[Vision2020] Still more slander from Crabtree

Tue Jul 4 18:04:33 PDT 2006

Nea met Michael and probably nea will; so please donnea put us in the same 
room - just on the same page when it comes to exposing the 
pastor-this-isnea....Dougie.

J  :]

>From: "Michael" <metzler at moscow.com>
>To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: [Vision2020] Still more slander from Crabtree
>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 17:38:10 -0700
>
>Gary Writes:
>
>
>
>Regarding your question as to my opinion of your mental health. I am in no
>position to evaluate your competency and I'm sure that your motives are 
>your
>own. I do find the amount of effort that you pour into your vendetta 
>against
>your former pastor to be a bit obsessive and some of the company you keep
>(hansen, ford, deco, etc.) to be extremely suspect. Other then that I
>imagine you're a fairly decent fellow.
>
>
>
>
>
>Whew! Good to hear. Only one concern:  my obsession (i.e. Pooh's call to
>duty) is not only with respect to my own vendetta.  But I sympathize with
>your concerns.  I just might be nuts; at the very least I think I do have a
>bit of an artistic streak: as long as I feel that most the people enjoying
>my work are normal I feel justified being a little weird.  But what do you
>mean by "company you keep"?  Am I suspect because I defend or respect these
>people where I think they are defensible or respectable?  Did you know I've
>never even met the three people you list above?  Do you excel these people
>in judiciousness, fairness, and kindness?  What gives you the standing to
>question their sanity?  I hope I'm willing to defend you just the same; I
>recall many people rushing to your defense when your occupational 
>competency
>was challenged not long ago.
>
>
>
>I'll be enjoying a class under Joe in the Fall; I'll be sure to post any
>threats or acts of violence to Vision 2020 !  You've got me nervous Gary. :
>-)
>
>
>
>Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Damn, that last post got away 15 seconds to quick. Please accept revised
>post.
>
>
>
>Michael, let's review. Joe made an unsupported accusation that the Right
>Mind web site "slandered" him. When I asked him for a specific instance to
>support his claim and speculated that in reality it seemed more likely he
>was just embarrassed that the site had pointed out a few of his errors and
>inconsistencies. Rather then prove me wrong and provide the information 
>that
>I asked for, He added me to the list of slanderers and, after his customary
>monolog on the wonderfulness that is him, insisted that I provide an
>instance that bore out my contention. I did exactly that. The fact that he
>made a half hearted, just kidding, apology in no way changes the fact that
>the stupid remark was made. If your "gentle and good natured" buddy is 
>going
>to pop off to the effect that he's never in error and always consistent and
>insist that I prove him wrong, What is it that you suggest I do? Agree with
>him because you contend that he's a swell guy? You are right that I like to
>pull Joe's chain if for no other reason then that it's overly long and
>attached to a fellow who can't bear to be disagreed with and can be counted
>on to go off like a fourth of July firecracker, appropriately enough, 
>should
>anyone dare.
>
>
>
>Regarding your question as to my opinion of your mental health. I am in no
>position to evaluate your competency and I'm sure that your motives are 
>your
>own. I do find the amount of effort that you pour into your vendetta 
>against
>your former pastor to be a bit obsessive and some of the company you keep
>(hansen, ford, deco, etc.) to be extremely suspect. Other then that I
>imagine you're a fairly decent fellow.
>
>
>
>G. Crabtree
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: Michael <mailto:metzler at moscow.com>
>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:46 PM
>
>Subject: [Vision2020] Still more slander from Crabtree
>
>
>
>Gary,
>
>
>
>Unlike Dale and others, who refuse to acknowledge wrong doing (again, I 
>gave
>Dale a shot at this before I went public with criticism), Joe apologized 
>for
>his comment to you.  Your original posting of it was questionable, yet you
>have made no moves of reconciliation yourself.  Instead of accepting the
>apology, you now publicly rub Joe's nose in it. This is unacceptable.  You
>clearly like to pull Joe's chain, and you appear more determined to make 
>him
>upset than you are making an important useful point.  Also note that Joe
>said he was joking when he made this original comment, and claimed he would
>never plan on going to your place of work and punch you in the nose.  Those
>who have known Joe and know what his general reputation is vouched for his
>gentleness and good nature. Posting on Vision 2020 now that Joe "threaten 
>to
>do harm" and that he "admitted to it" is slanderous of you.  Further, I 
>have
>already told you that I approached Dale about what I considered slanderous
>claims against Joe, and this was back in the good old days when I would 
>have
>had no other motivation to do so outside of my genuine concern about how
>Dale was treating Joe.  Yet you refuse to consider any evidence like this.
>Again, compare Joe with Dale here.  Joe said something you didn't like and
>he apologized.  Dale said stuff Joe and I did not like and he refuses to
>apologize.  And now here you are publicly condemning Joe for doing what he
>apologized for while defending Dale for things he refused to apologize for
>at all.  There is nothing fair, kind, or judicial with your method here
>Gary.  But while we are on the topic of Dale's blog, here's some of an 
>email
>I wrote to Dale a very long time ago (when I was defending Doug Wilson on
>V2020):
>
>
>
>You posted on a current event regarding the giving over of young daughters
>to appease revenge and the independent strangeness of archaic penalties
>exacted towards unfaithful wives.  You dedicated this to Nick Gier . . .
>You referenced an article of his that was very broad-brushed and did not
>reference this current event or the practice of giving young daughters for
>appeasement.  In that article, he references some old writing of Greg that
>represents a view that is more extreme than the general conservatism of 
>your
>own website (from what I can tell). Personally, sometimes it is hard for me
>to tell the difference between reformed theonomists and Muslim
>fundamentalists. . . I thought the comment (I forwarded) to your posting 
>was
>unfortunate; I thought it particularly note worthy that it combined today's
>recent mocking of Gier from Wilson's Blog . . . with your own "dedication."
