| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"David" |
| Date: |
18 Feb 2005 03:36:54 PM |
| Object: |
"Man they love to hate" - a rebuttal |
Okay, Davey, I'm starting to get more time for posting.
Let's deal with this, shall we?
You wrote:
Jason Gastrich has always managed to attract a lot of comment
with his appearances on Usenet.
Well, Jason has only himself to blame for that.
Given that he had no real credibility early in his Usenet career, he
decided to CREATE credibility by arranging for the bestowal of the
phony doctorate, on which he presumed to trade.
He was, of course, called on that and discovered, much to his chagrin,
that the Usenet world does not prostrate itself before him as he
expected it to do; and it wasn't impressed with his phony "doctorate."
Ultimately, it and he were exposed as frauds, and it was all downhill
from there for Jason Gastrich.
What generally happens is that there is a core of people getting into
discussions with him who can manage to keep a civil tongue in their
head,
but get very intolerant if Jason cannot keep up with their endless
screed
of questions.
And here, you begin to rather blatantly engage in rhetoric,
misdirection, and dishonesty.
"Endless screed of questions?"
The questions put to Jason are generally asked as a result of things
Jason has written or done in Usenet, on the Internet, and elsewhere as
HE, HIMSELF, chooses to advertise.
That Jason continues to act in a dishonest, fraudulent, petulant and
juvenile manner in those environs results in more questions.
If it's an "endless screed," as you put it, it's likely because Jason
is also a coward and won't answer those questions.
During this visit to Usenet, to counter claims that he was 'running',
Is THAT why he came to Usenet, Davey?
Well, I agree. Jason said enough at the time to make that clear.
But Jason told the readers of his periodic devotions that he came back
to "minister" to others.
So which is it?
he has been able to answer in a very fair way most of the matters
which were being rehearsed over and over in his absence.
First of all, Jason was never "absent." His comments make it quite
clear that he was very aware of what was going on.
Secondly, he never answered anything in a "very fair way."
Care to debate that, Davey?
Pick one of those issues, call it "number one," and let's take a look.
Now new questions are being posed in their place.
Is Jason somehow immune to being asked questions?
On the outside of this group is another group more or less abusively
commenting on the progress of the debates of the first group - the
abuse always being directed at Jason, of course, and these are made
up
of people who were having discussions, but who were unable to control
their manners and got excluded from further discussion by Jason.
In what way were the people "unable to control their manners," Davey?
I know you're referring to the participants in JCSM Watch, so let's get
to it.
The regular participants in the Watch are civil there and they have
been mostly civil here.
I say "mostly" because, even though I'm inclined to say "always," I
can't immediately recall a time when any of them acted without civility
or who weren't, at least, provoked into some indiscretion by Jason,
himself.
But I may have missed a more dramatic lack of civility on the part of
the participants.
So, really, you're just lying, aren't you?
The key player in this group is David Sienkiewicz, the owner of the
group JCSM Watch, a man who seems destined to waste his presmably
hard
earned retirement chasing Jason around the net and interfering with
his
ministry to the lost.
Jason does not operate a "ministry to the lost." Jason is interested
in the promotion and welfare of one person, and that is Jason Gastrich.
Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that this is the only
thing that I do with my retirement, hence, it is wasted.
It's not Davey. I have lots of other interests.
Don't let the volume of messages fool you. Very few of them take much
time to type out.
And I DO multitask quite a bit.
Finally, I don't "chase" Jason around the net. I respond to him and to
threads about him - and I don't even do that to all of the threads and
comments made.
Now, we can argue those things, but you'll be wrong, and I can point
out that you waste YOUR time defending an obvious liar and fraud - and
it taints you.
I've already touched on that, and you've ducked out so many times, I've
lost count.
Then you come back in again.
He has stated that he considers Jason on a par with some of the
famous
fraudulent evangelists who were just ripping people off for money,
I consider Jason of the same type, not "on a par."
Jason is small potatoes compared to them.
I'm making sure he doesn't become a "big potato."
but has not been able to provide convincing evidence for this, always
claiming that he has it, but never managing to come with it.
And, of course, this, too, is a lie.
There have been many examples of Jason's dishonesty - all of which
have, at best, elicited excuses and wishful thinking from YOU in reply.
