|
|
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:27:17 -0600| Author:
|
Errancy Archive <earchive@blondguys.net> | Subject:
|
Robert Turkel | Body:
|
-------- Original Message -------- | Subject: Robert Turkel Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 11:28:25 -0800 From: Farrell Till <jftill@midwest.net> Reply-To: errancy@infidels.org To: john smith <paid_now@go.com> CC: errancy@infidels.org At 09:06 PM 11/03/1999 -0800, you wrote: >To: jftill@midwest.net >Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 21:7:4 -0800 (PST) > >Subject: Regarding your claims... > >Dear Farrell, >I have been talking to JPH, and he has asserted that he WOULD publicly debate with you. As a matter of fact, specifically, on the supposed contradiction between Hos 1:4 and 1 Kings! >He has claimed to HAVE A DEBATE GOING WITH YOU, and the ball is now in your court... He has waited for over a year now, and still no reply from you. Explain that please, Till. TILL It was in the debate on 1 Kings and Hosea 1:4 that I began to press hard for Turkel to agree to an open-forum debate that would give readers the opportunity to see EVERYTHING that we both say in our arguments and counterarguments, but he would not accept the proposal. He has a practice of taking an article that a skeptic publishes and quoting selectively from it to put another article on his web site that he calls a reply to his opponent. This is not debating. He may have written another article about me--and I would be very surprised if he hasn't--and put it on his website, but I have no intention of replying to materials in which he uses the smorgasbord method of showing his readers only what he wants them to see that I have said. If he will agree to an open-forum format that will allow readers to see everything that we both say on the issue being debated, then we can get started immediately, but unless he has done a complete about face, he is not going to agree to this. SMITH >As for him refusing to debate you publicly, the reasons behind that are very simple. First, he wants the "whole world to see that Christianity is the only way, and CAN NOT be fiddled with". Consequently, that means that such a public debate can't be accomplished on your errancy list. There are a few people, mostly your friends that sees what happens on such a medium. You are not willing to extend the astroturf or scope, of a debate, therefore JPH rejects your pseudo-challenges... TILL He knows that I have never stipulated that the debate must be confined to the errancy list. All I have demanded is that it be an open-forum format that will allow readers to see everything that we both present as arguments and counterarguments. The fact is that I would prefer that such a debate be conducted on Christian internet sites so that it would have as large an audience of Christian readers as possible. I am willing to extend the "astrofurf or scope" of a debate between Turkel and me to every site in existence on the internet if it were possible to extend it that far. In closing my 28th reply to Turkel (which you should have read by now), I made the following statement. > I wrote a >reply to the first chapter of Josh McDowell's ETDAV, and Turkel posted an >80K reply to it on a web site. I then wrote 28 short replies to this >article, and Turkel wrote a 240K reply to these even before my 28th part was >posted. So if I write a series of replies to Turkel's latest, will he then >write, say, a 700K response to these, and so on? If so, there will be no >end to this, and along the way, Turkel's readers will see only the parts of >my replies that he wants them to see, because I have no reason to suspect >that the leopard will suddenly change his spots and that he will begin to >use the full-disclosure policy that I use on both the internet and my >bimonthly paper *The Skeptical Review.* 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. In >this way, nothing will become lost or forgotten in a maze of 240K texts, and >Turkel won't be able to use his smorgasbord approach, because if he skips >something or evades a point, that will become painfully obvious to our >readers. In other words, if I showed that Turkel's claim that "reya" always >meant a very close personal friend is not true because the word was >sometimes used in references to opponents in quarrels or fights and even in >reference to dead pieces of meat on a sacrificial altar, Turkel's evasion of >this point would be obvious to the readers.The same, of course, would be >true if I should skip or evade anything, so such a format would give both >sides equal advantage. > >I'm not at all afraid to engage Turkel in a written debate that requires >this format, so we will have to wait and see if he will agree to the >proposal. Meanwhile, if anyone reading this posting missed seeing the first >27 parts, I will be glad to forward them by e-mail upon request. > Notice that I stipulated only that the debate be posted on internet SITES (plural) that have a format LIKE errancy or alt.bible.errancy that will allow readers to see everything that is posted by both sides. If these are Christian sites, so much the better as far as I am concerned, because I certainly have no desire to preach just to the choir as Turkel does on his website. If Turkel wants to set up a site that provides this kind of forum, that's immaterial to me as long as he agrees not to cut anything that either of us says. Why don't you present this matter to Turkel in this way and see what his response is? If you succeed where others have failed, no one will be any happier than I will be. SMITH >Maybe it would be helpful to specify some new areas or locations where you and >JPH can debate. > TILL Well, as you can see, I have never demanded that such a debate be limited to Errancy but only that it be conducted on a forum that has an open policy like Errancy. You seem to be intensely interested in this, so I hope that you will agree to serve as an intermediary that can arrange for such a debate to become a reality. I hope you will keep me informed of your progress. Farrell Till Skepticism, Inc. jftill@midwest.net
|
|