrary-to-fact claims he had already made to me).  In particular, I wanted to know how the alleged meetings had gone and what the "skeptics" involved thought of how Bill M had conducted himself in terms of his "rabbit trailing" and responding to questions.  Since it would be extremely difficult for me to be able to meet with him, most of my concern there was whether Bill M would make all t hat effort on my part a complete and total waste of time and effort. DWise1 to Bill Morgan, 09 Sep 2000 18:37:12 EDT: "Please tell us, Bill.  How many SKEPTICS (as you refer to us in polite society) have actually taken you up on your offer?  How did the meetings go?  AND, please put us in touch with those other skeptics so that we can check your story against theirs.  Sorry that that is necessary, but you have demonstrated a penchant for having your imagination completely rewrite history."   DWise1 to Bill Morgan, 09 Sep 2000 15:46:02 Pacific Daylight Time: "I want references.  I want to hear the testimonies of other "skeptics" who have accepted your invitations.  No "choir members", but rather those you call "skeptics", "atheists", and "evolutionists".  And I want to hear FROM THEM, not from your own "memory" (or hallucinations based loosely thereupon)." So what did Bill M do?  On 11 Sep 2000, two days later, he brought in you, a "choir member": "Now, here to present testimony is Mr. William Newton Bequette.  A former co worker, former skeptic and antagnostic toward Christianity and the Bible.  For many years we worked together and had different world views. "Question to Mr. Bequeet, be honest, when you were a skeptic, was I obnoxious, rude, offensive, confrontational, boarish, snide, insulting, condenscending, brash, crude, arrogant, crass in any way shape or form when we differed on world views?" As I pointed out to you immediately, Bill B, Bill M's question to you had absolutely nothing to do with the issue.  Bill Morgan had lied to you!  Besides which, you didn't even come close to fitting the profile!  I needed to hear from a "skeptic" (ie, somebody not already won over to Bill M's side) who was meeting Bill M for the first time through one of his emailed invitations.  That wasn't you; you met him at work and had already gotten to know him personally before he started working on turning you.  I needed to hear from a "skeptic" who would be able to discuss and evaluate Bill M's conduct more objectively.  That also wasn't you; you had already been turned before you were brought in.  I have always questioned by Bill M had dragged you in.  And sadly, you have detracted greatly from what we could have accomplished.  Which is a pity, since you could have done good deeds by keeping Bill M honest.  Instead, you encourage him to do more and more evil.  Are you by any chance his Familiar? Now on to the unfinished business that you had blown off before: -Subj:  Re: fish heads -Date:  02/10/2001 12:59:04 Pacific Standard Time -From:  DWise1 -To:    billbeq@mediaone.net -CC:    spambuster@gigagod.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com -CC:    DWise1 Bill B, since you have decided to return, I may now ask you a couple questions that are outstanding (ie, that I had either not had a chance to ask yet or that I had asked but you have not responded to). First, on 14 Dec 2000 at 1235 PST, I wrote to you: "You now see that Bill Morgan had just made up his charge about what my web page says concerning licensed engineers.  Based on his groundless charge, you had accused me of having slandered him.  This means that your own accusation was groundless and unwarranted. "I am waiting for you to explain your actions and to apologize." Well, Bill B?  What do you have to say for yourself? Second, on 5 Oct 2000 at 1542 PDT, you wrote to me: "Mr Wise what is your best explanation for the origin of life?" The [multi-part] question I wanted to ask you at the time, but did not have the time for (what with fighting Bill Morgan's obstructionist behavior and a horrendous work-load) was, and which I do pose to you now: Why did you ask me that question?  What were you planning to accomplish by it?  Did you really want to see the answer or is it part of a ploy? Here are my reasons for asking you those questions.  They should help you understand the questions better, which should also help you in answering them. First, it was immediately obvious to me that you were shilling for Bill M.  He could not pressure me himself to answer his question, because I had correctly identified his question as yet another of his "rabbit trail" tricks and quoted HIS OWN TEACHING that I must not answer his question, but rather insist that he first answer MY question(s) which I had already asked him and which he had never answered.  I strongly suspect that in a private communiqué he proposed that you help him avoid having to admit his hypocrisy by having you ask the question instead.  Therefore, it appears to me that you had no other reason for asking that question other than to front for Bill M. And what were Bill M's reasons for asking that question?  Nothing honest, we know that!  When he tried the same trick on a friend of mine, Bill M lied and said that he really wanted to hear the answer.  We know that that is not true because I have answered every single one of those questions of Bill M's and every single time he avoided the answer (usually, he would drop the subject completely, just as he did with my answer to his origin-of-life question, and a few times he would try to bluff that I hadn't given him an answer, just as he started to do with my answer to his origin-of-life question -- see my page on it at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/bills_questions.html ).  Bill M even let slip to my friend that trying to answer that question would make my friend look stupid, so Bill M's intention in asking it is to discredit the other person, to make them look stupid.  And when used against a single person, it is meant to make that person FEEL stupid.  It's an old proselytizing trick.  You see it done in many proselytizing tracts, like Chick Pubs and Bill M's own "Weird Science" and "Weird Tour."  Bill M even emailed us all a sample dialog using it.  You know how it goes:  the Christian asks the Atheist some questions that the Atheist cannot answer, then the Atheist gets all confused and turned around, so that he is ready to accept the "answer" that the Christian feeds him.  In Bill M's dreams, it's a form of instant brainwashing.  He probably used it on you too while he was turning you, though he had more time to play with your mind, so he was probably more subtle about it.  That's obviously the script that he's been trying to use on me too, only I kept ruining his script by answering his questions, which Bill M has no idea how to handle.  So he just runs away. So, Bill B.  Was that also your own intention when you ask me the origin-of-life question?  If not, then what was your reason for asking it?
----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) by air-yd01.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:17:30 2000 Received: from smtp010.mail.yahoo.com (smtp010.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.30]) by rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:16:42 -0400 Received: from 1cust224.tnt33.lax3.da.uu.net (HELO gunsgalore) (63.29.201.224) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Apr 2001 19:16:37 -0000 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <010801c0c9cc$126fc4c0$7fe41e3f@com> From: "Bill Bequette" To: Cc: , , References: <16.b952bb0.2811e445@aol.com> Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:59:42 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0105_01C0C991.632FECE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 ################################################ Subj: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 20-Apr-01 12:21:50 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billbeq@yahoo.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1 But Bill B, you have already revealed to us what kind of a person you are. You might also bother to read what was written, which you obviously had no time to do. I do expect answers to my questions, especially your sincerest apology for falsely accusing me of having slandered Bill M. ################################################ Subj: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 20-Apr-01 12:25:13 Pacific Daylight Time From: billbeq@yahoo.com (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, editor@liberator.net, dwise1@aol.com Ok put me back on your delete list. I wish you well since your so angry and confused. God Bless you :) Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billbeq@yahoo.com Cc: billyjack1@hotmail.com ; editor@liberator.net ; dwise1@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:21 PM Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? But Bill B, you have already revealed to us what kind of a person you are. You might also bother to read what was written, which you obviously had no time to do. I do expect answers to my questions, especially your sincerest apology for falsely accusing me of having slandered Bill M. --------------------
Ok put me back on your delete list.  I wish you well since your so angry and confused.  God Bless you :)
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: DWise1@aol.com
To: billbeq@yahoo.com
Cc: billyjack1@hotmail.com ; editor@liberator.net ; dwise1@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard?
But Bill B, you have already revealed to us what kind of a person you are. You might also bother to read what was written, which you obviously had no time to do.  I do expect answers to my questions, especially your sincerest apology for falsely accusing me of having slandered Bill M.
----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xb01.mx.aol.com (rly-xb01.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.102]) by air-xb01.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:25:13 2000 Received: from smtp012.mail.yahoo.com (smtp012.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.32]) by rly-xb01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:24:59 -0400 Received: from 1cust224.tnt33.lax3.da.uu.net (HELO gunsgalore) (63.29.201.224) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Apr 2001 19:24:58 -0000 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <011101c0c9cd$3a6d63a0$7fe41e3f@com> From: "Bill Bequette" To: Cc: , , References: <32.13d8552e.2811e64e@aol.com> Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:08:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_010E_01C0C992.8BCC3CC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 ################################################ Subj: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 20-Apr-01 12:50:01 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billbeq@yahoo.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1 The hypocritical expression of hatred through the invocation of Christian is duly noted on both of your messages. If you died today, how do you think your judgement would go? You still owe me an apology for your false accusation. A most sincere apology, not a hypocritical one. But then from your "Christian" witness, I know what to expect. Yes, please, do leave us. Beings such as yourself only sadden and disgust us normals. Please stay away. ################################################ Subj: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 20-Apr-01 13:09:20 Pacific Daylight Time From: billbeq@yahoo.com (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, editor@liberator.net, dwise1@aol.com God Bless You! I will say a prayer for you hoping that you find Jesus Christ as your personal savior. ----- Original Message ----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billbeq@yahoo.com Cc: billyjack1@hotmail.com ; editor@liberator.net ; dwise1@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:50 PM Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? The hypocritical expression of hatred through the invocation of Christian is duly noted on both of your messages. If you died today, how do you think your judgement would go? You still owe me an apology for your false accusation. A most sincere apology, not a hypocritical one. But then from your "Christian" witness, I know what to expect. Yes, please, do leave us. Beings such as yourself only sadden and disgust us normals. Please stay away. --------------------
God Bless You!  I will say a prayer for you hoping that you find Jesus Christ as your personal savior.
----- Original Message -----
From: DWise1@aol.com
To: billbeq@yahoo.com
Cc: billyjack1@hotmail.com ; editor@liberator.net ; dwise1@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard?
The hypocritical expression of hatred through the invocation of Christian is duly noted on both of your messages.  If you died today, how do you think your judgement would go? You still owe me an apology for your false accusation.  A most sincere apology, not a hypocritical one.  But then from your "Christian" witness, I know what to expect. Yes, please, do leave us.  Beings such as yourself only sadden and disgust us normals.  Please stay away.
