FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-17-2001, 12:23 PM   #51
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[quote]
Regarding Holding's usage of the Psuedonymn. Holding actually worked within a prison system and didn't want his name broadcasted all over the internet so that prisoners (upon release) could possibly track him down.
[quote]

Yes, I'm aware of his reason; I've read it before. The rationale does not hold, however.

As I indicated, I have personal experience in this. My father was both a deputy sheriff for several years, and then went on to become a prison guard in the Virginia corrections system. He didn't have to go by a pseudonym, nor did he move our family around, or have to hide from ex-cons. Turkel's story simply doesn't wash.

Additionally, I have several friends who work in the correctional system now and are strong Christians (i.e., they don't shy away from letting the inmates know it). I don't agree with their beliefs, but I admire the fact that they don't shrink from confessing them, even when they might be ridiculed for it.

The threat that Turkel postulates is simply not there. Perhaps he simply doesn't want to be known as a Christian inside the prison system, because he doesn't want the persecution and ridicule. Whatever his real reason is, the *stated* reason is hogwash.


[quote]
So he used the name "James Patrick Holding". Was he being dishonest? Not really, he used his real name in his e-mails when communicating personally with people.
[quote]


He was being dishonest in the stated reason why he used a pseudonym at all. As for using his real name? No, he did not. At least, not with various members of this forum, who communicated with him in private.


[quote]
Is that unreasonable of a request? He doesn't even go by the name "Turkel" on his website, so why was it important to vomit it up all over the secular web where anyone can find his name and track him down?
[quote]

And what would an ex-con do, if he did track it down? What use would it be knowing that Turkel has a pseudonym that he only uses on his apologetics webpage? How would knowing Turkel's bogus name help the ex-con out, in any way? You didn't think this through very carefully.

If Turkel's worked in the prison system, then he worked there under his REAL name, not his bogus pseudonym. So the convicts in prison would already know him by his REAL name: Prison Librarian Robert Turkel. Therefore, any ex-con who wants to hunt him down after being released from prison will go to the phonebook (or whatever) and look him up under the name "Robert Turkel".


[quote]
Is it okay to put people in danger simply because you don't like them?
[quote]

There is no danger here; only Turkel's pretentiousness at work.


[quote]
And the rediculous Excuse that I read all the time was "Well, he put his real name in his e-mail, so I don't see what the big deal is"---the difference is, you can't find personal e-mail conversations by using a search engine.
[quote]


Then you're clearly unfamiliar with how to use a search engine.

 
Old 02-17-2001, 12:42 PM   #52
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Angry

Double post

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited February 17, 2001).]
 
Old 02-17-2001, 12:46 PM   #53
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I am going to make one very quick comment on this argument over the need for personal security and protection of those in the law enforcement and correctional systems.

I live in Canada, and perhaps the rules here are different than those in the United States, but the rationale holds true for both countries I believe.

I sell database management software, including software that is used to track and trace the physical address moves of every adult in the country. Within this database, it is legally mandated that the names of all police officers and corrections officers MUST be removed from the software. If this were not done, then the legal implications would be enormous.

Further, there was a recent scandal here in Calgary where it was learned that a listing of police officers' addresses had been obtained by a marketing agency. While the intention was simply to market to these officers, the scandal was understandably enormous.

Personally, I am outraged that people could be so cavalier about the request of an individual for anonymity. I find it especially ironic that these same individuals that do this hide behind their own pseudonym. Clearly anyone that wants to find Holding now will be able to do so, but to continue to broadcast his name for all to see who have a computer is a breach of this man's right to claim some privacy.

There should be more circumspection and respect out there for the rights of this human being.

Nomad



[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited February 17, 2001).]
 
Old 02-17-2001, 12:56 PM   #54
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[quote]
Are you aware that Holding already adressed these accusations?
[quote]


However, none of his responses actually address my point, Magnus. It is simply UNACCEPTABLE to edit, cut out, or refuse to link to your opponent's argument. It doesn't matter what the reasoning is, or what the motives were, or anything else. IT IS UNACCEPTABLE, and no amount of lengthy excuses by Turkel will change that.