Jason's phony doctorate.
His dishonest and bad faith use of domains.
His use of his ministry to front for his financial (and even
educational, if you can call it that) gain.
His lies regarding the Hot Lava Software affair.
His bad faith attempts to silence his critics.
His attempt to use the courts as an instrument of harassment.
All of these and other issues are well-known here, Davey, and they are
ALL evidenced by Jason's own behavior, if nothing else.
There's lots of evidence of Jason's arrogance, dishonesty and
duplicity, as well as what appears to be an attempt - like so many
others - to turn the Internet into a money-making venture.
By itself, that's not a bad thing.
It's HOW he goes about it, Davey.
His stated aim is to close down Jason's ministry,
Or, as I said, to cause Jason to rethink his strategies and actually
build something for good rather than for just himself, and consider it
a true service to God.
I said that a couple of times, and you and Jason both ignored it.
this being one of the very few ministries in the on-line world to
give such a strong and coherent voice to fundamental Christianity.
In fact, Jason's ministry is pretty pathetic compared to most others
that I know about.
An arrogant and self-centered voice is not necessarily a "strong"
voice. Jason's is one of the weakest in the industry.
He doesn't even know his Bible particularly well, Davey. He's a fraud.
This is what it's all about. They lay into Jason's faults (and sure,
he
has them, like everyone else, but nobody else gets the extra special
treatment that he gets)
Nobody else makes as much noise as he makes or presents so many
opportunities for criticism.
Jason brings this all on himself, Davey. He expects a free ride, and
he justifies his behavior with once-saved-always-saved.
Jason has faults. You have faults. I have faults. That's
diversionary talk. No one cares about faults.
What's being examined are arrogance and a lack of integrity.
Jason is being made ACCOUNTABLE. He can't abide that.
Apparently, neither can you.
every opportunity they get, but it's all about putting people off the
Christian message.
Jason doesn't represent "the Christian message," Davey, so no, it's not
about that.
The thing is, every single Christian to appear on the core atheist
groups such as alt.atheism, talk.origins and others has been
systematically character assassinated.
Talk.origins is not an atheist group, Davey, and I think you'd be
hard-pressed to prove your claim, in any case.
I know several Christians whom have posted to talk.origins, for
example, and have not been "systematically character assassinated" in
the manner that you would represent.
People like Jason get nailed. So do you.
We should consider the common characteristics of those who DO get
challenged, even attacked.
Would you care to get into that?
alt.atheism is, of course, populated by a more, shall we say,
opinionated group. But even there, people who show proper respect for
the beliefs of others are usually treated well.
People who behave as Jason does get justifiably roasted.
This IS Usenet, after all.
The only Christians who are tolerated there are those who join in the
whipping of the Christian right, who put political issues, especially
left wing ones, above doctrinal issues, and who will not openly
evangelise and are even hard for us to draw on what they believe
doctrinally.
In my view, Christians who behave as bulwarks against the righteous
right are the true Christians, Davey, truly following Jesus and his
example.
And it is those Christians who, in many cases, expose people like Jason
as frauds and phonies. There have been numerous examples, the most
notable, in my view, being Frank Pericope.
And all Frank really did was suggest and then illustrate that if you're
going to be a literalist, be an HONEST literalist.
Those who refuse to menplease and proclaim christ and Him crucified
an inerrant Bible and salvation by faith, not works,along with the
natural corollary of that, the Doctrine of Eternal Security, are
immediately blasted until they have enough and leave.
It's a pretty stupid set of beliefs, Davey, as I was explaining when
you decided to flee the thread.
However, again, it's less what you believe and in the way you present
and carry yourselves.
But in Jason's case they pursued him even when he did leave,
He never left, Davey.
He even created more accounts and at least one pseudonym so that he
could spam newsgroups with advertising for his e-book.
so now he's back.
And cowering and hiding, as he usually does.
So nothing's really changed, had it?
This is an appeal to those who are Christians to give this brother
the
benefit of the doubt,
We've had this discussion, too, Davey.
Jason has over-used the benefit of the doubt; and my levels of that are
not unlimited.
to give him the sort of support that brothers ought to give to each
other,
The problem is that this presupposed that other Christians view Jason
as their "brother."