----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-st12.mail.aol.com (rly-st12.mail.aol.com [172.20.114.201]) by air-xd04.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:09:20 2000 Received: from rly-yg05.mx.aol.com (rly-yg05.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.5]) by rly-st12.mail.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id QAA13812 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:00:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp015.mail.yahoo.com (smtp015.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.59]) by rly-yg05.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:59:59 -0400 Received: from 1cust224.tnt33.lax3.da.uu.net (HELO gunsgalore) (63.29.201.224) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Apr 2001 19:59:47 -0000 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <012001c0c9d2$0b91e600$7fe41e3f@com> From: "Bill Bequette" To: Cc: , , References: <96.132a9443.2811ece9@aol.com> Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:42:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_011D_01C0C997.5D44AB80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 ################################################ Subj: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 20-Apr-01 13:21:45 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billbeq@yahoo.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1 The hatred you are expressing is duly noted. Please stay this time. Forever would be nice. Though if you were to seriously wish to discuss something, I would be open to it. That is a major difference between us. I am willing to discuss something openly with somebody else, regardless of what they believe and with respect for their beliefs. Just so long as they can stick to the subject (within reason) and the facts and maintain sufficient respect for me and my beliefs. You have amply demonstrated that you are incapable of such a discussion, so I must request that you stay away until you are capable. I am not angry with you, merely disgusted. It is Bill M's reprehensible conduct that makes me angry with him, but I would still be willing and able to discuss matters with him if he were able to do so in an honest manner. It also saddens me that he has proven incapable of doing so. What a great witness the pair of you are against Christianity! Too bad that was never my goal. ################################################ Subj: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 20-Apr-01 18:57:13 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billbeq@yahoo.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1 >>I will say a prayer for you hoping that you find Jesus Christ as your personal savior.<< No need for you to ever worry about that. You and Bill M have poisoned the well so thoroughly that I could never possibly even consider becoming a Christian. No way! You guys are the greatest! A one-stop permanent cure against Christianity! I really want to give you my sincerest thanks. I've never seen anybody do it better! It really is a shame that my goals have never involved trying to talking anybody out of being a Christian, because your services in that field would be invaluable. Since I'm already saved, you should devote your prayers for more iffy cases like yourselves. You really have a lot to work on and I wish you all the luck in straightening your own cases out. However, if you want to spread the benefit of your cure to those in danger of becoming Christians, then I could refer you to an ex-Christians site that I was just refered to today and that looks really good. Just let me know if you want the URL (I just don't have it with me right now). OK, Bill B, you won't hear from me anymore except in reply to an email that you send to me. And I fully expect you to not email me until you are ready for an actual discussion. As for you, Bill M, we still have a lot of business to work out. ################################################ Subj: Re: What Role Truth? Date: 20-Apr-01 21:19:28 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net Oh I disagree! We both want to resolve this, we jsut disagree how. I told you many times I dont have the time to type endless e mails, lets get a large pissa and restore our freindship. May you have a joyful day today and an even better one tomorrow! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: What Role Truth? >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:00:55 EDT > > >>Dave it sounds like a lot of fun, but we covered this ground many >times.<< > >Yes we have, but only because you keep running from the truth and refuse to >deal with the problems that YOU have created. > >Take responsibility for your actions and let us get this all straightened >out so that we can finally put it to rest. > >Refuse to take responsibility for your actions and this matter will never >be over. > > >>I won't ever attack your charcter though!<< > >That is a lie! You HAVE attacked my character! REPEATEDLY! MALICIOUSLY! >THAT IS WHAT YOUR VICIOUS SLANDEROUS ACCUSATIONS WERE AND STILL ARE! > >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/j_accuse.html > >You are still unilaterally blocking resolution of this matter that YOU have >caused with your LIES! > >You have preached that you and your followers serve truth, yet almost all >of your actions have been to OPPOSE truth and to flee from it in terror. >What you preach and what you practice are diametrically opposed to each >other. That is called hypocrisy and one who practices hypocrisy is called >a hypocrite. One thing I definitely noticed from reading the New Testament >was that Jesus seemed to direct his greatest hatred against hypocrites. >After all the hypocrisy that you have practiced and show full intent of >continuing to practice, would you really want to have to face your Jesus >and be judged? > >If you truly serve truth, then SERVE TRUTH. If you do not truly serve >truth, then continue as you have and you will have your reward (Matt 6:5). > >For the FIFTY-FIFTH TIME, let us resolve this matter! > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc03.mail.aol.com (v78.25) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:19:28 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (f72.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.72]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:19:01 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:19:00 -0700 Received: from 205.188.200.42 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:19:00 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.200.42] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: editor@liberator.net Subject: Re: What Role Truth? Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:19:00 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2001 04:19:00.0351 (UTC) FILETIME=[30D3A0F0:01C0CA1A] ################################################ Subj: Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 20-Apr-01 21:21:38 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@yahoo.com CC: editor@liberator.net I am not terrified at all! Who provided their phone number? I gave you my phone number. I ma not terrrrified. Have a fantastic day! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:27:37 EDT > > >>I think that is wrong since I offered about 54 thimes to meet with you >person to person like two social humans beings.<< > >All those invitations were were more of your damned "RABBIT TRAILS"! You >repeatedly use your damned "rabbit trails" as a thoroughly dishonest trick >to avoid the real issues at hand! It is my duty, in accordance with YOUR >OWN TEACHINGS, to not allow you to use your "rabbit trails". > >Meeting with you socially would accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING towards the >resolution of the mess that YOU have created with YOUR SLANDEROUS >ACCUSATIONS! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! Instead, such a meeting would open up >even more opportunities for you lay even more "rabbit trails"! NFW! > >BTW, you preach that "rabbit trails" are a dishonest tactic that must be >prevented, yet in practice you use "rabbit trailing" all the time. What >you preach is diametrically opposed by what you practice. That is called >hypocrisy and we who have read the Bible know that Jesus expressed especial >hatred for hypocrites. > >Also, your response here is yet another of your damned "rabbit trails". >The question still stands unanswered: >Why do you repeatedly and consistently block ALL our efforts to resolve the >matter? >Why are you fighting resolution so long and hard? > > >>How can you say I blocked all efforts when you refused to eat wtih me?<< > >I have explained it to you over and over and over and over again. So, as I >have already told you (though as usual you have refused to listen), I >posted a web page to refer you to when you ask that question. > >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/dennys.html . > >But since I expect you to yet again avoid the truth and the facts, the >skinny is that your totally unwelcome invitations have been nothing but >"rabbit trails" intended to let you avoid facing up to your actions, thus >avoiding a resolution. > >If you truly believe that Denny's would resolve this matter, then EXPLAIN >TO US COGENTLY WHY AND HOW! I have repeatedly requested that explanation >and you have repeatedly and steadfastly refused to give such an >explanation. That refusal is evidence that you do indeed intend to use >Denny's to prevent resolution. > >A resolution requires that we examine the facts and arrive at the truth. >The venue that you keep insisting on would prevent that. Duh? > > > >>Are you denying this truth that I have tried for years to reconcile our >friendship by meeting at Dennys? Are you?<< > >Oh, I do not deny that you keep brandying that word "friendship" about, >like Bill Bequette expresses his deep hatred by brandying about the word >"love". It is hypocritical. You speak of friendship, yet you have >consistently practiced adversity. Remember, your own religion teaches that >Jesus hates hypocrites. > >I have offered this to you before, yet you refused. If you really want to >practice friendship, then let us examine the facts of your accusations so >that we can resolve the matter! > >You can start by telling us just what I was supposed to have written that >"trashed [your] wife"? What were some of those "very nasty names" that you >claim I had called you? > >If you refuse to allow us to resolve this matter, then you are showing us >that your desire for friendship has never been genuine and that it was >nothing but a dishonest hypocritical ploy. > >Bill, why are you so terrified of resolving this matter? > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc02.mail.aol.com (v78.25) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:21:38 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (f56.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.56]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:21:22 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:21:21 -0700 Received: from 205.188.200.42 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:21:21 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.200.42] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@yahoo.com Cc: editor@liberator.net Subject: Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:21:21 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2001 04:21:21.0476 (UTC) FILETIME=[84F19840:01C0CA1A] ################################################ Subj: Bee Gee Date: 20-Apr-01 21:24:25 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@yahoo.com CC: editor@liberator.net Lets lighten this up and change the subject. Ever notice that two of the Gibbs brothers were handsome and two were not? They were supposedly brothers but I wonder. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , , >Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:13:08 EDT > >Bill B, after you had said that you never wanted to hear from us again, >here you are sending us emails again. Your act automatically nullifies any >obligation we have to not email you. Therefore, you have opened yourself >up for a reply, which this is. > >If you are going to behave yourself this time and engage in discussion, >then OK. But if you are going to just cause more trouble and put on your >usual "Christian jerk" act, then I would much rather you stay away and keep >your hateful, hypocritical nose out of our business. > >I will proceed under the former assumption, that you are wanting to engage >in discussion. > > > >>Jesus loves you yes he does! Jesus loves you! Prayer to God and ask to >be forgiven. You will be rewarded 1000 fold. >God Bless You! ><< > >Wrong, Bill B. Read the Bible. Jesus expressed especial hatred for >hypocrites. You and Bill M are in some very serious trouble (see below). > >Bill Morgan says that he does not make personal attacks against my >character, yet that is EXACTLY what he has done with his slanderous >accusations! His words are contradicted by his actions! That, by >definition, is hypocrisy. And Jesus hates that stuff! Like the way that >you prattle on about love, yet your actions and attitude are full of >hatefulness. That means that you are also practicing hypocrisy. > >The question is why Bill M has been fighting so long and hard AGAINST >resolution. Bill M just rabbit-trailed around the question. You ignored >it completely. Why IS Bill M fighting so hard against resolution? And why >do you keep encouraging him in doing the wrong thing, the hateful thing, >the hypocritical thing? > >Now to some unfinished business: > >As I said before, I am totally mystified as to why Bill M had dragged you >into this in the first place. I think I know what had led to it, but Bill >M completely screwed up in his delivery. > >For a long time, Bill M had been trying to pressure me into a personal >meeting. For one thing, he was blatantly "rabbit trailing", ie avoiding >the topic under discussion by changing the subject to something entirely >different. For another, I am very shy and so was very apprehensive about >how such a meeting would go, especially since Bill M had promised to make >it very unpleasant by trying to proselytize at me even though I had warned >him against such a futile effort. In response to his insisting on what a >wonderful guy he is, I requested that he back up that claim (especially >considering the myriad unsubstantiated and contrary-to-fact claims he had >already made to me). In particular, I wanted to know how the alleged >meetings had gone and what the "skeptics" involved thought of how Bill M >had conducted himself in terms of his "rabbit trailing" and responding to >questions. Since it would be extremely difficult for me to be able to meet >with him, most of my concern there was whether Bill M would make all t >hat effort on my part a complete and total waste of time and effort. > >DWise1 to Bill Morgan, 09 Sep 2000 18:37:12 EDT: >"Please tell us, Bill. How many SKEPTICS (as you refer to us in polite >society) have actually taken you up on your offer? How did the meetings >go? AND, please put us in touch with those other skeptics so that we can >check your story against theirs. Sorry that that is necessary, but you >have demonstrated a penchant for having your imagination completely rewrite >history." > >DWise1 to Bill Morgan, 09 Sep 2000 15:46:02 Pacific Daylight Time: >"I want references. I want to hear the testimonies of other "skeptics" who >have accepted your invitations. No "choir members", but rather those you >call "skeptics", "atheists", and "evolutionists". And I want to hear FROM >THEM, not from your own "memory" (or hallucinations based loosely >thereupon)." > >So what did Bill M do? On 11 Sep 2000, two days later, he brought in you, >a "choir member": >"Now, here to present testimony is Mr. William Newton Bequette. A former >co worker, former skeptic and antagnostic toward Christianity and the >Bible. For many years we worked together and had different world views. > >"Question to Mr. Bequeet, be honest, when you were a skeptic, was I >obnoxious, rude, offensive, confrontational, boarish, snide, insulting, >condenscending, brash, crude, arrogant, crass in any way shape or form when >we differed on world views?" > >As I pointed out to you immediately, Bill B, Bill M's question to you had >absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Bill Morgan had lied to you! >Besides which, you didn't even come close to fitting the profile! I needed >to hear from a "skeptic" (ie, somebody not already won over to Bill M's >side) who was meeting Bill M for the first time through one of his emailed >invitations. That wasn't you; you met him at work and had already gotten >to know him personally before he started working on turning you. I needed >to hear from a "skeptic" who would be able to discuss and evaluate Bill M's >conduct more objectively. That also wasn't you; you had already been >turned before you were brought in. > >I have always questioned by Bill M had dragged you in. And sadly, you have >detracted greatly from what we could have accomplished. Which is a pity, >since you could have done good deeds by keeping Bill M honest. Instead, >you encourage him to do more and more evil. Are you by any chance his >Familiar? > >Now on to the unfinished business that you had blown off before: > >-Subj: Re: fish heads >-Date: 02/10/2001 12:59:04 Pacific Standard Time >-From: DWise1 >-To: billbeq@mediaone.net >-CC: spambuster@gigagod.