Sincere intellectual discourse depends upon integrity and honesty by the debaters involved.
Till *always* provides a link to Turkel's work, from inside the body of text in his own responses. That way, no one can ever say that Till edited a response, or re-worded the text, etc., because they can look up the original argument immediately, and see for themselves. This also means that Till has to be extra careful, becuase he knows that he can't tell a fib and get away with it, so there is no point in trying.

When Turkel says things like

"I provided a select few phrases", or

"The rest of the paragraph is informational and completely unnecessary for rebuttal purposes",

"Here I had omitted a substantial portion of what Till had said for the simple reason that it is totally irrelevant"

he is admitting that he was selectively feeding his readers only the parts he wanted them to see. He is channeling the information for them, in such a manner that he is able to steer them to the conclusions he wants them to have.

Turkel *says* he provided the entire text of Till's work; but how does the reader know that? They can't - becuse Turkel does not provide the link to Till's original argument, to let the reader check it for themself. Farrell Till always does this, to demonstrate the intellectual integrity and standards of debate necessary.

Turkel simply fails to return the courtesy. And the attempt to justify that failure by long-winded lame excuses is contemptible.


[quote]
My Gosh! Such dishonesty!
[quote]

That's correct. Such information should be public, not private. And if both sides link to the other side's argument, that provides a safety check for the debate. Nobody can engage in editing, or cheating, without being immediately caught. And, for the audience, it provides them with the full text of the debate, so that independent readers can make up their own minds who they think "won" a particular point.

Unfortunately, Turkel doesn't want to do that.

[quote]
Just Scroll down to "Missed Material"
[quote]

I did. But again, you are missing the point. There is only ONE HONEST WAY TO DO THIS: provide a link to your opponent's ENTIRE argument. Instead of doing so, Turkel launches into a discussion / explanation of several paragraphs, trying to justify his lack of honesty here.

Instead of the lengthy explanation, why not just do the honest thing in the first place? What is so hard about that?

Simple, point-blank questions like this, for which Turkel has no answer, that demonstrate his real motives: he does not want a full, public debate where his readership can see the full text of the opponent's argument.

 
Old 02-17-2001, 01:01 PM   #55
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[quote]
Hmm, a Prison librarian whose had to break up fights, had to testify against people in order to lengthen their sentence, etc. etc.
[quote]

Except that Turkel works in the prison system under his real name, not his pseudonym. So if they have a grudge against him, his goose is cooked anyhow. The convicts ALREADY KNOW his real name, and would use that same REAL name as a starting point to hunt him down.

[quote]
Don't you think that Holding knows about his situation better than you do? Or is it somehow fair and honest now to tell someone about the precautions that they should take based on _your_ experiance?
[quote]

My experience gives my credibility. When I add that to the fact that his stated reason has huge holes in it, the conclusion is that he is being dishonest.

[quote]
Is Holding hiding his real name because he's ashamed of preaching the Gospel? Has he indicated that is the reason? Or does it have to do with his experiances with prison inmates?
[quote]

By using a pseudonym, Turkel can deny the things that the website is saying. When confronted about it, he can say "What? That Holding guy? That's not me; never heard of him." Why would that be useful, except to deny his involvement in apologetics?

And since the inmates already know who he is, what use could they make of knowing that he runs a website under a different name? The only way that could be useful is if they wanted to ridicule his faith. Hence, my conclusion about his motives.

 
Old 02-17-2001, 01:09 PM   #56
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Oh, and Magnus - one more thing. Why do you think that Turkel hasn't accepted this challenge?

I mean, if he has no problem with the full arguments of BOTH debaters being seen by the audience, then surely he has no objection to Farrell Till's challenge.

Right?

**************
So I am presenting another challenge to Turkel, and that challenge is that he and I debate the Jehu matter on internet sites like Errancy or alt.bible.errancy, which has a format that will allow readers to see everything that he posts and everything that I post. (I would expect the Christian side to provide a site too so that the debate will be seen by more than just primarily a skeptical audience.) We could agree on a point-by-point format, which would limit both of us to the posting of a single point or argument (with proper supporting details, of course) and the opponent's reply to that point.
*************

 
Old 02-17-2001, 01:24 PM   #57
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[quote]
I sell database management software, including software that is used to track and trace the physical address moves of every adult in the country. Within this database, it is legally mandated that the names of all police officers and corrections officers MUST be removed from the software. If this were not done, then the legal implications would be enormous.
[quote]

I'm at a loss to see how any of your story is relevant here. And like Magnus, you also did not think this through very carefully.

