[Vision2020] “5 erroneous assertions” allegedly made by Joe, according to Darrell

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Mon Dec 6 05:42:31 PST 2010 

Could you look at the letters and timing because this explanation isn't
making a lot of sense.

On November 30th I wrote a letter that started with these words:

"In all honesty I'm having some trouble understanding your point, Darrell."

In that letter I asked the rhetorical questions that we're talking about now
and we continued back and forth culminating in the letter about the "5
erroneous assumptions, which was sent right after midnight Dec 1,
essentially latter the SAME day.

In that letter, the "blizzard" letter, you indeed asked me to clarify
things, and made some more criticisms (which I discussed yesterday), and
said a few things damning to my character (tomorrow), and made a few
"connotations" of your own, like the suggestion that I've some how been in
violation of vision 2020 rules (later this week). But we were eventually
chased off the V THAT SAME DAY and you decided that you weren't going to
talk about the issue any further. So it isn't clear exactly when it was that
you expected me to respond to your questions. You made them Dec 1 and
decided Dec 1 you'd had enough.

Further, as we will see, you made a LOT of accusations, none of which you
have yet to back up. I'm still responding to the "blizzard" and will do so
for the next few weeks (day 4 of 20). So you'll get plenty of clarification!

On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:21 PM, Darrell Keim <
<keim153 at gmail.com><keim153 at gmail.com>
keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:

I sense some further explanation of connotative value might be of interest
to you.  At the least, it may help you understand why I came on strong.  So
I'm going to answer the questions below.  This is not to further the debate,
rather to help explain how we got to where we ended up.

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Joe Campbell <
<philosopher.joe at gmail.com><philosopher.joe at gmail.com><philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

> What is wrong with just reading this in the direct way that it was
> intended?
>
Thats not how communication works, Joe.  Bear with me for a minute while I
explain.  I studied communication, have researched, and even lectured on
this.  I'll be as brief as possible.  Every communication is interpreted in
two ways: connotative and denotative (dictionary or literal meaning).  All
human beings do this.  Most of the time people place a very strong--often
higher than the denotative--emphasis on the connotative meaning they
discern.  To determine the connotative meaning they look at the overall tone
of the communication.  When speaking in person the cues looked at include
vocal tone, body language, etc.  Other types of communication have
comparatively fewer cues, thus increasing the possibility of
miscommunication.  In the case of your note I had little to go with, knowing
little about you.  I had to look at the tone of previous communications
received, and especially at the general tone of the note they were placed
in.  You seemed deadly serious and literal, so I took it that way.  That is
why I am quite willing to believe you when you say you did not intend an
implication.

Are you saying the threatening remarks WOULD NOT interest you were they made
> toward Christians? This is a provocative question. There is the implicature
> (not really implication since it doesn't logically follow) that you WOULD be
> interested were the threatening remarks made toward Christians, say from a
> local Muslim school. Are you offended by that?
>
I am saying that a threat towards or by any religion is of interest to me.
 Especially from a local group.  I despise religious intolerance of any
kind.

>
> And why would it be insulting to you that I think you are a Christian,
> which is true, as you said?
>
It isn't.  I found the implication to be silly because at that time you had
no way of knowing if I was Christian.  I was insulted by numbers 1, 2 and
especially 3.  In my offline life these are things that are quite untrue.
 In some cases, the opposite is true.


> Your interpretation is a reasonable interpretation, though it is not what I
> meant, but even if it were what I meant it was still not an ERRONEOUS
> ASSERTION. For (a) it was not ASSERTED (not what I said) but at most
> implicated (what I meant) and (b) it was not erroneous, since it is in fact
> true. (I'm not yelling; I'm just emphasizing the key words.)
>
I think that we may have the heart of the matter here.  This is why I
repeatedly asked you to clarify those 5 points.  Had you clarified, I
probably would have told myself that you were offering an equally REASONABLE
INTERPRETATION.and moved on to other points.  As it was, in leaving those
points repeatedly unanswered I was left to think that you weren't answering
them for a reason--that you knew you couldn't defend them.  Since I found
them offensive, I found this agitating.