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com >-CC: DWise1 > >Bill B, since you have decided to return, I may now ask you a couple >questions that are outstanding (ie, that I had either not had a chance to >ask yet or that I had asked but you have not responded to). > >First, on 14 Dec 2000 at 1235 PST, I wrote to you: >"You now see that Bill Morgan had just made up his charge about what my web >page says concerning licensed engineers. Based on his groundless charge, >you had accused me of having slandered him. This means that your own >accusation was groundless and unwarranted. > >"I am waiting for you to explain your actions and to apologize." > >Well, Bill B? What do you have to say for yourself? > > >Second, on 5 Oct 2000 at 1542 PDT, you wrote to me: >"Mr Wise what is your best explanation for the origin of life?" > >The [multi-part] question I wanted to ask you at the time, but did not have >the time for (what with fighting Bill Morgan's obstructionist behavior and >a horrendous work-load) was, and which I do pose to you now: > >Why did you ask me that question? What were you planning to accomplish by >it? Did you really want to see the answer or is it part of a ploy? > >Here are my reasons for asking you those questions. They should help you >understand the questions better, which should also help you in answering >them. > >First, it was immediately obvious to me that you were shilling for Bill M. >He could not pressure me himself to answer his question, because I had >correctly identified his question as yet another of his "rabbit trail" >tricks and quoted HIS OWN TEACHING that I must not answer his question, but >rather insist that he first answer MY question(s) which I had already asked >him and which he had never answered. I strongly suspect that in a private >communiqué he proposed that you help him avoid having to admit his >hypocrisy by having you ask the question instead. Therefore, it appears to >me that you had no other reason for asking that question other than to >front for Bill M. > >And what were Bill M's reasons for asking that question? Nothing honest, >we know that! When he tried the same trick on a friend of mine, Bill M >lied and said that he really wanted to hear the answer. We know that that >is not true because I have answered every single one of those questions of >Bill M's and every single time he avoided the answer (usually, he would >drop the subject completely, just as he did with my answer to his >origin-of-life question, and a few times he would try to bluff that I >hadn't given him an answer, just as he started to do with my answer to his >origin-of-life question -- see my page on it at >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/bills_questions.html ). > >Bill M even let slip to my friend that trying to answer that question would >make my friend look stupid, so Bill M's intention in asking it is to >discredit the other person, to make them look stupid. And when used >against a single person, it is meant to make that person FEEL stupid. It's >an old proselytizing trick. You see it done in many proselytizing tracts, >like Chick Pubs and Bill M's own "Weird Science" and "Weird Tour." Bill M >even emailed us all a sample dialog using it. You know how it goes: the >Christian asks the Atheist some questions that the Atheist cannot answer, >then the Atheist gets all confused and turned around, so that he is ready >to accept the "answer" that the Christian feeds him. In Bill M's dreams, >it's a form of instant brainwashing. He probably used it on you too while >he was turning you, though he had more time to play with your mind, so he >was probably more subtle about it. That's obviously the script that he's >been trying to use on me too, only I kept ruining his script by >answering his questions, which Bill M has no idea how to handle. So he >just runs away. > >So, Bill B. Was that also your own intention when you ask me the >origin-of-life question? If not, then what was your reason for asking it? > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (rly-zd02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.226]) by air-zd04.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:24:25 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f46.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.46]) by rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:24:18 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:24:17 -0700 Received: from 205.188.200.42 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:24:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.200.42] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@yahoo.com Cc: editor@liberator.net Subject: Bee Gee Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:24:17 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2001 04:24:17.0561 (UTC) FILETIME=[EDE60890:01C0CA1A] ################################################ Subj: filters Date: 20-Apr-01 21:29:15 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net Great e mail. What I am about to say is true, I hope you beleive me! I speak in public a lot and take questions. Sometimes they ask me about a claim that Kent Hovind makes that I think is weak. I say tot he masses, that i think Dr Hovind's claim on that subject is bogus. I am a rugged individualist and dont cater to any man. If someone says something I think is weak I am a strong enough man to make that public claim! I am a filter, not a sponge. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:15:24 EDT > > >-Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal >-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 5:29:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time >-From: "Bill Morgan" -To: DWise1@aol.com > > >>Excellent E mail! I do like Kent Hovind, but some of his claims make my >eye balls roll. But I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. >Anyone who writes a glot or speaks a lot has made mistakes. They should >belly up tot he bar and confess these mistakes.<< > >Of course we shouldn't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, but >we also shouldn't want to let a rotten apple spoil the entire barrel! [are >we done with the cliches yet? ] > >But, Bill M, what about those claims that "make [your] eye balls roll"? >What do/would you do about them? Are they just slips of the tongue, >misspeaking, or are they basic and fundamental errors? > >Let's assume a purely hypothetical situation of you going to see Kent >Hovind speak [grin -- ie, such a situation is not hypothetical]. When you >do, you are sure to hear him make claims that will "make [your] eye balls >roll." At that point, look around you. Are everybody else's eye balls >rolling? Or are they lapping it all up like a dog lapping Parmesan cheese? > You could tell that claim was wrong, but they couldn't. > >They actually believe that that claim is true. And you can bet that they >will repeat it to their non-believer friends, some of whom, like you, know >enough that their eye balls will roll? What will your fellow Hovindites' >reaction be when those friends correct those blatantly false claims? >Severe denial in which they accuse their friends of insulting their spouse, >calling them "very nasty names", committing "hate crimes", and several >other malicious slanders? [any resemblance to yourself is purely >intentional] > >Or will they realize their idol, Kent Hovind, had not told them the truth? >Will they then become suspicious of all the other things Hovind had told >them? Or what other creationists had told them? Will they start to check >all those claims out discover how many of them are wrong or even deceptive? > And what about their religious leaders who endorse those claims and teach >that their faith depends on those claims being true? Will it drive your >fellow Hovindites to the brink of atheism? > > >And what about your non-believer friend whom you were able to talk into >accompanying you to that Hovind presentation? His eye balls rolled too, >you know. Now he knows for sure that creation science is ludicrous and >false. And since he keeps being told by creationists that Christianity >depends on creation science claims being true, now he also "knows for sure" >that Christianity is likewise ludicrous and false. Now you will never be >able to convert him. > >Here are a few exerpts from a devout CHRISTIAN's testimony (Dr. Allan H. >Harvey, "Science and Christian Apologetics" at >http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/apologetics.html -- these are his >own words, formed long before he had ever even heard about me, let alone >what I have written): > >"Albert knew that the claims of so-called “creation science” about the >Earth being only 6000 years old and so forth were ridiculous, like saying >the Earth was flat. Can’t blame him for not wanting to be associated with >that nonsense. But what’s worse is that that was the first thing that came >to Albert’s mind about Christianity. Not the death and resurrection of >Jesus. Not even the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments. The anti-science >noise had drowned out the Gospel so all Albert had heard was a false >Gospel, one that was centered in a particular interpretation of Genesis >rather than being centered in Christ. [Gal. 1:6-9] > >"My concern is what can we do to correct the misconceptions that people >have (both people like Albert and some Christians) that the findings of >science (geology, astronomy, biological sciences [including evolution]) are >incompatible with Christianity, that embracing Jesus means rejecting >science. And it’s a serious problem. It’s serious because there are people >like Albert out there who know science, and we put stumbling blocks in the >way of them even considering Jesus. > >"But it’s also serious because of its effects on Christians, and I’m >especially worried about children. If we teach our children that they have >to choose between science and faith, we're setting them up for a fall. >Because some of them are going to grow up and study the real world God made >and learn that what the church has told them about science is false. If >we’ve taught them that the Gospel or the truth of the Bible depends on >those things, then its like the house built on sand, their foundation gets >washed away, and their faith may go with it. I think Jesus had some words >about those who set people up to stumble on issues like this: [Luke 17:1-2] >“Stumbling blocks are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It >would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were >cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to >stumble.” " > >[DWise1: Bill, I'm positive that I saw a stone quarry less than a block >down the road from the ICR! Location, location, location!] > >He continues: >"Maybe my most important message today is that this “God of the Gaps” >theology is wrong. The reason it’s wrong is that God is sovereign over >nature. (Take-home point #2) The Bible tells us that everything that exists >is upheld by God’s power. God isn’t just in the gaps, he’s the creator and >sustainer of the whole fabric of creation, including the things we call >“natural.” So what does God’s sovereignty over nature mean for our >apologetics? It means that science isn’t any threat to Christianity. >Scientific results don’t count as points against God, they’re just >uncovering how God did things. It means that if somebody has the idea that >some scientific explanation (evolution or whatever) has eliminated God, the >wrong thing to do is to argue against the science – that’s defending the >God of the Gaps and it’s a losing strategy (unfortunately, it’s the >strategy of a lot of Christians). Th! >e right thing to do is to rememb >er that God is sovereign over nature, that the atheist argument that >natural explanations mean God is absent isn’t science, it’s completely >unjustified philosophy. We can tell people that natural explanations may >eliminate the God of the Gaps, but they don’t eliminate the Christian God. > >"Now that I’ve pointed out our two apologetic problems (trying to make the >Bible a science textbook, having a God of the Gaps rather than God who is >sovereign over nature), where do we go from here? > >"First, we can get our own house in order. We can learn to read the Bible >with its purposes in mind, and not try to ask it questions it isn’t trying >to answer. We can reject any false Gospel that depends on a particular >interpretation of how God created. We can affirm God’s sovereignty over >nature and reject the “God of the Gaps.” If we can keep our children away >from that horrible teaching that says Genesis 1 has to be true according to >somebody’s narrow literal interpretation or else we might as well throw our >Bibles in the trash, and if we can get them to understand that scientific >explanations don’t mean God didn’t do something, they just tell us how God >did something, they’ll be much better prepared to face the world. > >"Second, we can be ready to give people good answers. If they say that >science contradicts the Bible, we can tell them that the Bible isn’t making >any scientific claims about those things. If they think that scientific >explanations have eliminated God, rather than argue against the science, we >can point out that natural explanations of how things happened don’t >eliminate the Christian God, because our God is in charge of the whole >picture, not just the gaps where we don’t have explanations. If they want >to argue “creation vs. evolution,” we can point out that it’s not a >“versus” – those aren’t mutually exclusive opposites, they’re answers to >two different questions. “Creation” is the answer to “What is all this?” >All this is the creation of God. “Evolution” is the answer, or a plausible >answer, to the different question, the less important question, “How did >God do it?&#! >8221; " > >Dr. Harvey also has an essay on the "God of the Gaps", which I would also >recommend. > >Think about it, Bill. How much damage do false creationist claims do? Or >outright deliberate lies? Despite what your theology appears to tell you, >truth and honesty ARE the better way. > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xc01.mx.aol.com (rly-xc01.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.134]) by air-xc03.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:29:15 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (f90.