Some do. Many don't.
Why should those that don't give him any benefit of the doubt,
especially once he has burned them a few times?
In fact, if he's an embarrassment to them, wouldn't it be prudent of
any Christian to expose this "wolf in sheep's clothes?"
and to pray that some of the lost will be saved by receiving the
truth from
his posts and links.
Jason does not engage in truth, Davey.
To see more, join in the group free.christians, and also see what
nonsense and libel is being spouted with no back-up on JCSM Watch.
As I said, Davey, nothing has been claimed for which there is no
evidence, and you are free to show that it IS "nonsense and libel."
When challenged on specific issues in that regard, we find that all you
have is wishful thinking and speculation.
You have gone from a self-described "businessman of great statute" to a
smarmy and dishonest sychophant and *****-kisser to one of the more
dishonest Usenet ministers to come down the pike in many a day.
You may have made Jason proud, but you have humiliated God.
Then again, you do seem to confuse the two.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: "Man they love to hate" - a rebuttal |
18 Feb 2005 05:26:53 PM |
|
|
"David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108762614.044140.63430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Okay, Davey, I'm starting to get more time for posting.
Let's deal with this, shall we?
You wrote:
Jason Gastrich has always managed to attract a lot of comment
with his appearances on Usenet.
Well, Jason has only himself to blame for that.
True. Had he chosen any other creed than evangelical Christian, he'd be one
of the good guys.
Given that he had no real credibility early in his Usenet career, he
decided to CREATE credibility by arranging for the bestowal of the
phony doctorate, on which he presumed to trade.
That may have been an error of judgment. These honorary doctorates exist and
quite a few people in your country go for them, or they wouldn't be there.
In Europe we don't go a bundle on them except the Austrians. Every Austrian
you meet seems to have some title or other and since they all come across as
rather dumb anyway, one starts to wonder if they are not all phoney.
He was, of course, called on that and discovered, much to his chagrin,
that the Usenet world does not prostrate itself before him as he
expected it to do; and it wasn't impressed with his phony "doctorate."
Well I'm not overimpressed with real ones either.
Ultimately, it and he were exposed as frauds, and it was all downhill
from there for Jason Gastrich.
What generally happens is that there is a core of people getting into
discussions with him who can manage to keep a civil tongue in their
head,
but get very intolerant if Jason cannot keep up with their endless
screed
of questions.
And here, you begin to rather blatantly engage in rhetoric,
misdirection, and dishonesty.
"Endless screed of questions?"
Isn't there a thread on f.c. that says "Day 26, etc etc" which asks the same
question over and over, in violation of the free.christians FAQ that allows
a maximum of three asks of the same question?
The questions put to Jason are generally asked as a result of things
Jason has written or done in Usenet, on the Internet, and elsewhere as
HE, HIMSELF, chooses to advertise.
That Jason continues to act in a dishonest, fraudulent, petulant and
juvenile manner in those environs results in more questions.
He keeps on getting asked about that doctorate even when he made it clear it
was an honorary one and doesn't use it on Usenet.
If it's an "endless screed," as you put it, it's likely because Jason
is also a coward and won't answer those questions.
During this visit to Usenet, to counter claims that he was 'running',
Is THAT why he came to Usenet, Davey?
Well, I agree. Jason said enough at the time to make that clear.
That was my take on it, although I can't answer for him.
But Jason told the readers of his periodic devotions that he came back
to "minister" to others.
So which is it?
The one doesn't necessarily exclude the other.
he has been able to answer in a very fair way most of the matters
which were being rehearsed over and over in his absence.
First of all, Jason was never "absent." His comments make it quite
clear that he was very aware of what was going on.
Granted.
But he was limiting himself to lurking, at that time.
Secondly, he never answered anything in a "very fair way."
Care to debate that, Davey?
Pick one of those issues, call it "number one," and let's take a look.
I think he gave the Grinder questions on his post resurrection chronology a
good shot, and then the rapture issue, the Daniel prophesy issue. I don't
actually necessarily agree with a single one of those expositions, but I
have to say he argued his corner.
Now new questions are being posed in their place.
Is Jason somehow immune to being asked questions?
