[Vision2020] Re: Q & A with DK-mark 2

[Darrell Keim]

Howdy again, Captain.  How's Tennille?

>Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Captain Kirker <captain_kirker at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Q & A with DK
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Message-ID: <20040828170555.60745.qmail at web90008.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>DK:
>
>  Yes, I used an oblique hint. No, it was not derogatory.

My reading of it was.  But, lets let that go.

>You want to argue ad hominem, and I want to argue the point,

Actually, I don't think so.  I think we each want to make different points, 
and are arguing past each other.

>i.e., Commissioner Kimmell's undeclared conflict of interest as cited in 
>the CEF Elders' Minutes, which state: "Doug Wilson reported that Paul 
>Kimmell, in his role as County Commissioner, is open to oversight from the 
>elders on certain issues, such as the current domestic-partner issue." I 
>refer you to http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php so that 
>you can see the definition of an ad hom.

I did refer to your definition, it was a nice review from my college logic 
class.  Lets summarize it as "attacking the person."  How can I attack the 
person, when their is no person involved?

There is only a persona.  Note the difference:

There is nobody to stand behind the attacks.  Nobody saying "You're doing 
wrong, and I stake my reputation on it."  If you are convinced of the 
justness of your cause, why hide?  What do you risk?  Being cut-off from 
Christ Church?

Which brings me to the crux of what is my problem with your approach.  I've 
asked before, and you've avoided it before.  What do we know about you, and 
more importantly, your motives?  Why do you refuse to answer this?

>You call the minutes "purported,"

Yes, I do.  I won't deny the accuracy of what has been quoted.  I call them 
purported because we don't know the context they are taken out of.  Allow 
me to paraphrase Clinton "It depends on what the definition of oversight 
is."  Taken out of context any statement can be made to look bad.

Not knowing your motives, we don't know what you are willing to do to 
accomplish your (unknown) goal.  Are you willing to take things out of 
context?  Lie?  Are you being perfectly accurate?  Are you "a Citizen of 
New York?"  Or, are you a rumormonger?  Should what you bring to light be 
investigated?  Possibly.  Should its accuracy be assumed?  No.  Should you 
be investigated?  Yes.  Every bit as thoroughly as that which you seek to 
have investigated.

>  despite the Wolfman's confirmation of their authenticity, and then you 
> wonder if it's not all a bunch of rumormongering, gossip, and baseless 
> claims. Show some honesty, stop wondering, and acknowledge the point.

I will acknowledge your point.  It is possible what you've brought forward 
is perfectly accurate.  Now, kindly acknowledge mine.  Without knowing 
context, what has been shown by you can't automatically be assumed to be an 
accurate picture.  We shouldn't just take it on faith.  I'm from Missouri, 
you've got to show me!

And, actually, I have been honest.  Allow me to quote myself from earlier:
Captain said
> >      And I make no apology for my pseudo-name, I stand in the long
> > distinguished tradition of a Citizen of New York, Publius,and Edna #1.

DK said:
>And an even longer line of rumor mongers seeking to bring down others
>through gossip and baseless claims.  Which are you?  Honestly, I don't know.

I think stating that I honestly don't know which you are, and am trying to 
decide is about as honest as I can get.

At this time allow me to clarify something that got misquoted by others 
regarding "gossip and baseless claims."  And here I quote Rose:
>I take great exception to the notion that concerns expressed about Wilson, 
>Inc. by Captain Kirker
>are based on "false claims and baseless gossip."
What I'd like to clarify is that I am in no way seeking to stand up for 
Christ Church, and regret that my writing allowed it to appear that I 
do.  I take no public position on them.  They can choose to defend 
themselves or not.  Further, I am not stating that the Captains claims are 
baseless or gossip.

   Rather, and here is the crux of the points I've been trying to make:
1. I take a stand against the malicious way in which Kimmell is being 
publicly attacked and his livelihood threatened.
2. I don't like the anonymous methods the Captain chooses to use, and this 
board chooses to place credence in (Allow me to repeat myself:  What are 
the captains motives?)  What is the context of the minutes?).
3. And, I don't like the grandstanding some others on this board choose to 
participate in regarding this issue.
4.  How accurate are the Captains claims ( (Allow me to repeat myself 
again:  What is the context of the minutes?).

I believe Kimmell is a trustworthy, honest, decent man.  Others are allowed 
to feel differently.  Those on this board feeling Kimmell has done wrong 
should publicly approach him, make a reasoned argument, show their proof 
and ask for a response.  If enough feel it, then an organized group should 
approach him.  Either way, make a reasoned argument in public, have a 
debate, let the public decide and get it over with.  If people are up in 
arms about this thing they should stop whining here and take public action 
to bring about the change they desire.

Yes, I know people are going to say that v2020 is public.  But is email a 
place where one can truly do this type of thing?  I argue no.  It's to 
limited.  To many nuances of communication, such as vocal tone and body 
language are lost.  I actually agree with Kimmells decision not to delve 
into this via email.  Of course the above is all in my opinion only.  Add 
we all know that opinions are like asses.  Everybody has one, some are 
bigger than others.

I've enjoyed this chat, and look forward to your witty reply.
Later,
Darrell