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.90]) by rly-xc01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:28:59 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:28:58 -0700 Received: from 205.188.200.42 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:28:58 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.200.42] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: editor@liberator.net Subject: filters Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:28:58 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2001 04:28:58.0922 (UTC) FILETIME=[959A50A0:01C0CA1B] ################################################ Subj: Guys, I dont thave the time Date: 20-Apr-01 21:32:39 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: billbeq@yahoo.com, DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net I dont have the time to get into this endless email excahnge. No offense, but I am going to delete all these mails. I have a house rehab I should be working on on and my family, my ministry, my books etc are waiting. SO thus, I have ten new e mails I see from my box, but I am going to not read them but delete. If you gotta get a hold of me please call 714 898-8331. >From: "Bill Bequette" >To: >CC: , , >Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:59:42 -0700 > >Strong words from someone who does not even know me. You sound so angry! >I wish you well. Jesus loves you! >God Bless :) >Bill > ----- Original Message ----- > From: DWise1@aol.com > To: billbeq@yahoo.com > Cc: billyjack1@hotmail.com ; editor@liberator.net ; dwise1@aol.com > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:13 PM > Subject: Re: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? > > > Bill B, after you had said that you never wanted to hear from us again, >here you are sending us emails again. Your act automatically nullifies any >obligation we have to not email you. Therefore, you have opened yourself >up for a reply, which this is. > > If you are going to behave yourself this time and engage in discussion, >then OK. But if you are going to just cause more trouble and put on your >usual "Christian jerk" act, then I would much rather you stay away and keep >your hateful, hypocritical nose out of our business. > > I will proceed under the former assumption, that you are wanting to >engage in discussion. > > > >>Jesus loves you yes he does! Jesus loves you! Prayer to God and ask >to be forgiven. You will be rewarded 1000 fold. > God Bless You! > << > > Wrong, Bill B. Read the Bible. Jesus expressed especial hatred for >hypocrites. You and Bill M are in some very serious trouble (see below). > > Bill Morgan says that he does not make personal attacks against my >character, yet that is EXACTLY what he has done with his slanderous >accusations! His words are contradicted by his actions! That, by >definition, is hypocrisy. And Jesus hates that stuff! Like the way that >you prattle on about love, yet your actions and attitude are full of >hatefulness. That means that you are also practicing hypocrisy. > > The question is why Bill M has been fighting so long and hard AGAINST >resolution. Bill M just rabbit-trailed around the question. You ignored >it completely. Why IS Bill M fighting so hard against resolution? And why >do you keep encouraging him in doing the wrong thing, the hateful thing, >the hypocritical thing? > > Now to some unfinished business: > > As I said before, I am totally mystified as to why Bill M had dragged >you into this in the first place. I think I know what had led to it, but >Bill M completely screwed up in his delivery. > > For a long time, Bill M had been trying to pressure me into a personal >meeting. For one thing, he was blatantly "rabbit trailing", ie avoiding >the topic under discussion by changing the subject to something entirely >different. For another, I am very shy and so was very apprehensive about >how such a meeting would go, especially since Bill M had promised to make >it very unpleasant by trying to proselytize at me even though I had warned >him against such a futile effort. In response to his insisting on what a >wonderful guy he is, I requested that he back up that claim (especially >considering the myriad unsubstantiated and contrary-to-fact claims he had >already made to me). In particular, I wanted to know how the alleged >meetings had gone and what the "skeptics" involved thought of how Bill M >had conducted himself in terms of his "rabbit trailing" and responding to >questions. Since it would be extremely difficult for me to be able to meet >with him, most of my concern there was whether Bill M would make all t > hat effort on my part a complete and total waste of time and effort. > > DWise1 to Bill Morgan, 09 Sep 2000 18:37:12 EDT: > "Please tell us, Bill. How many SKEPTICS (as you refer to us in polite >society) have actually taken you up on your offer? How did the meetings >go? AND, please put us in touch with those other skeptics so that we can >check your story against theirs. Sorry that that is necessary, but you >have demonstrated a penchant for having your imagination completely rewrite >history." > > DWise1 to Bill Morgan, 09 Sep 2000 15:46:02 Pacific Daylight Time: > "I want references. I want to hear the testimonies of other "skeptics" >who have accepted your invitations. No "choir members", but rather those >you call "skeptics", "atheists", and "evolutionists". And I want to hear >FROM THEM, not from your own "memory" (or hallucinations based loosely >thereupon)." > > So what did Bill M do? On 11 Sep 2000, two days later, he brought in >you, a "choir member": > "Now, here to present testimony is Mr. William Newton Bequette. A >former co worker, former skeptic and antagnostic toward Christianity and >the Bible. For many years we worked together and had different world >views. > > "Question to Mr. Bequeet, be honest, when you were a skeptic, was I >obnoxious, rude, offensive, confrontational, boarish, snide, insulting, >condenscending, brash, crude, arrogant, crass in any way shape or form when >we differed on world views?" > > As I pointed out to you immediately, Bill B, Bill M's question to you >had absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Bill Morgan had lied to you! >Besides which, you didn't even come close to fitting the profile! I needed >to hear from a "skeptic" (ie, somebody not already won over to Bill M's >side) who was meeting Bill M for the first time through one of his emailed >invitations. That wasn't you; you met him at work and had already gotten >to know him personally before he started working on turning you. I needed >to hear from a "skeptic" who would be able to discuss and evaluate Bill M's >conduct more objectively. That also wasn't you; you had already been >turned before you were brought in. > > I have always questioned by Bill M had dragged you in. And sadly, you >have detracted greatly from what we could have accomplished. Which is a >pity, since you could have done good deeds by keeping Bill M honest. >Instead, you encourage him to do more and more evil. Are you by any chance >his Familiar? > > Now on to the unfinished business that you had blown off before: > > -Subj: Re: fish heads > -Date: 02/10/2001 12:59:04 Pacific Standard Time > -From: DWise1 > -To: billbeq@mediaone.net > -CC: spambuster@gigagod.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com > -CC: DWise1 > > Bill B, since you have decided to return, I may now ask you a couple >questions that are outstanding (ie, that I had either not had a chance to >ask yet or that I had asked but you have not responded to). > > First, on 14 Dec 2000 at 1235 PST, I wrote to you: > "You now see that Bill Morgan had just made up his charge about what my >web page says concerning licensed engineers. Based on his groundless >charge, you had accused me of having slandered him. This means that your >own accusation was groundless and unwarranted. > > "I am waiting for you to explain your actions and to apologize." > > Well, Bill B? What do you have to say for yourself? > > > Second, on 5 Oct 2000 at 1542 PDT, you wrote to me: > "Mr Wise what is your best explanation for the origin of life?" > > The [multi-part] question I wanted to ask you at the time, but did not >have the time for (what with fighting Bill Morgan's obstructionist behavior >and a horrendous work-load) was, and which I do pose to you now: > > Why did you ask me that question? What were you planning to accomplish >by it? Did you really want to see the answer or is it part of a ploy? > > Here are my reasons for asking you those questions. They should help >you understand the questions better, which should also help you in >answering them. > > First, it was immediately obvious to me that you were shilling for Bill >M. He could not pressure me himself to answer his question, because I had >correctly identified his question as yet another of his "rabbit trail" >tricks and quoted HIS OWN TEACHING that I must not answer his question, but >rather insist that he first answer MY question(s) which I had already asked >him and which he had never answered. I strongly suspect that in a private >communiqué he proposed that you help him avoid having to admit his >hypocrisy by having you ask the question instead. Therefore, it appears to >me that you had no other reason for asking that question other than to >front for Bill M. > > And what were Bill M's reasons for asking that question? Nothing >honest, we know that! When he tried the same trick on a friend of mine, >Bill M lied and said that he really wanted to hear the answer. We know >that that is not true because I have answered every single one of those >questions of Bill M's and every single time he avoided the answer (usually, >he would drop the subject completely, just as he did with my answer to his >origin-of-life question, and a few times he would try to bluff that I >hadn't given him an answer, just as he started to do with my answer to his >origin-of-life question -- see my page on it at >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/bills_questions.html ). > > Bill M even let slip to my friend that trying to answer that question >would make my friend look stupid, so Bill M's intention in asking it is to >discredit the other person, to make them look stupid. And when used >against a single person, it is meant to make that person FEEL stupid. It's >an old proselytizing trick. You see it done in many proselytizing tracts, >like Chick Pubs and Bill M's own "Weird Science" and "Weird Tour." Bill M >even emailed us all a sample dialog using it. You know how it goes: the >Christian asks the Atheist some questions that the Atheist cannot answer, >then the Atheist gets all confused and turned around, so that he is ready >to accept the "answer" that the Christian feeds him. In Bill M's dreams, >it's a form of instant brainwashing. He probably used it on you too while >he was turning you, though he had more time to play with your mind, so he >was probably more subtle about it. That's obviously the script that he's >been trying to use on me too, only I kept ruining his script by > answering his questions, which Bill M has no idea how to handle. So he >just runs away. > > So, Bill B. Was that also your own intention when you ask me the >origin-of-life question? If not, then what was your reason for asking it? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-ye03.mx.aol.com (rly-ye03.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.200]) by air-ye04.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.37) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:32:39 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (f67.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.67]) by rly-ye03.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:31:52 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:31:51 -0700 Received: from 205.188.200.42 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:31:51 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.200.42] From: "Bill Morgan" To: billbeq@yahoo.com, DWise1@aol.com Cc: editor@liberator.net Subject: Guys, I dont thave the time Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:31:51 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2001 04:31:51.0615 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC892CF0:01C0CA1B] ################################################ Subj: Kent Hovind Date: 05/02/2001 14:09:12 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: dwise1@aol.com Hi Dave, I trust you received my e mail providing the details on the upcoming debate at Golden West College. Will you attend? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xc01.mx.aol.com (rly-xc01.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.134]) by air-xc01.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 May 2001 17:09:12 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f37.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.37]) by rly-xc01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 May 2001 17:09:10 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 May 2001 14:09:09 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 02 May 2001 21:09:09 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: dwise1@aol.com Subject: Kent Hovind Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:09:09 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2001 21:09:09.0527 (UTC) FILETIME=[21413270:01C0D34C] ################################################ ################################################ Subj: Re: What Role Truth? Date: 05/08/2001 17:22:36 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 >>We both want to resolve this, we jsut disagree how.<< OK, so you have explicitly said that you want to resolve this. Fine! So do I! So for the FIFTY-SIXTH TIME, let's resolve this matter! Starting with these two accusations: [2000 Aug 03] "[I]nsulting [your] wife and [you]." [2000 Aug 05] Calling you "very nasty names." What do you think that I had said that was an insult to your wife? What were those "very nasty names" that you accused me of having called you? >>I told you many times I dont have the time to type endless e mails, ... << So what does that have to do with anything? It would take just a few words to give me the information we need to resolve this matter. You have already typed far more than that complaining that you don't like to type. Bill, you are just trying to pull yet another of your endless "rabbit trails" tricks. That cannot be tolerated and it will not be tolerated! >> ... lets get a large pissa ... << "pissa"?? What is that? No, thank you! STOP YOUR DAMNED RABBIT TRAILING!!! What is your fascination with food? Eat on your own time! We need to get this matter resolved! All you are trying to do is divert us away from that resolution. That cannot be tolerated and it will not be tolerated! >> ... and restore our freindship.<< Bill: A friend does not slander his friend, as you have me. A friend does not mock his friend, as you have me. A friend does not constantly pull deceitful tricks on his friend, as you do to me. A friend does not constantly dodge direct honest requests, as you have done to me. A friend does not persistently block resolution of a problem that he has created, as you have done. A friend is honest with his friend, which you have not been with me. Bill, by your actions, you are no friend. There is no friendship. There never was a friendship. You would never allow one to form. Here is a few things from "Techniques Used To Sell Fraudulent Investments" at http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Crimes/Telemarketing/Outbound/Major/Investments/techniques.htm : Show of Familiarity Cold callers often try to "warm up" potential customers with flattery or friendship. They might try to put you off guard by chatting about your hometown or the local sports team. Skilled con artists can bring out your worst traits, particularly greed, envy, fear, and insecurity. Fear is a particularly powerful motivator for con artists during times of economic downturn . Con artists try to make you feel inadequate if you don't believe them. Avoidance of Questions No matter what questions you ask, or how many you ask, skilled swindlers have ready answers. Their persuasive scripts include retorts for your every objection. They typically brush aside questions or concerns with vague answers or assurances. Salesmen may even become abusive; questioning, for example, the intelligence of anyone who would pass up such a "sure thing." They will attempt to stall suspicious investors who might suspect that they have been defrauded. A "cooler", usually a woman, is trained to handle irate customers with soothing assurances and sincere diversions. Bill, your talk of friendship, your flattery, your mocking us (trying to make us feel inadequate when we didn't agree with you), your brushing asaide questions with vague answers, your diversions, all point to a scam. You are trying to play a con game on us. Forget it, Bill. We see through your swindle. It is not going to work. ################################################ Subj: Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: 05/08/2001 17:24:59 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 >>Who provided their phone number? I gave you my phone number.<< NO RABBIT TRAILS!!!!! You know full well that calling you is an IMPOSSIBILITY! I have explained to you over and over and over and over again that I DO NOT HAVE PRIVATE USE OF A PHONE! Therefore, telling me to phone you is YET ANOTHER RABBIT TRAIL intended to further block and prevent us from resolving this matter!!! >>I am not terrified at all!<< Oh, yes you are, Bill. You are terrified of the facts and of the truth. Why else would you have been unilaterally blocking and preventing our examination of the facts which are needed to resolve the mess that you created? Stop rabbit-trailing! Why are you fighting so long and hard against resolution? ################################################ Subj: Re: Bee Gee Date: 05/08/2001 17:26:12 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 >>Ever notice that two of the Gibbs brothers were handsome and two were not? They were supposedly brothers but I wonder.<< Whatever makes you think that I have met that family? STOP YOUR DAMNED RABBIT TRAILING!! AND STOP INCLUDING BILL BEQUETTE! He wants to be left out of this, remember? ################################################ Subj: Re: Bee Gee Date: 05/08/2001 17:27:00 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 TWICE you sent this rabbit trail! STOP RABBIT TRAILING! ################################################ Subj: Re: filters Date: 05/08/2001 17:29:18 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 >>Great e mail. What I am about to say is true, I hope you beleive me! I speak in public a lot and take questions. Sometimes they ask me about a claim that Kent Hovind makes that I think is weak. I say tot he masses, that i think Dr Hovind's claim on that subject is bogus. I am a rugged individualist and dont cater to any man. If someone says something I think is weak I am a strong enough man to make that public claim! I am a filter, not a sponge. << Sorry, Bill. I have seen you lie so many times, even about the most trivial things, that I simply cannot believe a word you say without some kind of hard evidence. Besides, you have made several boasts about yourself that were nothing but blatant lies. Why should we consider this one to be any different? Besides which, your boasting about your own integrity and sterling qualities (sorry, Bill, you have already demonstrated otherwise) is YET ANOTHER RABBIT TRAIL! You completely avoided the question! What are the effects of bogus creationist claims? You have admitted that Hovind has made some, therefore you know that they exist. What effect do they have on non-believers who see through them? What effect do they have believers who have accepted them and then discover that they had been lied to? Now, all you said in your reply is that if somebody raises the question of one of these bogus claims to you, then you will say that it is bogus. But what if they don't ask you? Do you just remain silent? Have you pointed out to those others in the audience, who "are ... lapping it all up like a dog lapping Parmesan cheese", that those claims are bogus? Have you pointed out to Hovind those claims that you recognize as bogus? ################################################ Subj: Re: Guys, I dont thave the time Date: 05/08/2001 17:32:38 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, DWise1 >>I dont have the time to get into this endless email excahnge. No offense, but I am going to delete all these mails. I have a house rehab I should be working on on and my family, my ministry, my books etc are waiting.