As I indicated, Turkel is already using his real name on the job. A *pseudonym* would be really bad starting point, if you wanted to track someone's address down. Why not start with the person's REAL name, which you already know?

[quote]
Personally, I am outraged that people could be so cavalier about the request of an individual for anonymity.
[quote]

It was not a request for anonymity. It is a pretentious affectation, or a desire to avoid being ridiculed for his beliefs.

And we are under no obligation to enable or coddle him in his pretentiousness or desire to avoid ridicule. Sheesh.


[quote]
I find it especially ironic that these same individuals that do this hide behind their own pseudonym.
[quote]


You're confused again, Nomad.

(1) I said nothing about pseudonyms being wrong or inherently a bad thing;
(2) "Omnedon1" is not a pseudonym anyhow; it's just a screen name for this BBS system.

What I SAID was: Turkel's *given reason for using a pseudonym* was dishonest.

[quote]
Clearly anyone that wants to find Holding now will be able to do so,
[quote]

They were able to do so long before this.


[quote]
There should be more circumspection and respect out there for the rights of this human being.
[quote]


He is not in danger, as the flaws in his stated reason demonstrate. If he really were in danger, then he should have a legal name change and operate under that name during his employment at the prison.

There is a difference between (1) giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and (2) being suckered by a con artist. Turkel's use of a pseudonym falls into the 2nd category.


 
Old 02-17-2001, 05:40 PM   #58
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Well, I guess it should not come as a surprise that in your arrogance, you should COMPLETELY miss the point of my thread Omnedon.

OF COURSE police officers and prison officials (as well as judges, lawyers, prosecuters, ect.) work under their real names. That is a given, and an important part of our democratic and legal system.

At the same time, these individuals do receive special consideration in PUBLIC forums, as well as in protecting their identities and addresses when not on the job. The internet is obviously such a place. Holding chose, at the beginning of his internet apologetics career to work under a pseudonym. He has given his reasons for doing this, and quite frankly, if anyone on the internet wishes to work anonymously, I don't see what the problem would be with this. You have done this, so have I. Lots of people have. So the obsession with publishing a persons name without their permission strikes me as at the very least disrespectful.

Obviously, many will not dissist in such boorish behaviour, and it's a free country, so no one can stop them. But boorishness is still inexcusable in my view, and the fact that you think he should for some reason respect your request for some kind of a debate boarders on the laughable.

Let me make this simple... Who the hell are you?

Holding deals with Till, Lowder, Carrier, and other "bigger game" from the sceptics side. Why he should regard you or any other sceptical blowhard with more than quiet bemusement is probably something that completely escapes you.

And as for debating a subject, what tickles your fancy Omnedon? There are more than a few apologists on this site alone that would be more than happy to oblige your request if you are willing to speak with us little people.

Nomad
 
Old 02-17-2001, 06:54 PM   #59
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[quote]
Well, I guess it should not come as a surprise that in your arrogance, you should COMPLETELY miss the point of my thread Omnedon.
[quote]

You're confused again. You've mistaken my disagreeing with your point for not getting said point. I got your point alright, Nomad. It's just invalid. You think that Turkel's phony reason for the pseudonym should be tolerated. I don't.

As for arrogance, Nomad, that ringing you hear is the clue phone for you. I've been watching and lurking here for awhile. In almost every exchange where I've seen you post, you've been arrogant, abusive and quite condescending. I read numerous exchange with penatis where you exhibited all these characteristics. So you calling me arrogant?

Let me see now.........I know I can find it somewhere..........how does it go?

MAT 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
MAT 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
MAT 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


[quote]
At the same time, these individuals do receive special consideration in PUBLIC forums, as well as in protecting their identities and addresses when not on the job. The internet is obviously such a place.
[quote]

What in the world are you talking about? You're going to have to come up with some examples here. As I said: I have personal, family experience about this and NONE of what you're saying makes a word of sense.

Turkel's identity is already known to the individuals he (allegedly) fears would get ahold of it. Your objection is noted, and refuted.