>
> Best, Joe
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Darrell Keim < <keim153 at gmail.com><keim153 at gmail.com><keim153 at gmail.com>
> keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, Joe, I am not calling you a liar.  I am pointing out that due to the
>> connotative value of words, people can have reasonable interpretations that
>> differ.  For instance:
>>
>>  “Again, I'm certain it would interest you if the threatening
>>> remarks were made toward Christians.
>>
>> From this, and the overall tone of the paragraph it was in, a reasonable
>> interpretation could be that I am a Christian.  Why else would I find an
>> issue around Christianity more or less compelling than Islam or Mormonism?
>>  You obviously have a valid and reasonable difference in opinion regarding
>> how this was meant to be read.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Joe Campbell <<philosopher.joe at gmail.com><philosopher.joe at gmail.com><philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm telling you I did not make the implication. Are you trying to tell me
>>> what I meant? Are you saying I am lying? And this is a genuine question.
>>>
>>> You read something into it. Likely your impression of me is similar to
>>> your impression of the V, based on past experience or comments from your
>>> conservative friends. Something for which you have not provided any recent
>>> evidence so far. Not sure what the duck reference means. How did I walk like
>>> a duck? Be specific.
>>>
>>> My tone has not really changed in the last week. In the earlier posts I
>>> might have been trying to be funny, and I was certainly provocative. And of
>>> course, I might sound a little offended since you did in fact offend me. But
>>> more on that tomorrow!
>>>
>>> Best, Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 5, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Darrell Keim < <keim153 at gmail.com><keim153 at gmail.com><keim153 at gmail.com>
>>> keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> con·no·ta·tion  (kn-tshn)
>>> *n.*
>>> *1. *The act or process of connoting.
>>> *2.*
>>> *a. *An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or
>>> thing: Hollywood holds connotations of romance and glittering success.
>>> *b. *The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its
>>> literal meaning.
>>> *3. **Logic* The set of attributes constituting the meaning of a term;
>>> intension.
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *conno·tative** adj.*
>>> *conno·tative·ly** adv.*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *I draw your attention to #2b and #3.*
>>> *Or, in laymans terms:  If it walks and talks like a duck, it probably
>>> is.*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Again, I congratulate you on the tone and level of analysis.*
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Joe Campbell <<philosopher.joe at gmail.com><philosopher.joe at gmail.com><philosopher.joe at gmail.com><philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>> philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was going to talk about whether or not Darrell had put me in a “bad
>>>> light,” since he claimed to Keely that he did not. But it doesn’t seem
>>>> fair for me to keep criticizing Darrell without first responding to
>>>> some of his concerns.
>>>>
>>>> Darrell claimed that I made “at least 5 erroneous assertions” about
>>>> him. Here are the quotes where he notes the 5 “erroneous assertions”.
>>>>
>>>> Nov 28 16:42:16: “I do find it interesting how you feel free to make
>>>> accusations about me but are unwilling/able to back them up when
>>>> pressed (Too summarize for our viewership you have made four
>>>> unproven/untrue accusations about me: 1. I am unconcerned about these
>>>> local churches. 2. I have criticized people that are. 3. I am only
>>>> concerned about threatening remarks made about Christians. 4. I am a
>>>> Christian-I'll concede this point, I'm a Protestant.). That's a lot of
>>>> unwarranted assumptions you make about me.”
>>>>
>>>> Dec 1 00:17:15 “Too recap: I initially complained about how often
>>>> things, such as the church list Tom posted, get linked back to CC.
>>>> When you pressed in a later note I elaborated that unless we had new
>>>> info or something changed, it seems like most of the key players
>>>> already know where they stand. Thus, my belief that further discussion
>>>> doesn't seem to be of benefit. That was the point where you made at
>>>> least 5 erroneous assertions about me. Assertions which were downright
>>>> silly, considering how little you know about me. Assertions, which
>>>> I'll remind you, you never deigned to address. Even after I was kind
>>>> enough to enumerate them for you, and request clarification.”
>>>>
>>>> To summarize, the “5 erroneous assertions” Darrell claims I made are:
>>>> 1. Darrell is unconcerned about local churches like Christ Church and
>>>> Freeze Church.
>>>> 2. Darrell has criticized people that are concerned with these churches.
>>>> 3. Darrell is only concerned about threatening remarks made about