<< Bill, I strongly resent your wasting my time like this! YOU are the one who is making this an "endless email excahnge" by your unilateral blocking of the resolution of the mess that YOU have created with your slanderous accusations! For the FIFTY-SEVENTH TIME! Let's get this matter resolved! Stop blocking it! >>If you gotta get a hold of me please call 714 898-8331.<< NO RABBIT TRAILS! You know that is impossible! I do not have private use of a phone. Every time you tell me to call you, it is nothing but another blatant rabbit trail. Like your trying to get me to join you for dinner. Rabbit trails! I AM DEEPLY INSULTED BY YOUR CONSTANT USE OF RABBIT TRAILS! You preach against the use of rabbit trails, yet you use them all the time. How have you reconciled that hypocrisy to yourself? ################################################ Subj:Did you? Date:5/10/2001 12:15:25 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Did you attend either of the debates I told you about in the newsletter? I moderated teh Hovind/Hoffman debate, but did not go to the Reynolds/Eldridge debate. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: What Role Truth? >Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:22:36 EDT > > >>We both want to resolve this, we jsut disagree how.<< > >OK, so you have explicitly said that you want to resolve this. Fine! So >do I! > >So for the FIFTY-SIXTH TIME, let's resolve this matter! Starting with >these two accusations: >[2000 Aug 03] "[I]nsulting [your] wife and [you]." >[2000 Aug 05] Calling you "very nasty names." > >What do you think that I had said that was an insult to your wife? What >were those "very nasty names" that you accused me of having called you? > > >>I told you many times I dont have the time to type endless e mails, ... ><< > >So what does that have to do with anything? It would take just a few words >to give me the information we need to resolve this matter. You have >already typed far more than that complaining that you don't like to type. > >Bill, you are just trying to pull yet another of your endless "rabbit >trails" tricks. That cannot be tolerated and it will not be tolerated! > > > >> ... lets get a large pissa ... << > >"pissa"?? What is that? No, thank you! > >STOP YOUR DAMNED RABBIT TRAILING!!! > >What is your fascination with food? Eat on your own time! > >We need to get this matter resolved! All you are trying to do is divert us >away from that resolution. That cannot be tolerated and it will not be >tolerated! > > > >> ... and restore our freindship.<< > >Bill: >A friend does not slander his friend, as you have me. >A friend does not mock his friend, as you have me. >A friend does not constantly pull deceitful tricks on his friend, as you do >to me. >A friend does not constantly dodge direct honest requests, as you have done >to me. >A friend does not persistently block resolution of a problem that he has >created, as you have done. >A friend is honest with his friend, which you have not been with me. > >Bill, by your actions, you are no friend. There is no friendship. There >never was a friendship. You would never allow one to form. > >Here is a few things from "Techniques Used To Sell Fraudulent Investments" >at >http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Crimes/Telemarketing/Outbound/Major/Investments/techniques.htm >: > >Show of Familiarity > >Cold callers often try to "warm up" potential customers with flattery or >friendship. They might try to put you off guard by chatting about your >hometown or the local sports team. > >Skilled con artists can bring out your worst traits, particularly greed, >envy, fear, and insecurity. > >Fear is a particularly powerful motivator for con artists during times of >economic downturn . > >Con artists try to make you feel inadequate if you don't believe them. > >Avoidance of Questions > >No matter what questions you ask, or how many you ask, skilled swindlers >have ready answers. Their persuasive scripts include retorts for your >every objection. They typically brush aside questions or concerns with >vague answers or assurances. > >Salesmen may even become abusive; questioning, for example, the >intelligence of anyone who would pass up such a "sure thing." > >They will attempt to stall suspicious investors who might suspect that they >have been defrauded. A "cooler", usually a woman, is trained to handle >irate customers with soothing assurances and sincere diversions. > > >Bill, your talk of friendship, your flattery, your mocking us (trying to >make us feel inadequate when we didn't agree with you), your brushing >asaide questions with vague answers, your diversions, all point to a scam. > >You are trying to play a con game on us. Forget it, Bill. We see through >your swindle. It is not going to work. > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd04.mx.aol.com (rly-yd04.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.4]) by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:15:25 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f39.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.39]) by rly-yd04.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:14:32 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 May 2001 12:14:21 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 19:14:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Did you? Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 19:14:20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2001 19:14:21.0225 (UTC) FILETIME=[6ACFB990:01C0D985] ################################################ Subj:Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date:5/10/2001 12:18:23 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com If you can use the internet obviously you can use a phone. I may be stupid, but not that stupid. Call me anytime and that is how we can resolve this, by meeting face to face like two swell fellows! Do you want a video of the debate? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? >Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:24:59 EDT > > >>Who provided their phone number? I gave you my phone number.<< > >NO RABBIT TRAILS!!!!! > >You know full well that calling you is an IMPOSSIBILITY! I have explained >to you over and over and over and over again that I DO NOT HAVE PRIVATE USE >OF A PHONE! > >Therefore, telling me to phone you is YET ANOTHER RABBIT TRAIL intended to >further block and prevent us from resolving this matter!!! > > > >>I am not terrified at all!<< > >Oh, yes you are, Bill. You are terrified of the facts and of the truth. >Why else would you have been unilaterally blocking and preventing our >examination of the facts which are needed to resolve the mess that you >created? > > >Stop rabbit-trailing! Why are you fighting so long and hard against >resolution? > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd04.mx.aol.com (rly-zd04.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.228]) by air-zd02.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:18:23 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (f21.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.21]) by rly-zd04.mx.aol.com (v78.27) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:18:02 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 May 2001 12:18:02 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 19:18:02 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 19:18:02 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2001 19:18:02.0281 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE923190:01C0D985] ################################################ Subj:Re: Bee Gee Date:5/10/2001 12:21:45 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Lets resolve teh issue of creation and evolution that neither one of us changed teh others mind. Lets talk about nice stuff. Did you know SUnday is Mother's day? What are you doing with your wife on that special day? I am taking my family and meeting several other families (I have tons of friends, and this is agreat chance to spend time with them) to the beach! I am also going to buy my wife an embroidery machine! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: Bee Gee >Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:26:59 EDT > >TWICE you sent this rabbit trail! > >STOP RABBIT TRAILING! > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd05.mx.aol.com (rly-zd05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.229]) by air-zd03.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:21:45 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f85.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.85]) by rly-zd05.mx.aol.com (v78.43) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:21:40 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 May 2001 12:21:40 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 19:21:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Bee Gee Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 19:21:39 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2001 19:21:40.0192 (UTC) FILETIME=[7074C600:01C0D986] ################################################ Subj:Babies and Boardfeet Date:5/10/2001 12:29:28 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Remember, we are going to send positve up beat e mails now. My wife will deleiver our second child in July, if all goes to schedule. We really like St Joesph's in Orange. Our first baby was 3 weeks early, the pregnancy had to be induced because my wife's blood pressure was going way up! toximeia is what they called it. She delivered without any pain killing drugs, she can endure a lot of pain (she is married to me after all!) LOL Our first born is a girl, and this one we are keeping secret until it is hatched! What do you guess it will be? If it is a male, we will name with a name that starts with "D" but not Dave (sorry, no offense! :) Guess what he name will be? We are also building a room addition...I am so exhausted! Brilliant design work by day, beautiful carpentry by night! Not really, I am a hack carpenter but do my best! Thats enough for now, what are you up to? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: Bee Gee >Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:26:12 EDT > > >>Ever notice that two of the Gibbs brothers were handsome and two were >not? >They were supposedly brothers but I wonder.<< > >Whatever makes you think that I have met that family? > >STOP YOUR DAMNED RABBIT TRAILING!! > > >AND STOP INCLUDING BILL BEQUETTE! He wants to be left out of this, >remember? > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xb04.mx.aol.com (rly-xb04.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.105]) by air-xb02.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:29:28 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f60.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.60]) by rly-xb04.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:29:14 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 May 2001 12:29:14 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 19:29:13 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Babies and Boardfeet Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 19:29:13 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2001 19:29:14.0187 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F0EE9B0:01C0D987] ################################################ Subj:Hovind/errors/debate Date:5/10/2001 12:33:27 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Good point! At the debate Dr Jim Hoffman posed this question to Dr Hovind: if you were teaching an error and it was pointed out to you to be wrong would you correct it and stop teaching it? Dr Hovind said yes, and in the past he has done so, he said he has learned a lot from evolutionists and appreciates it! Dr Hovind is a very nice man! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: filters >Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:29:17 EDT > > >>Great e mail. > >What I am about to say is true, I hope you beleive me! > >I speak in public a lot and take questions. > >Sometimes they ask me about a claim that Kent Hovind makes that I think is >weak. I say tot he masses, that i think Dr Hovind's claim on that subject >is bogus. I am a rugged individualist and dont cater to any man. > >If someone says something I think is weak I am a strong enough man to make >that public claim! I am a filter, not a sponge. ><< > >Sorry, Bill. I have seen you lie so many times, even about the most >trivial things, that I simply cannot believe a word you say without some >kind of hard evidence. > >Besides, you have made several boasts about yourself that were nothing but >blatant lies. Why should we consider this one to be any different? > >Besides which, your boasting about your own integrity and sterling >qualities (sorry, Bill, you have already demonstrated otherwise) is YET >ANOTHER RABBIT TRAIL! You completely avoided the question! > >What are the effects of bogus creationist claims? You have admitted that >Hovind has made some, therefore you know that they exist. What effect do >they have on non-believers who see through them? What effect do they have >believers who have accepted them and then discover that they had been lied >to? > >Now, all you said in your reply is that if somebody raises the question of >one of these bogus claims to you, then you will say that it is bogus. But >what if they don't ask you? Do you just remain silent? Have you pointed >out to those others in the audience, who "are ... lapping it all up like a >dog lapping Parmesan cheese", that those claims are bogus? Have you >pointed out to Hovind those claims that you recognize as bogus? > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-za05.mx.aol.com (rly-za05.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.101]) by air-za02.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:33:27 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (f94.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.94]) by rly-za05.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:33:06 2000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 May 2001 12:33:01 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 19:33:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Hovind/errors/debate Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 19:33:01 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2001 19:33:01.0765 (UTC) FILETIME=[06B48F50:01C0D988] ################################################ Subj:Re: Guys, I don't have the time Date:5/10/2001 12:35:45 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Why can't you use a pay phone to call me? It is easy answers like that how I deal with it. There are millions of phones in orange county, use one outside of your domicile. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: Guys, I dont thave the time >Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:32:38 EDT > > >>I dont have the time to get into this endless email excahnge. No >offense, >but I am going to delete all these mails. I have a house rehab I should be >working on on and my family, my ministry, my books etc are waiting.<< > >Bill, I strongly resent your wasting my time like this! > >YOU are the one who is making this an "endless email excahnge" by your >unilateral blocking of the resolution of the mess that YOU have created >with your slanderous accusations! > >For the FIFTY-SEVENTH TIME! Let's get this matter resolved! Stop blocking >it! > > > >>If you gotta get a hold of me please call 714 898-8331.<< > >NO RABBIT TRAILS! > >You know that is impossible! I do not have private use of a phone. > >Every time you tell me to call you, it is nothing but another blatant >rabbit trail. Like your trying to get me to join you for dinner. Rabbit >trails! > >I AM DEEPLY INSULTED BY YOUR CONSTANT USE OF RABBIT TRAILS! > >You preach against the use of rabbit trails, yet you use them all the time. > How have you reconciled that hypocrisy to yourself? > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc04.mx.aol.com (rly-zc04.