NO, but he gets a lot more questions than it is easy to answer since there
is a deficit of evangelicals to skeptics on Usenet.
On the outside of this group is another group more or less abusively
commenting on the progress of the debates of the first group - the
abuse always being directed at Jason, of course, and these are made
up
of people who were having discussions, but who were unable to control
their manners and got excluded from further discussion by Jason.
In what way were the people "unable to control their manners," Davey?
I know you're referring to the participants in JCSM Watch, so let's get
to it.
The regular participants in the Watch are civil there and they have
been mostly civil here.
I am not referring to your BB2 group in that case, I get to that later. I
will grant that most of the core rudeness takes place on Usenet proper,
rather than under your moderation. Credit where credit is due.
I say "mostly" because, even though I'm inclined to say "always," I
can't immediately recall a time when any of them acted without civility
or who weren't, at least, provoked into some indiscretion by Jason,
himself.
But I may have missed a more dramatic lack of civility on the part of
the participants.
So, really, you're just lying, aren't you?
No, you are reinterpreting what I said.
The key player in this group is David Sienkiewicz, the owner of the
group JCSM Watch, a man who seems destined to waste his presmably
hard
earned retirement chasing Jason around the net and interfering with
his
ministry to the lost.
Jason does not operate a "ministry to the lost." Jason is interested
in the promotion and welfare of one person, and that is Jason Gastrich.
In your opinion.
Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that this is the only
thing that I do with my retirement, hence, it is wasted.
It's not Davey. I have lots of other interests.
Don't let the volume of messages fool you. Very few of them take much
time to type out.
And I DO multitask quite a bit.
So what? Is this all about YOU now?
Finally, I don't "chase" Jason around the net. I respond to him and to
threads about him - and I don't even do that to all of the threads and
comments made.
Now, we can argue those things, but you'll be wrong, and I can point
out that you waste YOUR time defending an obvious liar and fraud - and
it taints you.
I have defended him because I think that the fraud is in the eye of the
beholder, taking a handful of errors of judgement and turning the man that
mde them into the next Benny Hinn. He deserves, as do all other people, an
advocate. Do you tell your lawyer friends that they are tainted when they
have acted for the defence of a person who is convicted at trial? Or in that
case do you bleat what all lawyers bleat that everyone has the right to an
advocate? Yet you don't really believe that, as your big beef with me is
that I am pretty much the one person who has carried on giving Jason the
benefit of the doubt at every stage, and been proved right.
I've already touched on that, and you've ducked out so many times, I've
lost count.
Then you come back in again.
He has stated that he considers Jason on a par with some of the
famous
fraudulent evangelists who were just ripping people off for money,
I consider Jason of the same type, not "on a par."
Jason is small potatoes compared to them.
I'm making sure he doesn't become a "big potato."
You're a bit like a colorado beetle, then, in other words?
but has not been able to provide convincing evidence for this, always
claiming that he has it, but never managing to come with it.
And, of course, this, too, is a lie.
There have been many examples of Jason's dishonesty - all of which
have, at best, elicited excuses and wishful thinking from YOU in reply.
Jason's phony doctorate.
His dishonest and bad faith use of domains.
His use of his ministry to front for his financial (and even
educational, if you can call it that) gain.
His lies regarding the Hot Lava Software affair.
His bad faith attempts to silence his critics.
His attempt to use the courts as an instrument of harassment.
All of these and other issues are well-known here, Davey, and they are
ALL evidenced by Jason's own behavior, if nothing else.
He 'll grow out of his errors. He's still a young man, and he'll get through
this, and learn from this time on Usenet to think twice before he follows
the bad habits of some other people. He still has his heart in the right
place, and gets the truth out to more people than most other people I know
personally.
There's lots of evidence of Jason's arrogance, dishonesty and
duplicity, as well as what appears to be an attempt - like so many
others - to turn the Internet into a money-making venture.
By itself, that's not a bad thing.
It's HOW he goes about it, Davey.
Yes, some of those things could do with revision, and I'm sure he will
revise them.
His stated aim is to close down Jason's ministry,
Or, as I said, to cause Jason to rethink his strategies and actually
build something for good rather than for just himself, and consider it
a true service to God.
I said that a couple of times, and you and Jason both ignored it.
