[Vision2020] Plan in Action

Thu Feb 16 07:18:41 PST 2006

Mr/s. Ford, After spending a considerable amount of time reading your posts, 
Mr. Metzlers web site, And Mr. Wilson's blog I have finally come to the 
inevitable conclusion that you think that Wilson is not the minister for 
you. I really appreciate your sharing all the minutia of your decision but 
spending such an inordinate amount of time trying to convince folks who are 
not your fellow congregants seems kind of obsessive. Endless droning  about 
the trials of Mr. Morin and "letters not sent" may be of some interest to 
some (hard to believe) but I'm guessing not many. Far be it from me to tell 
you what to do or think but might I suggest you give some thought to doing 
what people who have become disenchanted with their current faith community 
have done for ages. Find or found a new one more to your liking. Reverend 
Ford  has a certain ring to it and who knows, a church that features lots of 
pithy phrases in foreign tongues (Gaelic?) and Winney the Pooh references 
might just catch on. Heck, throw in a bunch of scatological comments and 
inappropriate sexual references and Mr. Hansen and Mr. Fox will almost 
certainly jump on board. How about as a congregational mascot, tigger 
dressed up as a lecherous leprechaun?

I'm just sayin'
gc

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J Ford" <privatejf32 at hotmail.com>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:58 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Plan in Action

> Continuing the "Letter Not Sent" line, the following comments have been 
> added to Doug's "explanation" (translated: excuse) for his actions.  If 
> find it very interesting that after ten years (+) of this, the new excuse 
> is JUST now coming out.  Riachtanas teagascs a plean - Need teaches a 
> plan.
>
>
>
>    Doug, your line of thinking makes no sense. It goes like this: They 
> couldn't be trying to deceive because too many people would remember that 
> the letter was never sent, so they must have made an honest mistake 
> because NONE of them remembered the letter was never sent..... Is this 
> YOUR explanation of what they did, or have you received this explanation 
> from them and you're passing it on? If you haven't talked to them then 
> you're just guessing, you weren't there, and you have no way of knowing 
> why they did what they did. If you have talked to them and are passing on 
> what they told you, then you're depending on their memory. Memories which 
> your earlier argument admits are faulty.
>
>        M K - 2/15/2006 9:14:17 PM
>
>    M, first your question about the signatures. They either noticed they 
> were not there, and thought the letter was sent out with (something like) 
> verbal approval because everyone was not physically present. That kind of 
> thing happens. I am not physically going to sign this post. Or they didn't 
> notice that the signatures were missing. They either didn't notice, and 
> made this honest mistake, or they noticed and made the honest mistake. 
> When it comes to signatures, in this situation, all kinds of weird things 
> have happened. It is understandable to not see that a signature is missing 
> in the flurry of answering a battery of charges. But Bob Callihan signed 
> his "this is only a proposal" letter, and it has been three years with us 
> pointing at it, and Terry still can't see it. Can you see it? Signatures 
> are funny.
>
>        Douglas Wilson - 2/15/2006 9:23:33 PM
>
>    Mark, give it a break. You have two options: (a) the elders made a 
> simple error because they trusted the notebook that Pastor Wilson gave 
> them OR (b) the elders are conspiring against their brothers in Christ out 
> of a vengeful spirit. We, as mere men, cannot see other men's hearts. We 
> have no hard and fast evidence against them (for example, a video 
> recording of them knowingly conspiring and laughing at the trouble they 
> would cause their brothers). They tell us it is a mistake, and we have to 
> take that in good faith because they are our brothers in Christ . If it is 
> from a vengeful spirit, they have much more to fear from God than they do 
> from us. Like I said before, give it up. Love "thinketh no evil" (1 Cor. 
> 13:5). All men, Christians or not, should be considered innocent until 
> proven guilty.
>
>        D C. M - 2/15/2006 9:33:47 PM
>
>    Mark, here is the "line of thinking," in plain English. These men are 
> my Christian brothers and scrupulously honest. I believe them. But let us 
> say that someone out there is suspicious of these honorable men for 
> whatever personal reasons (bitterness, ideology, internet-fever, 
> whatever). For that person, who does not want to simply accept the 
> reasonable explanation offered, here is the deal. If they knew the letter 
> was not sent, and publicly claimed that it *was* sent, and they claimed 
> this in a controversy with Terry Morin, knowing that he would call them on 
> it, along with any number of others who knew it wasn't sent, but they 
> tried it anyway, it would follow from this that these men are stupid. 
> These men are not stupid. Therefore it was an honest mistake. If it was an 
> attempt to pull something, we would have brazened it out. Terry has made a 
> number of claims from that time without signatures. We could have just 
> done the same. But as soon as the mistake was pointed out, we realized the 
> mistake, apologized, and dropped it. This was a good example. "Dropping 
> it" is a spiritual exercise that a lot of people I know could profit from.
>
>        Douglas Wilson - 2/15/2006 9:37:13 PM
>
>    Doug, your belief that Doug Jones, Chris Schlect and Jim Nance are 
> honest is plain English. I understand that statement, and I agree with it. 
> When you say your explanation(I'm assuming it's your explanation and not 
> theirs)of the actions of the committee is 'reasonable' you are NOT 
> speaking plain English, because your explanation isn't reasonable. I've 
> shown you where it isn't reasonable. If you choose not to further explain 
> yourself that's fine. But your explanation doesn't become reasonable just 
> because you say it is.
>
>        M K - 2/15/2006 10:24:55 PM
>
>    David, there are lots of options all of us have. Each of us uses his 
> own free will to decide which of them to follow. Take care, Mark
>
>        M K - 2/15/2006 10:28:33 PM
>
>    M, all you are doing is illustrating why it is pointless to try to 
> explain things like this to people who don't really want an explanation. 
> You believe that it is "unreasonable" to say someone saw signatures where 
> there are none. So is it equally unreasonable to not see a signature when 
> it is sitting there as plain as Bob could make it? And Mark, I am afraid I 
> am going to have to *demand* an explanation from you on this. And as soon 
> as you offer it, I will shake my head, tsk for a moment, and announce that 
> your explanation is no explanation at all. In fact, I will not really hear 
> your explanation of Terry's inability to see Bob's signature because I 
> will be too busy shaking the pom poms for my team in this debate. And if 
> you protest that your explanation "was too" reasonable, I will just say 
> nope. Not reasonable. Would that be a good way to proceed?
>
>        Douglas Wilson - 2/15/2006 11:37:14 PM |
>
> J  :]
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
> communities of the Palouse since 1994.   http://www.fsr.net 
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ 