Toto

I have seen a lot of scholarly debates that degenerated to the level of "your mother wears army boots." These are not particularly productive. Somehow the truth does tend to come out eventually, but that sort of debate is more performance art (or "witnessing" as you Christians put it) than search for truth.

I do not recall Doherty being anything other than courteous on the list. I don't know why you think it is "needless to say." It looks to me like you are demonizing your opponent - you assume that a non-Christian must also be impolite.

I recall Doherty's challenge to Ed Tyler as based on whether he was within the parameters of the list, not on the technical matter of his translation of the Koine Greek. But I wasn't following things that closely then.

Debates between people who do not share enough common assumptions are not productive. Your debate with Doherty didn't work because the two of you did not agree on an approach to the question, or what would constitute evidence. The typical debates between scientists and creationists, or between Willaim Laine Craig and a selected atheist, are performances, but not necessarily where you go to clarify your own ideas, or the best way of deciding anything.

And I assume that the JM list was not intended to be a "debate", with the contentiousness that implies. It is a discussion, and Peter Kirby, for instance, has made some productive use of it, bouncing ideas off people.

Godfry may have more to say on this.

Vorkosigan

I'm afraid that you are mistaken Michael. I would be more than happy to debate on those boards if I knew that my views were welcome, and would not be censored or deleted only because Earl Doherty or some moderator thought that they were offensive in some manner. Interesting, Tyler has since informed me that another moderator was driven off of the boards there for failing to show proper respect to Earl and Co.

I am not mistaken. Currently there are people who post there who think the mythicist position is hokum (Kilmon, who lurks most of the time, is one, and I think Neil Godfrey is another). You would be welcome there -- hell, they welcome me there, and I know less than anyone in that group -- if you remained with the bounds of courtesy and were willing to bounce ideas off people and discuss. It is not a debate forum per se, but a discussion forum. It's more a question of the personality you've adopted as your Net persona, and whether you could stay cool.

That said, since that discussion group challenges your core beliefs in a particularly strong way, I doubt you could stay on there long without dropping a nasty line, any more than I could stay on a Christian board without occasionally pointing out how silly Virgin Births are. In any case, I don't know what you would get out of being there.

However, all that aside, they would welcome you, and Doherty has not, AFAIK, extended a dictatorial hand over that little universe. His last post was in mid-July, and he had a whole two that month. The ListOwner is Peter Kirby, I believe, and Peter is very far from a dictator, although he may be very close to a demigod.

Michael

Brian Trafford

Ed has asked me to post the following on his behalf, and I have agreed to do so. I will add that Peter Kirby is not the List Owner, although he does participate from time to time. As for the possibility of a serious discussion taking place on the JM Boards, given the history of the boards, and the means used to silence Doherty's opponents, I do not see the point. I will continue to address and answer questions from those that wish to advance his views, or to defend them, but as I said back in April/May, I have no interest in doing so on a protected forum where the free exchange of ideas is not welcome. Interestingly, it has been the Secular Web that has offered the best available forum for such debates and discussions, and for that I commend them, and I am grateful.

Now for Ed's letter. Those interested in emailing him directly can obtain it from the JM site itself, or email me and I will ask his permission to give it out.

Brian Trafford (Nomad)

Vorkosigan

Thanks for clearing up the matter of your exaggerations, Nomad. I trust you will now apologize for claiming the moderator was "driven" from the list?

Also, I didn't see anything in Ed's letter you posted here, or his correspondence with me, that says Earl gave orders to the effect that Tyler was to be silenced. In fact his post is clear: it is the moderators who are making this decision (that is also his statement in the exchange he has had with me on this issue). I assume we'll get a retraction and apology for that statement too.

On the other hand, since it is you we are dealing with, I sort of doubt it....

Michael

Nomad

Hmm... is it "technically true" that Ed was not driven from the list by Doherty? Yes. So I will withdraw that statement and apologize.

Now, did Ed ask that all of his posts be deleted? No. Godfry simply lied to us here. Will she now apologize for her statement as well?