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.4]) by air-zc03.mail.aol.com (v78.38) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:35:45 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f70.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.70]) by rly-zc04.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:35:29 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 May 2001 12:35:28 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 19:35:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Guys, I don't have the time Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 19:35:28 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2001 19:35:28.0887 (UTC) FILETIME=[5E659870:01C0D988] ################################################ Subj:Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date:5/11/2001 07:16:05 Pacific Daylight Time From:DWise1 To:billyjack1@hotmail.com CC:DWise1 >>If you can use the internet obviously you can use a phone. I may be stupid, but not that stupid.<< I never said you were stupid, but you keep insisting on acting like an idiot which is very irritating to us normals. Consider two cases where I am sitting in the same room with somebody else. In the first case I am talking on the phone and in the second case I am typing on my laptop. In the first case, I have no privacy, because the other person can hear everything that I say. In the second case, I do have privacy, because the other person cannot see what I am typing or reading. Now, please stop acting like an idiot. I HAVE NO PRIVATE USE OF A PHONE! How much more do I need to spell that out? Now please stop your rabbit-trailing and let's get this matter resolved! For the FIFTY-EIGHTH TIME! Substantiate and/or explain your accusations against me! For starters: What do you think that I had said that was an insult to your wife? What do you think that I had said that was "trashing" your wife? What were some of those "very nasty names" that you accuse me of having called you? >>Call me anytime and that is how we can resolve this, by meeting face to face like two swell fellows!<< NO RABBIT-TRAILS! All you are trying to do is give yourself more room for rabbit-trailing! In order to resolve this, we must examine the facts. We must compare what you think had been said with what had actually been said. You have been unilaterally blocking this by refusing to state what you thought I had said. I have had to request that information from you FIFTY-EIGHT TIMES already and each and every time you have either ignored my request or you have RABBIT-TRAILED! If you really think that meeting personally will accomplish this, then please explain how. Convincingly! I have asked you for this several times and you have NEVER given a reasonable answer. Instead, you have given frivolous answers that clearly indicate that you intend to rabbit-trail (eg, showing off your daughter, having us sit in a restaurant where it is noisy and there is no place for the materials that we will need, singing Sinatra songs, etc). >>Do you want a video of the debate?<< Yes, please. ################################################ Subj:Re: Bee Gee Date:5/11/2001 07:18:34 Pacific Daylight Time From:DWise1 To:billyjack1@hotmail.com CC:DWise1 DAMN YOUR HIDE! STOP YOUR DAMNED RABBIT TRAILS! YOU HAVE SLANDERED ME! YOU HAVE ARBITRARILY AND UNILATERALLY BLOCKED ALL ATTEMPTS TO GET THE MATTER RESOLVED! YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY LIED TO ME AND TO OTHERS! For the FIFTY-NINTH TIME! LET US GET THIS MATTER RESOLVED! STOP YOUR RABBIT TRAILING! ################################################ Subj:Re: Babies and Boardfeet Date:5/11/2001 07:20:02 Pacific Daylight Time From:DWise1 To:billyjack1@hotmail.com CC:DWise1 STOP YOUR RABBIT TRAILING! FOR THE SIXTIETH TIME! ALLOW US TO GET THIS MATTER RESOLVED! ################################################ Subj:Re: Hovind/errors/debate Date:5/11/2001 07:24:10 Pacific Daylight Time From:DWise1 To:billyjack1@hotmail.com CC:DWise1 >>At the debate Dr Jim Hoffman posed this question to Dr Hovind: if you were teaching an error and it was pointed out to you to be wrong would you correct it and stop teaching it? Dr Hovind said yes, and in the past he has done so, he said he has learned a lot from evolutionists and appreciates it!<< You've made the same claim, Bill. Only you were lying to me. Your reaction to having been corrected has been to either ignore the correction or twist the events around completely. BTW, your new site still contains that deliberate lie that you knew to be a lie before you had even posted it on your first site. Bill, if you are going to say that you do something, then you need to do it. To say one thing and to practice the opposite is called hypocrisy. I see you doing far too much of that. ################################################ Subj:Re: Guys, I don't have the time Date:5/11/2001 07:38:30 Pacific Daylight Time From:DWise1 To:billyjack1@hotmail.com CC:DWise1 >>Why can't you use a pay phone to call me? It is easy answers like that how I deal with it. There are millions of phones in orange county, use one outside of your domicile.<< And that would accomplish what? How are we supposed to resolve anything over the phone anyway? You have never answered that question, but rather have only rabbit-trailed. Why are you so intent on a personal meeting? Where am I supposed to set up the laptop to search through the transcripts while standing at a pay phone? And how am I supposed to slip out of the house for extended periods of time? At any kind of a regular schedule? And if you are so busy as you keep saying you are (and which I do not doubt), then how am I supposed to be assured of catching you? No, as I explained to you far too many times before (so please stop acting like an idiot and listen this time). The medium of email works extremely well for the transmission of factual information. It does not have the scheduling problems of phoning. It does not have the logistics problems of phoning. And it automatically generates the written transcript which is one of the requirements that I specified to you [http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/dennys.html]. And it allows us far greater flexibility in budgeting our precious and sparse spare time than phoning would. Your complaints about not liking to type are nothing but rabbit-trails. You have typed far more complaining about not liking to type than it would have taken to resolve this matter. Indeed, just a few words early on would have kept your accusations down to a molehill, rather than your building them up to a mountain. So for the SIXTY-FIRST time, let's get this matter resolved! For starters: What do you think I had said that was an insult to your wife? What do you think I had said that was "trashing" your wife? What were those "very nasty names" that you think I had called you (as of August 2000, when you had made that accusation)? You said you want to get this matter resolved, so turn to! ################################################ Subj:Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? Date:5/11/2001 08:08:08 Pacific Daylight Time From:DWise1 To:billyjack1@hotmail.com CC:DWise1 Two other points about a personal meeting: 1. That site describing the techniques of scam artists point out: "Fraudulent investment promoters are glib and resourceful. ... To close the deal, they often serve up phony statistics, misrepresent the significance of a current event, or stress the unique quality of their offering, anything to deter you from verifying their story." "A con man may become impatient or even aggressive if the question of risk is raised. ... With this kind of put-down, he hopes you won't bring up the subject again. To make his pitch more credible, he may acknowledge that there could be some risk — then quickly assure you it's minimal in relation to the profits you will almost certainly make." "Although you can't necessarily spot a con man by the way he talks, most are strong-willed, articulate individuals who will dominate the conversation and won't let you get a word in edgewise. The more they talk, the less chance you have to ask questions. As long as you stay on the phone, they'll keep trying to sell you." Bill, I have suspected all along that that kind of thing is what you will try to pull. Given your constant use of rabbit-trails and far greater opportunities for rabbit-trailing that purely verbal communication would offer you, I fully expect that you will try to take maximum advantage of those opportunities. That is why I asked to speak with other "skeptics" who had taken you up on your offers. Why you brought in your shill, Bill B, I could never understand, except that you had expected him to advance your scam. Second, I truly and thoroughly hate your constant rabbit-trailing. I would also truly and thoroughly hate having my time and effort in meeting with you wasted in such a hypocritical way (remember, you teach against allowing rabbit-trailing, while you practice it all the time -- how do you rationalize that to yourself?). After all, it would be very difficult for me to meet with you. And for what? Just so that you can jerk me around and mock me and slander me in person? Why would any non-masochist want that? No, Bill. If we do meet in person or over the phone, it will not be at all pleasant. You would want to rabbit-trail all over the countryside and I would not let you. I would not stop until I got my questions answered. Neither of us would enjoy that the least bit. So stop playing your rabbit-trailing tricks. Your scam has been uncovered, so just drop the pretense. For the SIXTY-SECOND time, let's get this matter resolved. Now. ################################################ Subj:Debate/Video/Hovind/Hoffman Date:5/11/2001 11:02:03 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I took off work for the debate, and it was worth it, thank goodness the canadians did not attack us wile I was at the debate! I think the debate went very well. Would you like a video of it? Hovind, you have to admit, whether you like him or dislike like is very organized and prepared and a great speaker. Did you get a chance to talk to Dr. Hoffman? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >Subject: Re: Did you? >Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:59:51 EDT > >I could not go to the Hovind debate. I have to work for a living. > >How did it go? > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (rly-yh01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.33]) by air-yh01.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:02:03 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (f122.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.122]) by rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:01:57 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 May 2001 11:01:56 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:01:56 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Debate/Video/Hovind/Hoffman Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:01:56 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2001 18:01:56.0617 (UTC) FILETIME=[77A2E790:01C0DA44] ################################################ Subj:Answers to your three questions Date:5/11/2001 11:05:28 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com What do you think that I had said that was an insult to your wife? Your reaction to the four of us having dinner, you made me feel very badly. What do you think that I had said that was "trashing" your wife? That you would never eat with the lieks of us. What were some of those "very nasty names" that you accuse me of having called you? Acting like an idiot. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? >Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:16:04 EDT > > >>If you can use the internet obviously you can use a phone. I may be >stupid, but not that stupid.<< > >I never said you were stupid, but you keep insisting on acting like an >idiot which is very irritating to us normals. > >Consider two cases where I am sitting in the same room with somebody else. >In the first case I am talking on the phone and in the second case I am >typing on my laptop. In the first case, I have no privacy, because the >other person can hear everything that I say. In the second case, I do have >privacy, because the other person cannot see what I am typing or reading. > >Now, please stop acting like an idiot. I HAVE NO PRIVATE USE OF A PHONE! >How much more do I need to spell that out? > >Now please stop your rabbit-trailing and let's get this matter resolved! >For the FIFTY-EIGHTH TIME! Substantiate and/or explain your accusations >against me! For starters: >What do you think that I had said that was an insult to your wife? >What do you think that I had said that was "trashing" your wife? >What were some of those "very nasty names" that you accuse me of having >called you? > > >>Call me anytime and that is how we can resolve this, >by meeting face to face like two swell fellows!<< > >NO RABBIT-TRAILS! All you are trying to do is give yourself more room for >rabbit-trailing! > >In order to resolve this, we must examine the facts. We must compare what >you think had been said with what had actually been said. You have been >unilaterally blocking this by refusing to state what you thought I had >said. I have had to request that information from you FIFTY-EIGHT TIMES >already and each and every time you have either ignored my request or you >have RABBIT-TRAILED! > >If you really think that meeting personally will accomplish this, then >please explain how. Convincingly! > >I have asked you for this several times and you have NEVER given a >reasonable answer. Instead, you have given frivolous answers that clearly >indicate that you intend to rabbit-trail (eg, showing off your daughter, >having us sit in a restaurant where it is noisy and there is no place for >the materials that we will need, singing Sinatra songs, etc). > > > >>Do you want a video of the debate?<< >Yes, please. > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xc01.mx.aol.com (rly-xc01.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.134]) by air-xc05.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:05:28 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com ([209.185.241.112]) by rly-xc01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:04:57 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 May 2001 11:03:52 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:03:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Answers to your three questions Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:03:52 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2001 18:03:52.0390 (UTC) FILETIME=[BCA47660:01C0DA44] ################################################ Subj:Re: Babies and Boardfeet Date:5/11/2001 11:06:57 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I gave you three answers! They hung hte french door, naturally not hte one we specified, but thats life, communication and resolution! The dry wall is all done, they have to stucco the outside next, finish the roof and clean up and they are gone with my 19,000 bucks....good bye old friend! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Babies and Boardfeet >Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:20:01 EDT > >STOP YOUR RABBIT TRAILING! > >FOR THE SIXTIETH TIME! > >ALLOW US TO GET THIS MATTER RESOLVED! > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-ye01.mx.aol.com (rly-ye01.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.198]) by air-ye04.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.37) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:06:57 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f71.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.71]) by rly-ye01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:06:40 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 May 2001 11:06:36 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:06:36 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Babies and Boardfeet Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:06:36 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2001 18:06:36.0358 (UTC) FILETIME=[1E5FFE60:01C0DA45] ################################################ Subj:Re: Hovind/errors/debate Date:5/11/2001 11:08:17 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I have not worked on my web site in a year, what error? thank! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Hovind/errors/debate >Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:24:09 EDT > > >>At the debate Dr Jim Hoffman posed this question to Dr Hovind: if you >were teaching an error and it was pointed out to you to be wrong would you >correct it and stop teaching it? > >Dr Hovind said yes, and in the past he has done so, he said he has learned >a lot from evolutionists and appreciates it!<< > >You've made the same claim, Bill. Only you were lying to me. Your >reaction to having been corrected has been to either ignore the correction >or twist the events around completely. > >BTW, your new site still contains that deliberate lie that you knew to be a >lie before you had even posted it on your first site. > >Bill, if you are going to say that you do something, then you need to do >it. To say one thing and to practice the opposite is called hypocrisy. I >see you doing far too much of that. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb01.mx.aol.com (rly-yb01.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.1]) by air-yb04.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:08:17 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (f28.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.28]) by rly-yb01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:07:59 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 May 2001 11:07:33 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:07:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Hovind/errors/debate Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:07:33 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2001 18:07:33.0367 (UTC) FILETIME=[405AE070:01C0DA45] ################################################ Subj:Re: Guys, I don't have the time Date:5/11/2001 11:11:54 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I answered the questions, you said I act like an idiot......that hurts! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Guys, I don't have the time >Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:38:30 EDT > > >>Why can't you use a pay phone to call me? It is easy answers like that >how I deal with it. There are millions of phones in orange county, use one >outside of your domicile.<< > >And that would accomplish what? How are we supposed to resolve anything >over the phone anyway? You have never answered that question, but rather >have only rabbit-trailed. Why are you so intent on a personal meeting? > >Where am I supposed to set up the laptop to search through the transcripts >while standing at a pay phone? And how am I supposed to slip out of the >house for extended periods of time? At any kind of a regular schedule? >And if you are so busy as you keep saying you are (and which I do not >doubt), then how am I supposed to be assured of catching you? > >No, as I explained to you far too many times before (so please stop acting >like an idiot and listen this time). The medium of email works extremely >well for the transmission of factual information. It does not have the >scheduling problems of phoning. It does not have the logistics problems of >phoning. And it automatically generates the written transcript which is >one of the requirements that I specified to you >[http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/dennys.html]. And it allows us >far greater flexibility in budgeting our precious and sparse spare time >than phoning would. > >Your complaints about not liking to type are nothing but rabbit-trails. >You have typed far more complaining about not liking to type than it would >have taken to resolve this matter. Indeed, just a few words early on would >have kept your accusations down to a molehill, rather than your building >them up to a mountain. > >So for the SIXTY-FIRST time, let's get this matter resolved! For starters: >What do you think I had said that was an insult to your wife? >What do you think I had said that was "trashing" your wife? >What were those "very nasty names" that you think I had called you (as of >August 2000, when you had made that accusation)? > >You said you want to get this matter resolved, so turn to! > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xc01.mx.aol.com (rly-xc01.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.134]) by air-xc01.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:11:54 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com ([209.185.241.32]) by rly-xc01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:11:25 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 May 2001 11:09:05 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:09:05 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Guys, I don't have the time Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:09:05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2001 18:09:05.0426 (UTC) FILETIME=[7739F720:01C0DA45] ################################################ Subj:Better/wiser/faster/higher Date:5/11/2001 11:22:36 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com do you think resolution is acheived by your character assassination? Maybe you do it to try to feel superior to me. Dave, you are smarter than me, wiser, kinder, more popular, more patriotic, a harder worker, nicer to children, nicer to animals, a better cook, a better carpenter, a better basket ball player, a better tennis player, a better writer, a better golfer, a better bowler, you are in better shape, your have more friends, you have smarter friends, you are a better swimmer, skiier, driver, runner, weight lifter, you house looks better, you are a better mechanic, your car is cleaner, you dog has less fleas....what more can I say? You are just more wonderful than me! I just feel so inferior when I read your e mails......me...a lowly "con artist," "scam man," "idiot," "rabbit trailing" loser.....it is really nice when you come down from Mt Olympus and spread morsels of edification to scum like me! Thanks! If you were me, how long would you let a superior creature call you names? The only thing I am more than you is more tolerant and patient and loving. So you win 43-3. That ain't bad! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Dave: Why Are You Fighting Resolution So Long and Hard? >Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 11:08:08 EDT > >Two other points about a personal meeting: > >1. That site describing the techniques of scam artists point out: > >"Fraudulent investment promoters are glib and resourceful. ... To close the >deal, they often serve up phony statistics, misrepresent the significance >of a current event, or stress the unique quality of their offering, >anything to deter you from verifying their story." > >"A con man may become impatient or even aggressive if the question of risk >is raised. ... With this kind of put-down, he hopes you won't bring up the >subject again. To make his pitch more credible, he may acknowledge that >there could be some risk — then quickly assure you it's minimal in relation >to the profits you will almost certainly make." > >"Although you can't necessarily spot a con man by the way he talks, most >are strong-willed, articulate individuals who will dominate the >conversation and won't let you get a word in edgewise. The more they talk, >the less chance you have to ask questions. As long as you stay on the >phone, they'll keep trying to sell you." > >Bill, I have suspected all along that that kind of thing is what you will >try to pull. Given your constant use of rabbit-trails and far greater >opportunities for rabbit-trailing that purely verbal communication would >offer you, I fully expect that you will try to take maximum advantage of >those opportunities. That is why I asked to speak with other "skeptics" >who had taken you up on your offers. Why you brought in your shill, Bill >B, I could never understand, except that you had expected him to advance >your scam. > >Second, I truly and thoroughly hate your constant rabbit-trailing. I would >also truly and thoroughly hate having my time and effort in meeting with >you wasted in such a hypocritical way (remember, you teach against allowing >rabbit-trailing, while you practice it all the time -- how do you >rationalize that to yourself?). After all, it would be very difficult for >me to meet with you. And for what? Just so that you can jerk me around >and mock me and slander me in person? Why would any non-masochist want >that? > >No, Bill. If we do meet in person or over the phone, it will not be at all >pleasant. You would want to rabbit-trail all over the countryside and I >would not let you. I would not stop until I got my questions answered. >Neither of us would enjoy that the least bit. > >So stop playing your rabbit-trailing tricks. Your scam has been uncovered, >so just drop the pretense. For the SIXTY-SECOND time, let's get this >matter resolved. Now. > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xa04.mx.aol.com (rly-xa04.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.73]) by air-xa04.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:22:36 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com ([209.185.241.68]) by rly-xa04.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:22:06 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 May 2001 11:20:40 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:20:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Better/wiser/faster/higher Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:20:39 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2001 18:20:40.0208 (UTC) FILETIME=[15594900:01C0DA47] ################################################ Subj:Re: Hovind/errors/debate Date:5/11/2001 12:53:06 Pacific Daylight Time From:DWise1 To:billyjack1@hotmail.com CC:editor@liberator.net, DWise1 I wrote: >Sorry, Bill. I have seen you lie so many times, even about the most >trivial things, that I simply cannot believe a word you say without some >kind of hard evidence. You wrote: Good point! I wrote: >Besides, you have made several boasts about yourself that were nothing but >blatant lies. Why should we consider this one to be any different? You wrote: Good point! I wrote: >Besides which, your boasting about your own integrity and sterling >qualities (sorry, Bill, you have already demonstrated otherwise) is YET >ANOTHER RABBIT TRAIL! You completely avoided the question! You wrote: Good point! Thank you for your consessions, but you completely avoided the question yet again! Why must you rabbit-trail all the time? Don't you realize that you are forcing me to be that much more strict with you? Yet again, Bill: We both know that there are bogus creationist claims and you have yourself admitted that at least some of Hovind's claims are bogus. Now, Bill, what are the effects of bogus creationist claims? What effect do they have on non-believers who see through them? What effect do they have on believers who have accepted them and then discover that they had been lied to? (like you had been lied to by Chick Pubs' "Big Daddy?") You said that if somebody raises the question of one of these bogus claims to you, then you will say that it is bogus. But what if they don't ask you? Do you just remain silent? Have you pointed out to those others in the audience, who "are ... lapping it all up like a dog lapping Parmesan cheese", that those claims are bogus? Have you pointed out to Hovind those claims that you recognize as bogus? Ironically, in avoiding the question, you had jumped immediately to the next question: how should creation science handle its mistakes and how does it handle them instead? The approach traditionally taken by the ICR and by Chick Pubs is to deny that they had made any mistake. When that fails, Chick Pubs just gets nastier and nastier until you go away. The ICR may eventually admit that they are not perfect, but still refuse to deal with the problem until it becomes unavoidable, whereupon they will officially retract their claim, yet still use it on the sly and keep it in their publications. >>At the debate Dr Jim Hoffman posed this question to Dr Hovind: if you were teaching an error and it was pointed out to you to be wrong would you correct it and stop teaching it? Dr Hovind said yes, and in the past he has done so, he said he has learned a lot from evolutionists and appreciates it!<< Of course Hovind said that! What else could he do? Admit that he continues to use exposed hoaxes? (NOTE: I am not claiming with this that he does, only that if he did then he would be foolish to admit it in public.) What a creationist says and what he does can be two entirely different things; you have personally demonstrated that to us, Bill. Hovind claims to have high moral, ethical, and academic standards, but does he practice what he preaches? Bill, did Hovind use his moon-dust claim? If he did, did he base it on a "1976" NASA document? He does on his web site, even though the error has been pointed out to him. Did Hovind make a claim about a 90-foot fruit tree that had been discovered frozen north of the Arctic Circle, still standing and still bearing fruit and green leaves? Did Hovind make a claim about the skeleton of men 11-feet tall having been found? Did Hovind make a claim about a hominid/human fossil skeleton having been found in the jaws of a T Rex fossil? (I most certainly hope that he did not) Do try to be truthful this time, Bill. ################################################ Subj:Re: Hovind/errors/debate Date:5/14/2001 12:41:39 Pacific Daylight Time From:DWise1 To:billyjack1@hotmail.com CC:editor@liberator.net, DWise1 BTW, your new site still contains that deliberate lie that you knew to be a >lie before you had even posted it on your first site. >I have not worked on my web site in a year, what error? thank!<< Now, Bill, you know that you did not tell the truth there. Your old site, http://www.webmecca.com/creation/, was last updated about 7 August 2000. That was nine months ago, not twelve. Nine is less than twelve. Your new site, http://www.fishdontwalk.com/, just went up within the past few months. Within the past few weeks, the format of the new page has changed; it did not mention the meetings of the CSAOC before. The deliberate lie in question is the continued posting and the reposting of your article, "The Ozone Layer", even though you know that it is not true. It is a lie because you knew at both times that you posted it that the article's claims were not true. It is deliberate, because you had to act deliberately in selecting it for posting, in including it in the selection list of articles, and in performing the actual posting of the article and the updated selection list. Furthermore, I have already informed you of this several times: First, there is the original exchange in which you learned of your error (Subj: Bad Science: R-12, 98-04-29 23:35:40 EDT to 98-05-19 18:21:53 EDT). This is documented on my page, "BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: THE OZONE LAYER", at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_ozone.html . Your first response at the time was to berate me for knowing nothing about the subject and stating that I had not answered your questions. I responded by pointing out that I had found the answers to all your questions, I repeated them with references, and asked you why you thought that I hadn't answered them the first time. Your response was to run away from the subject and refuse to answer any of my follow-up questions. Shortly after our correspondence resumed in July 2000, I have pointed out to you that you had posted that article knowing that it was false and asked you how you could possibly justify your actions. I reminded you of it several times, but you ignored me every time except for once, when you denounced it as a "childish tirade". No, Bill, it is a very definite problem which reflects directly on your honesty and integrity. Especially in light of your boasting about how you will not use a claim if you discover it to be false. Bill, you are yet again preaching one thing and practicing the complete opposite. We both know that is called "hypocrisy" and we both know how much hatred Jesus expressed about those who practice it. ################################################ Subj:Re: Answers to your three questions Date:5/14/2001 12:46:07 Pacific Daylight Time From:DWise1 To:billyjack1@hotmail.com CC:editor@liberator.net, DWise1 >>What do you think that I had said that was an insult to your wife? Your reaction to the four of us having dinner, you made me feel very badly.<< Thank you for finally responding, though you did not answer the question. And what was that reaction? WHAT DO YOU THINK I HAD SAID? I need some kind of content to match up your accusation with my messages. You still need to answer the question. For one thing, as I had pointed out to you repeatedly, there is no message in which you invited my wife and me to dine with you AND YOUR WIFE. In the invitations, you never mentioned your wife as joining us. PS Something like quote marks would really be helpful in distinguishing what you are quoting me as saying from what you are saying. Or a separate line with an appropriate label. We want to avoid misunderstanding as much as possible, after all. ################################################ Subj:Re: Answers to your three questions Date:5/14/2001 12:47:08 Pacific Daylight Time From:DWise1 To:billyjack1@hotmail.com CC:editor@liberator.net, DWise1 >>What do you think that I had said that was "trashing" your wife? That you would never eat with the lieks of us.<< Thank you for finally responding, though you did not answer the question. What do you mean by "the lieks of [you]"? WHAT DO YOU THINK I HAD SAID? I need some kind of content to match up your accusation with my messages. DID I EVER MENTION YOUR WIFE? You still need to answer the question. ################################################ Subj:Re: Answers to your three questions Date:5/14/2001 12:48:42 Pacific Daylight Time From:DWise1 To:billyjack1@hotmail.com CC:editor@liberator.net, DWise1 >>What were some of those "very nasty names" that you accuse me of having called you? Acting like an idiot.