Because it begs the question that he is deliberately being selfish now. I
don't see that. He is trying to serve God truly, but pride blemishes it. I
know that because I've been there. He reminds me of myself, as I used to be.
this being one of the very few ministries in the on-line world to
give such a strong and coherent voice to fundamental Christianity.
In fact, Jason's ministry is pretty pathetic compared to most others
that I know about.
An arrogant and self-centered voice is not necessarily a "strong"
voice. Jason's is one of the weakest in the industry.
Really? So why the attention from you, then? Ah yes, the Colorado Beetle
theory. You still think he could be a big potato, and that's what worries
you.
He doesn't even know his Bible particularly well, Davey. He's a fraud.
He's 28. He has time to learn more and more of it. He might even start doing
the old "medaber ivrit".
This is what it's all about. They lay into Jason's faults (and sure,
he
has them, like everyone else, but nobody else gets the extra special
treatment that he gets)
Nobody else makes as much noise as he makes or presents so many
opportunities for criticism.
Jason brings this all on himself, Davey. He expects a free ride, and
he justifies his behavior with once-saved-always-saved.
Well, that is a doctrine of Calvinism, whether you like it or not.
Jason has faults. You have faults. I have faults. That's
diversionary talk. No one cares about faults.
You do, because you get a lot of mileage out of them.
What's being examined are arrogance and a lack of integrity.
Jason is being made ACCOUNTABLE. He can't abide that.
Apparently, neither can you.
I'm perfectly accountable, to the best of my knowledge and belief. If you
have anything on me that suggests that I may not accountable then come on
out with it, I must have forgotten about it and you could help me to deal
with it.
every opportunity they get, but it's all about putting people off the
Christian message.
Jason doesn't represent "the Christian message," Davey, so no, it's not
about that.
The thing is, every single Christian to appear on the core atheist
groups such as alt.atheism, talk.origins and others has been
systematically character assassinated.
Talk.origins is not an atheist group, Davey, and I think you'd be
hard-pressed to prove your claim, in any case.
I already retracted that sentence in the later discussion on the thread
after Harvestdancer pointed out that I had not been accurate.
I know several Christians whom have posted to talk.origins, for
example, and have not been "systematically character assassinated" in
the manner that you would represent.
People like Jason get nailed. So do you.
We should consider the common characteristics of those who DO get
challenged, even attacked.
Would you care to get into that?
You can character assassinate me if you want to. I don't mind. It's good for
one's humility, and I can always do with some exercise in that area.
alt.atheism is, of course, populated by a more, shall we say,
opinionated group. But even there, people who show proper respect for
the beliefs of others are usually treated well.
People who behave as Jason does get justifiably roasted.
This IS Usenet, after all.
Yes. It is. And on Usenet most people have allies as well as enemies, and as
you see, Jason gastrich has no exception. That doesn't mean I buy into all
his projects 100%. I would do a lot of things differently. But in the main I
am pleased that he exists, that he contributes to Usenet, and I like to see
someone who has the right intentions deep down inside, and will be
influenced positively by the interaction Usenet offers. I have optimism as
to the outcome. I don't write people off.
The only Christians who are tolerated there are those who join in the
whipping of the Christian right, who put political issues, especially
left wing ones, above doctrinal issues, and who will not openly
evangelise and are even hard for us to draw on what they believe
doctrinally.
In my view, Christians who behave as bulwarks against the righteous
right are the true Christians, Davey, truly following Jesus and his
example.
Christianity was never supposed to be a political creed. It got spoiled when
it got politicised. Some people seem to think that Jesus was an early
version of Che Guevara, but I think they are misunderstanding what the
Kingdom of God is about, and what human nature is and what salvation is.
And it is those Christians who, in many cases, expose people like Jason
as frauds and phonies. There have been numerous examples, the most
notable, in my view, being Frank Pericope.
And all Frank really did was suggest and then illustrate that if you're
going to be a literalist, be an HONEST literalist.
All well and good, but when I started asking him about what he in fact
believed then an interesting mix of literal belief and non-literal belief
came out, so he was picking and mixing himself.
Those who refuse to menplease and proclaim christ and Him crucified
an inerrant Bible and salvation by faith, not works,along with the
natural corollary of that, the Doctrine of Eternal Security, are
immediately blasted until they have enough and leave.