>I'm concerned about our ability to generate this sort of thing all on our
>own without the initiation of the opponent.  Girls on the other side of the
>globe might be raped, and so we start talking about Gier.  And so an
>arrogant person [witmer], who was just enjoying Wilson's poking fun of . .
>Gier . . . wants to start getting us all thinking about Gier having sex 
>with
>the lawful husbands of the girls who might get raped:
>
>
>
>Tuesday, 22 November, 2005 12:40 PM by cdwitmer
>
>Maybe the illiterate sons would be satisfied with Nick Gier instead. If 
>Nick
>can't tell the difference, maybe they can't either. And since they are
>illiterate, they would be a perfect match with the Reseerch Perfesser. This
>just might be doable!
>
>
>
>Many of us will no doubt continue to applaud ourselves that we have
>determined to no longer associate with local Venom, lesbians, prostitutes,
>tax gathers, and . . . philosophy professors . . .  And so I thought I'd
>make a thoughtful note to this particular chain of rhetoric. Gier is
>literate by the way.  And I think he has some insight to his analysis.  . .
>.Other than that, keep up the good work . . .
>
>
>
>Dale refused to recognize the legitimacy of my concerns.  But while you are
>so concerned about Dale's reputation, perhaps you could let us know what 
>you
>think about Wilson's public claims that I'm pretty much mentally ill, with
>identifiable disorders, and have nothing but evil motives for doing what I
>am doing.
>
>
>
>thanks,
>
>Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>Sorry Skippy, but I asked you first. Just exactly what is on Mr. Courtney's
>site that rises to the level of libel? (not slander) Specifically, what
>statements did I repeat that were "false, malicious, and damaging to your
>reputation?" Talk about "unsupported." Rather then coming back with yet
>another recitation of how wonderful and nationally important you are,
>perhaps you could simply respond to the question. As to my pointing out an
>example of your error and inconsistency, lets take the all to easy example 
>I
>alluded to in my last post. To threaten to go to a persons place of 
>business
>and do them harm, all because you don't agree with their opinions is an
>error. You admitted this yourself on this forum on 05/21/06 at 17:48.  To
>write newspaper editorials lecturing about tolerance a scant few weeks 
>prior
>is quite inconsistent. For someone to point this out is hardly "slander."
>
>Public service seems far more accurate.
>
>
>
>G. Crabtree
>
>
>
>P.S. I notice this is the second time you have fallen back on J. Ford to
>make your argument's for you. This seems very much like Emeril's Delmonico
>using Chef Boyardee to implement it's menu. Then again, I guess the 
>ultimate
>result does remain the same.
>
>
>
>gc
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
>
>To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
>
>Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Daniel Foucachon" <daniel at lyonministries.com>
>
>Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:45 PM
>
>Subject: Still more slander from Crabtree
>
>
>
>
>
>My desktop dictionary defines 'slander' as a false or malicious statement
>
>that damages somebody's reputation.
>
>
>
>I make my living as a teacher of logic, as a writer of philosophy, and as 
>an
>
>
>editor for MIT Press. Below you claim that Courtney "points out some of 
>[my]
>
>
>error and inconsistency." I hate to tell you Crabtree but these statements,
>
>made by Courtney first and then repeated by you, are false, malicious, and
>
>damaging to my reputation. And if you think otherwise, then point out the
>
>error and inconsistency to which you refer.
>
>
>
>Prior to writing Courtney I was contacted by a philosopher in California 
>who
>
>
>happened to google my name and have Courney's website come up. I have a
>
>national reputation, Crabtree, and the unsupported accusations, on public
>
>websites, from Courtney and now you are not doing it any good.
>
>
>
>Similar comments can be made about your remarks toward Stout but since I
>
>don't want to repeat them in an effort to make my case -- and since J has
>
>done a fine job responding to you anyway -- I'll let it go.
>
>
>
>I just wish you would put people before politics and stop making 
>unsupported
>
>
>negative claims about individuals just because you happen to disagree with
>
>them. Call me an optimist!
>
>
>
>--
>
>Joe Campbell
>
>
>
>---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>=============
>
>I believe that I have read just about everything on Mr. Courtney's site 
>that
>
>mentions Joe Campbell and I don't recall seeing anything that rises to the
>
>level of oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's
>
>reputation. Would you care to point out exactly what Dale has posted that
>
>would cause you to make such an allegation? Or are you simply upset because
>
>he points out some of your error and inconsistency. Being embarrassed is
>
>quite a different thing from being slandered.
>
>
>
>gc
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
>
>To: "Daniel Foucachon" <daniel at lyonministries.com>
>
>Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>
>Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:11 AM
>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] My Pictures
>
>
>
>
>
> > Daniel,
>
> >
>
> > You don't mind that your pictures are on Dale's website. Dale's website
>
> > slanders me. The implication is that you don't respect me, which is
>
> > strange since we've never even met!
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Joe Campbell
>
> >
>
> > ---- Daniel Foucachon <daniel at lyonministries.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > =============
>
> > I want to clarify something. I don't mind people using my pictures. I 
>like
>
> > seeing them used, and am blessed when others are blessed by them. If
>
> > someone
>
> > wanted to use one of my pictures on a "The Beautiful Palouse" site, I
>
> > would
>
> > be more than glad for them to use it, though I would appreciate if they
>
> > asked first.
>
> >
>
> > But I don't want my pictures used on sites that slander places or people
>
> > that I respect.
>
> >
>
> > =====================================================
>
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
>
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>
> >               http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
>
> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> > ====================================================
>
>
>
>
>

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

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/