[quote]
Holding chose, at the beginning of his internet apologetics career to work under a pseudonym. He has given his reasons for doing this, and quite frankly, if anyone on the internet wishes to work anonymously, I don't see what the problem would be with this. You have done this, so have I. Lots of people have. So the obsession with publishing a persons name without their permission strikes me as at the very least disrespectful.
[quote]

In your headlong rush to defend a fellow believer, you dodge the point. Fortunately, I am going to bring you back to it.

Turkel's name is already well-known to every convict he works with. Therefore, he is already at maximum exposure for any vengeful convict. Assuming, of course, that convicts routinely hunt down librarians; perhaps they resent overdue book fines.

Perhaps the pseudonym is an affectation; heaven knows Turkel is full of himself. Or, perhaps he doesn't want to be ridiculed in the prison system for his faith; that would not do him credit, either. OR, perhaps he's doing his apologetics work during work hours, when he should not be. I don't know what the real reason is. HOWEVER, what I do know is that his purported reason is absolutely bogus.

If you're on a missionary kick, Nomad, perhaps you should contact Turkel yourself, and remind him that lying is a sin, and that such things usually catch up to a person.


[quote]
Obviously, many will not dissist in such boorish behaviour, and it's a free country, so no one can stop them. But boorishness is still inexcusable in my view, and the fact that you think he should for some reason respect your request for some kind of a debate boarders on the laughable.
[quote]

1. In the first place, it is not my request. It is Farrell Till's. Try to read more carefully, Nomad.

2. In the second place, check your motives. If you were more interested in finding out the truth, and less interested in standing up for a fellow xtian in the wrong, you might bother to do some research. Had you done so, you would have discovered what I did: that Turkel's identity and connection to Tekton have been public knowledge for years. Here; let me help:
http://search.altavista.com/cgi-bin/...q&Translate=on

Finally, I find it interesting how you overlook dishonesty in a fellow believer, and focus on (what you think is) boorishness in a skeptic. You'll excuse me if I don't place much weight on your double standard.


[quote]
Let me make this simple...
[quote]

Oh, please do make it simple. You see, we're not all as bright as you are, Nomad.


[quote]
Who the hell are you?
[quote]

<chuckle> Who do I need to be?


[quote]
Holding deals with Till, Lowder, Carrier, and other "bigger game" from the sceptics side. Why he should regard you or any other sceptical blowhard with more than quiet bemusement is probably something that completely escapes you.
[quote]

Ah. More of your trademark arrogance, I see. WWJD, Nomad? The same as you? Somehow I doubt that. But perhaps you don't follow Jesus. Very closely, anyhow.

As to your assertion, Turkel "deals" with few if any of their arguments. I've been reading Turkel, the Jury work, and the Infidels for four years now. Turkel is 2nd-rate at best, and is notable only for his ability to post truly enormous volumes of text. Tha text is, unfortunately, wearisome as it contain numerous ad hominems and other 'clever' items that only detract from the text itself.

[quote]
And as for debating a subject, what tickles your fancy Omnedon? There are more than a few apologists on this site alone that would be more than happy to oblige your request if you are willing to speak with us little people.
[quote]

For the nonce, I am reading, learning and watching. (Watching what? Mostly how rude you can be to other contributors like penatis).

 
Old 02-19-2001, 11:44 AM   #60
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile

Hello again, everyone.

Sorry I haven't been on in a while. Anyway, I just wanted to let you all know that I'm taking a break from debating the skeptics on this message board for a while. I guess I'm just losing interest for the time being. (Plus, this particular thread doesn't appear to be going anywhere.)

Meanwhile, if you all want to still debate Turkel/Holding's sincerity, I think Magnus and Nomad are already doing an adequate job in my place.

In any event, if any of you want to ask/speak to me further on this topic, e-mail me at rew4gzus96@juno.com--because if you post it on here, I'm likely to never see it. E-mail me, and we can continue discussion, however. (I do this to eliminate any rumors of me cowardly running away from the message board. )

Omnedon1 (sp?), you made a good point about Turkel not linking (most of the time) to his opponent's pages for a full argument. I personally have been to Till's and others' pages dealing with Turkel, so I'm not one of those fans of his who's completely one-sided. But I do plan on asking Turkel why he doesn't link to his opponents' pages.

Thank you one and all, and I shall see you another day.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Rew
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:39 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.