<< At least this question you answered. However, your answer could not possibly be correct. That could not possibly have been what you were accusing me of. You made your accusation, "You called you very nasty names." [sic], on 05 Aug 2000 at 10:38:46 PDT. I first started imploring you to stop acting like an idiot nearly a full month LATER, on 02 Sep 2000: ### Start ### [02-Sep-00 12:37:46 PDT] >>Mr. Wise saves all my emails, so I request the court subpeona him to present it.<< We know that, Bill. That is why I made THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT OF OUR CORRESPONDENCE available to you . More than TEN DAYS AGO!!! Which I informed you of, TWICE!! READ YOUR EMAIL, BILL!! Otherwise, you make yourself look like a complete idiot. [02-Sep-00 12:38:19 PDT] >>@@@@@@ Just find the e mails withthe subject of Denny's. I know you are smart and wise and resouceful and can come up with it. I may make a motion of contempt of court. You are stonewalling these fine honorable judges.<< Stop this stupid game, Bill! You're acting like a complete idiot! I gave you the messages you asked for IMMEDIATELY upon request! On 19 Aug and 21 Aug. On 21 Aug, I also made the ENTIRE body of transcripts available to all parties involved and notified them of that fact and of where to get the transcripts IN THE VERY SAME MESSAGES WHICH CONTAINED THE MESSAGES YOU HAD REQUESTED! You have had them for over TEN DAYS! Why are you showing all of us such contempt by playing your stupid games? ### End ### Your accusation could only have refered to "very nasty names" allegedly used PRIOR to the issuance of said accusation, ie 05 Aug 2000 10:38:46 PDT. Your accusation could not have possibly been in reference to any statements I would have said in that moment's FUTURE, eg, nearly a full month later. Therefore, Bill, your response cannot be accept. We still need to know what you think those "very nasty names" were. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU USED THE PLURAL FORM! That means that you were claiming that I had called you MORE THAN ONE "very nasty name". What were they, Bill? If you still want to claim that one of them was "idiot", then there is one message that you might be refering to. But before I produce it for you, you must confirm EXPLICITLY that you still want to claim that one of the names was "idiot" (ie, copy-and-paste this sentence along with your answer). I have also repeatedly asked you whether one of those "very nasty names" was "asshole" and you have repeatedly refused to answer. Again, there does exist a message which you could be refering to, but first I must know if this is supposed to be one of those "very nasty names". Please answer EXPLICITLY "yes" or "no" (ie, copy-and-paste this sentence along with your answer). ################################################ Subj:Re: Hovind/errors/debate Date:5/14/2001 22:40:30 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com No on the moon dust no on the fruit tree no on t rex yes on the 11 foot man do you want a free copy of the debate? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: Hovind/errors/debate >Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:53:05 EDT > >I wrote: > >Sorry, Bill. I have seen you lie so many times, even about the most > >trivial things, that I simply cannot believe a word you say without some > >kind of hard evidence. > >You wrote: >Good point! > >I wrote: > >Besides, you have made several boasts about yourself that were nothing >but > >blatant lies. Why should we consider this one to be any different? > >You wrote: >Good point! > >I wrote: > >Besides which, your boasting about your own integrity and sterling > >qualities (sorry, Bill, you have already demonstrated otherwise) is YET > >ANOTHER RABBIT TRAIL! You completely avoided the question! > >You wrote: >Good point! > >Thank you for your consessions, but you completely avoided the question yet >again! Why must you rabbit-trail all the time? Don't you realize that you >are forcing me to be that much more strict with you? > >Yet again, Bill: >We both know that there are bogus creationist claims and you have yourself >admitted that at least some of Hovind's claims are bogus. >Now, Bill, what are the effects of bogus creationist claims? >What effect do they have on non-believers who see through them? >What effect do they have on believers who have accepted them and then >discover that they had been lied to? (like you had been lied to by Chick >Pubs' "Big Daddy?") > >You said that if somebody raises the question of one of these bogus claims >to you, then you will say that it is bogus. But what if they don't ask >you? Do you just remain silent? Have you pointed out to those others in >the audience, who "are ... lapping it all up like a dog lapping Parmesan >cheese", that those claims are bogus? Have you pointed out to Hovind those >claims that you recognize as bogus? > >Ironically, in avoiding the question, you had jumped immediately to the >next question: >how should creation science handle its mistakes and how does it handle them >instead? > >The approach traditionally taken by the ICR and by Chick Pubs is to deny >that they had made any mistake. When that fails, Chick Pubs just gets >nastier and nastier until you go away. The ICR may eventually admit that >they are not perfect, but still refuse to deal with the problem until it >becomes unavoidable, whereupon they will officially retract their claim, >yet still use it on the sly and keep it in their publications. > > > >>At the debate Dr Jim Hoffman posed this question to Dr Hovind: if you >were teaching an error and it was pointed out to you to be wrong would you >correct it and stop teaching it? > >Dr Hovind said yes, and in the past he has done so, he said he has learned >a lot from evolutionists and appreciates it!<< > >Of course Hovind said that! What else could he do? Admit that he >continues to use exposed hoaxes? (NOTE: I am not claiming with this that he >does, only that if he did then he would be foolish to admit it in public.) > >What a creationist says and what he does can be two entirely different >things; you have personally demonstrated that to us, Bill. Hovind claims >to have high moral, ethical, and academic standards, but does he practice >what he preaches? > >Bill, did Hovind use his moon-dust claim? If he did, did he base it on a >"1976" NASA document? He does on his web site, even though the error has >been pointed out to him. > >Did Hovind make a claim about a 90-foot fruit tree that had been discovered >frozen north of the Arctic Circle, still standing and still bearing fruit >and green leaves? > >Did Hovind make a claim about the skeleton of men 11-feet tall having been >found? > >Did Hovind make a claim about a hominid/human fossil skeleton having been >found in the jaws of a T Rex fossil? (I most certainly hope that he did >not) > >Do try to be truthful this time, Bill. > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc03.mx.aol.com (rly-zc03.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.3]) by air-zc02.mail.aol.com (v78.38) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 May 2001 01:40:30 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f58.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.58]) by rly-zc03.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 May 2001 01:39:57 2000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 14 May 2001 22:39:56 -0700 Received: from 152.163.195.192 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 15 May 2001 05:39:56 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.195.192] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Hovind/errors/debate Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 05:39:56 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 May 2001 05:39:56.0817 (UTC) FILETIME=[796B8810:01C0DD01] ################################################ Subj:Re: Hovind/errors/debate Date:5/16/2001 07:53:01 Pacific Daylight Time From:DWise1 To:billyjack1@hotmail.com CC:editor@liberator.net, DWise1 Oops, I gave you an incorrect URL. My page describing our exchange about your ozone-layer claim is at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/q_ozone.html . My apologies to all about that. ################################################ Subj:Let's Take Care of Your Accusations Date:5/16/2001 07:54:11 Pacific Daylight Time From:DWise1 To:billyjack1@hotmail.com CC:editor@liberator.net, DWise1 We need to keep in mind the more complete list of your accusations. Here they are yet again with the dates when you had made them: [2000 Aug 03] "[I]nsulting [his] wife and [him]." [2000 Aug 05] Calling him "very nasty names." [2000 Oct 05] That I "trashed [his] wife for being Christian and said [I] did not want dinner because of [his] faith." [2000 Aug 02] Having conducted "bigoted attacks on [him] and [his] wife" [2000 Aug 02] Thinking he is "some evil wicked person out to destroy society". [2000 Aug 02] Thinking he is "wacked for beleiving in God". [2000 Aug 02] "[P]ersonally insulting [him] on the level of a name calling 2nd grader." [2000 Aug 03] That my wife and I had labelled him and his wife as evil. [2000 Aug 07] That I had told him "what [my] wife thought of those who beleive in Gid". [2000 Aug 10] That I would think he and his wife "are evil and wicked, the world's most sinister people". [2000 Aug 10] That I refuse to meet him because of his beliefs. [2000 Aug 23] That I sent electronically "many nasty words that were anti religious". [2000 Oct 16] That I "[stretch my imagination] as [I] twist the bible into what ever [I] please." [2000 Oct 12 - Dec 12] That I had slandered him professionally on my web site by calling into question the fact that he is a "licensed mechanical engineer"; specifically (after much pulling of teeth to finally get you to tell us what you were talking about): "I recall reading one of you web sites about me (Bill Morgan P.E.) that mentioned you saying 'I have never heard of licensed Engineers' as if I was a goofy goof." (2000 Dec 13) We need to be able to find the messages from me that you are refering to, so YOU need to tell us what you think I had written in each and every one of these cases. Only then can we identify the pertinent messages and examine them to see if I had indeed done as you accuse me. Only then could we possibly resolve this matter. You have already responded to the first three accusations listed (or rather the first two and the first half of the third, for I had not included the second half in my recent email to which you finally responded). However, you answered the question of the "very nasty names" with something I had first written a month AFTER the accusation had been made, so you still need to answer that one. Also on the other two, you did not answer the question (you did not tell us what you think I had said). You still need to answer those questions. In the meantime, also work on the others and tell me what you think I had said that would justify your accusations. For that last accusation, you still need to copy the offending text from my web site and present it to us. In order to narrow the search, I grepped on my HTML files for "engineer" and came up with the following hits: http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/protein_probs.html http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/aolcreat_doc.html http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/mr_100percent.html http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/q_age_of_earth.html http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/q_meiosis.html http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/q_geologists.html http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/q_whales.html http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/weird_sci_critique.html ################################################ Subj:This may help you to see I am really helping people out! Date:5/18/2001 23:25:00 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: dwise1@aol.com Mr. Morgan, Hello! My name is Megan and I have a couple concerns and questions for you. I am a freshman in high school, and I have been getting into conversations with my friend. He is pro-Evolution and I am pro-Creation. I am a Christian and I have a relationship with Jesus Christ our Savior. I remember when you were a quest speaker at First Baptist Church and you discussed Evolution with us. I was intrigued, and it sparked my curiousity. But even with the notes I had, I never actually followed up on it and looked into it more. Well, school had been getting busy and I wasn't focusing on the Lord as much, so I prayed about it. Well, now that's all I think about! :) But, anyway, my friend was telling me about what he believed, and it offended me in a way. For instance, he would say that there is no God, and it hurt me that he thought like that. Well, at first I was getting angry and defensive, but then I remembered you. You said to be gentle with people in that state of mind, so I relaxed. Though, I was trying so hard to remember what you said that night. So, I asked him "Why?" and "How do you know that?" You said that that makes up for knowledge. I told my friends whom are Christians and asked them what I sould do in another instance like that. They helped me to remember what you said, and they gave me good advice. Though, I was still trying to think of ways to get through to him better. I went home and read all my notes from the night when you came and I also read your packet. That's where I saw the web address. (Thank the Lord!) So, today, I talked to him and tried to ask him nicely, like I was curious what he believed in, "Why do you believe in what you believe in?" I did not expect a good explanation. He stumbled on his words, and reversed the question. So, I just said I don't know, and that I just knew. Now, anyone could say that about anything and it is not conclusive, right? So what should I say? He also asked me previously why I believed in God and I came back with an answer for him. I said that I can see that changes in my life, and I can feel it. What you said. But he then stumped me with, "Well, if Adam and Eve were real, then we are all related. That's not possible. How did black people happen and how did people get different colored hair if everyone has the exact same genes?" I was trying to explain that they don't get ALL of the same genes, but they get some and then they get mixed up. It's hard for me to explian, so I was wondering if you could help me with that one. Because you said that genetics was the answer to Creation-not Evolution. He seems like a project for me that I think that I may be able to pursuade, but he is kind of stubborn. Also, my other friend was chiming in and I mentioned the music stand idea you said. How if you layed all of the parts out then they wouldn't just fall together, you would have to have a "creator". I said that that was like us, we didn't just fall together like this. I mentioned the heart and the eyes and how they are so intriguit. Well, I also said that if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys and why aren't we still evolving, and he said that we were. But slowly. So, my questions for you are as followed: 1) Are we all related and is everything incest still? Why or why not? 2) How did black people become black? 3) What is proof of Adam and Eve? 4) How do we know that there weren't other people outside of Eden? 5) What can I say to help him understand? 6) How can I support the fact that bacteria makes bacteria, and humans make humans? 7) What do cavemen have to do with evolution? 8) How should I deal with this situation? 9) What is fate and is it real? That's about all I can think of right at this moment. But I'm sure I'll have plenty more. I just don't want to bombard you with questions. Thank you so much for letting me e-mail you, and I hope and pray that this can all work out to God's liking. Child of Christ, Megan _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc02.mx.aol.com (rly-zc02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.2]) by air-zc03.mail.aol.com (v78.49) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 May 2001 02:25:00 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f76.law6.hotmail.com [216.32.241.76]) by rly-zc02.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 May 2001 02:24:14 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 18 May 2001 23:24:03 -0700 Received: from 152.163.197.69 by lw6fd.law6.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:24:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.197.69] From: "Bill Morgan" To: dwise1@aol.com Subject: This may help you to see I am really helping people out! Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 23:24:03 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 May 2001 06:24:03.0657 (UTC) FILETIME=[4CB64390:01C0E02C] ################################################