Further, do the moderators insure that Doherty is treated in a special manner on the boards, and that attacks on his positions are limited and restricted? Again the answer is yes. As I have said before, this is their right. My hope is that they will no longer pretend that the forum exists for the open and honest discussion of his theories.

As Ed noted, he is banned, and cannot view the archives. He also did not know that Doherty's posts to this effect were deleted, but it does not surprise him. The threat was simple, either Ed left, or Doherty would. The moderators made their choice.

Clearly some people think that discussions in a censored and protected forum are worth having. Such is their right as well. But do not try to kid us into believing that anyone can post what they want, so long as they remain courteous and avoid preaching. Such is simply not the case.

Nomad

Ed Tyler

Greetings, Michael,

I appreciate your wish to settle this issue and would like to thank you publicly for contacting me privately for comfirmation. There is just one more point that I think ought to be cleared up:

In fact, I was placed on moderation in direct response -- or perhaps I should say obedience -- to an ultimatum by Earl Doherty to the effect that he would leave the list if I continued to post responses to his messages. Doherty's post was headed "Repeating Myself;" I of course have no idea whether it is still available for perusal, but anyone who was on the list at the time will no doubt recall it because it was egregiously petulant even by Earl's standards. Almost immediately after Doherty posted his ultimatum, I received notification from the list owner that I had been put on moderation to prevent my response to him, and she acknowledged that it was because she did not want to lose Doherty.

So while it is true that I left the list of my own volition under these circumstances, and the the actions of the list owner were entirely and unequivocally in accordance with her Yahoo contract, it is also true that I was silenced, censored, muzzled or whatever you wish to call it by the list owner because Earl Doherty demanded it. The silencing would have been effective whether I remained on the list or not. On that account Brian owes no one an apology. He's right.

I trust this resolves any unanswered questions and that we can now put this rather smelly matter behind us and get on with more important things.

best,

Ed Tyler

[ August 21, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Tyler ]

[ August 21, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Tyler ]

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Ed.

[apology to Nomad retracted. I should have known better.]

Michael

[ August 22, 2001: Message edited by: turtonm ]

Vorkosigan

I have been asked to post this:
___________________________________________
Ed, you as a long-time moderator at JesusMysteries and Earl as a participant knew full well our policy against personally
attacking other members and this is what the whole ordeal was about. And now you're presenting yourself as the victim.

You were a moderator for 6 months and you know that Earl never made decisions regarding the moderation of the
list. We did this. We always discussed things among us and made our own
decisions.

You also know that I/we didn't want to lose either you or Earl from the list. I was placed in the position of having to choose
between you and Earl and I could not do this. When you unsubscribed that settled
the matter.

It certainly is true that I didn't want your posts deleted. After you unsubscribed you wrote and insisted that I delete all
of them. I said that I did not want to do this. You said that one way or the other they would be deleted. I then banned you so that you could not resubscribe and delete your posts. I told you that I had written to Yahoo asking for advice; I never heard from Yahoo. But then I offered that
you delete *some* of your posts. You agreed. I asked how many you planned to delete and never heard from you again. Two days later Yahoo deleted all of your posts--298 of them--a devastating loss of knowledge for everyone. And don't forget that it was you who insisted that the two of Earl's posts being talked about here be deleted. I did so because they were ad hominem, just as some of yours were. I agreed that they didn't belong in the archives.

You also know very well that you were placed on moderation, I quote what I wrote to you, "temporarily for the sake of peace on
the list," until I could figure out what to do. If you want to call that silencing, muzzling, or censorship, so be it. You were placed on moderation because the ball was in your court in the order of responses in the
argument between you and Earl. This was my decision. Both of you were clearly in violation of the decorum for the list.

I've gone back over our emails about the matter to make sure that what I'm saying is accurate as to what happened.

I agree with you, Ed, when you say:

"I trust this resolves any unanswered questions and that we can now put this rather smelly matter behind us and get on with more important things."

I am very sorry that all of this happened. Everyone lost.

Clarice