>>>> Christians.
>>>> 4. Darrell is a Christian.
>>>> 5. Darrell won’t let folks on the V talk about CC.
>>>>
>>>> In some cases (1, 3, 4) I did not make such assertions. In other
>>>> cases, though I did make assertions (2, 5) those claims were true and
>>>> supported by arguments and evidence. Certainly by this point they’ve
>>>> been supported by evidence.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, I never said Darrell was unconcerned about CC or FC. I
>>>> said: “I can understand why you might not want to speak out” (Nov 28
>>>> 13:47:58) and “if you don't want to talk about it, fine. Don’t.” (Nov
>>>> 28 16:06:59)
>>>>
>>>> Nor did I ever assert that Darrell was a Christian, as in point (4). I
>>>> said “Again, I'm certain it would interest you if the threatening
>>>> remarks were made toward Christians. I would think you'd find it to be
>>>> a good subject for public discussion.” (Nov 28 16:06:59) I also asked
>>>> some rhetorical questions: “Or is it just that they don't say things
>>>> about your religion? As long as they berate the [Mormons] and the
>>>> Muslims it is OK?” (Nov 28 13:47:58) It doesn’t say anywhere in any of
>>>> my posts that I think Darrell is a Christian, though I’m not surprised
>>>> that he is! At most, one can assume that I didn’t think he was a
>>>> Mormon or a Muslim. Again, the examples so far are cases where Darrell
>>>> was reading things into my comments that I never actually asserted.
>>>>
>>>> Point (5) is either incorrect or confused. My complaint to Darrell
>>>> isn’t that he won’t let me talk about CC, it is that he puts forth a
>>>> set of criteria that he seems to think I and others should follow. But
>>>> I don’t really give a rip that he’d prefer if I only talked about CC
>>>> on the V under certain conditions – if there is new info (which I
>>>> argued that there was), or if something changed about CC’s beliefs, or
>>>> if the discussion benefited him or someone else (Dec 1 00:17:15).
>>>>
>>>> I don’t think it is appropriate for someone to tell someone else how
>>>> to exercise their free speech rights, any more than it is appropriate
>>>> to tell someone how to exercise their freedom of religion. I will
>>>> respond the same either way: mind your own business. I have never, nor
>>>> would I ever, tell Darrell what he should or shouldn’t say, especially
>>>> when it came to something about which he felt passionate. I might
>>>> disagree with him but I’d just let him go.
>>>>
>>>> As for claim (2), Darrell’s criticisms of folks on the V who comment
>>>> about CC and NSA, I’ll just post some of the comments I posted
>>>> yesterday in its support. They sound like criticisms to me. Again,
>>>> Darrell might still think they are correct, even though they have yet
>>>> to be supported, but that doesn’t mean that they are not CRITICISMS.
>>>> They are pretty clearly criticisms and not just of me but of the V in
>>>> general.
>>>>
>>>> “And, to clarify my position I did not complain about NSA criticism on
>>>> V2020. I complained about the amount of NSA criticism on v2020.  Too
>>>> recap: I initially complained about how often things, such as the
>>>> church list Tom posted, get linked back to CC.  When you pressed in a
>>>> later note I elaborated that unless we had new info or something
>>>> changed, it seems like most of the key players already know where they
>>>> stand.  Thus, my belief that further discussion doesn’t seem to be of
>>>> benefit.” (Dec 1 00:17:15)
>>>>
>>>> “I have no problem with NSA criticism, or praise for that matter, on
>>>> V2020. I just wish the topic didn’t have to come up with such
>>>> frequency.” (Dec 1 00:17:15)
>>>>
>>>> “Do they [Christ Church and NSA] constantly post on Vision 2020 about
>>>> the same thing over and over and over and over and over... ad
>>>> infinitum?  No, in fact they were pretty much run-off v2020 by folks
>>>> that found them offensive (which would seem to violate points 1 AND 2
>>>> of our Mission Statement).” (Dec 1 00:17:15)
>>>>
>>>> “None of those topics, or any other, get near the coverage on V2020
>>>> that Christ Church does.  Too make an analogy: V2020 is like a
>>>> household water spigot for most topics.  It is a fire hose for Christ
>>>> Church topics.  I’d simply like to see the fire hose turned down.”
>>>> (Dec 1 18:11:24)
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>               <http://www.fsr.net> <http://www.fsr.net><http://www.fsr.net><http://www.fsr.net>
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>          mailto: <Vision2020 at moscow.com> <Vision2020 at moscow.com><Vision2020 at moscow.com><Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>> Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               <http://www.fsr.net> <http://www.fsr.net><http://www.fsr.net>
> http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto: <Vision2020 at moscow.com> <Vision2020 at moscow.com><Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101206/1146ebf2/attachment-0001.html

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list