It's a pretty stupid set of beliefs, Davey, as I was explaining when
you decided to flee the thread.
However, again, it's less what you believe and in the way you present
and carry yourselves.
But in Jason's case they pursued him even when he did leave,
He never left, Davey.
He even created more accounts and at least one pseudonym so that he
could spam newsgroups with advertising for his e-book.
Have you seen it? Have you obtained a copy?
so now he's back.
And cowering and hiding, as he usually does.
So nothing's really changed, had it?
This is an appeal to those who are Christians to give this brother
the
benefit of the doubt,
We've had this discussion, too, Davey.
Jason has over-used the benefit of the doubt; and my levels of that are
not unlimited.
to give him the sort of support that brothers ought to give to each
other,
The problem is that this presupposed that other Christians view Jason
as their "brother."
Some do. Many don't.
Why should those that don't give him any benefit of the doubt,
especially once he has burned them a few times?
"70*7", David.
In fact, if he's an embarrassment to them, wouldn't it be prudent of
any Christian to expose this "wolf in sheep's clothes?"
Let's just have a witch hunt for evangelicals, why don't we?
and to pray that some of the lost will be saved by receiving the
truth from
his posts and links.
Jason does not engage in truth, Davey.
To see more, join in the group free.christians, and also see what
nonsense and libel is being spouted with no back-up on JCSM Watch.
As I said, Davey, nothing has been claimed for which there is no
evidence, and you are free to show that it IS "nonsense and libel."
When challenged on specific issues in that regard, we find that all you
have is wishful thinking and speculation.
You have gone from a self-described "businessman of great statute" to a
smarmy and dishonest sychophant and *****-kisser to one of the more
dishonest Usenet ministers to come down the pike in many a day.
You may have made Jason proud, but you have humiliated God.
Then again, you do seem to confuse the two.
Christ did say that a cup of cold water given to one of His own was a cup of
cold water given to Him, and I am a bearer of a cup of cold water in a very
hot environment. If that humiliates God, then it's not the way I intend it.
I intend is as an act of obedience.
Nevertheless, I am not going to be doing it for ever, and you are on notice
that from the end of February, I am not responding to questions regarding
Jason, since I have already said my piece on the matter. Between now and the
end of February we can still discuss his case, which gives you nine days
more to get any closing comments from me on any "evidence" you may think you
have, but from 1st March (St David's day) onwards my lips are sealed on
Jason's matters.
I am on record as saying what I think, and carrying on for too long may only
be adding fuel to the fire.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "David D." |
|
| Title: Re: "Man they love to hate" - a rebuttal |
18 Feb 2005 07:58:52 PM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey
What generally happens is that there is a core of people
getting into discussions with him who can manage to
keep a civil tongue in their head, but get very intolerant
if Jason cannot keep up with their endless screed of
questions.
And here, you begin to rather blatantly engage in rhetoric,
misdirection, and dishonesty.
"Endless screed of questions?"
Isn't there a thread on f.c. that says "Day 26, etc etc" which
asks the same question over and over, in violation of the
free.christians FAQ that allows a maximum of three asks
of the same question?
I'll take the blame for that one. First, as a usenet veteran you
should know well that the free. heirarchy has no rules. Hence, why the
FAQ charter? Why should anyone be made to abide by such a charter?
Second, if you have seen the question, and Jason has seen the question,
why are you afraid to answer? It is a perfectly civil question in
response to assertions made by Jason Gastrich. Do you agree he cannot
justify his assertions? Is that why he refuses to address the
question?
Third, why doesn't Jason post his FAQ? Is he worried that he will be
called on his misuse of a free. heirarchy on usenet, as he was before.
Gastrich's original claim was that he would post the FAQ every 15 days.
the last posting was in March 2004. That should be an indication of
the value that even Jason places on his FAQ. They are worthless and
you know it.
Fourthly, nudging the same question to the top of the pile is not the
same as asking the question multiple times. It is a way for people to
see that Jason is avoiding the original question. Harrassing someone
would be to chase someone from thread to thread with the same question.
I have not done this.
Lastly, are you willing to address the question since Jason does not
want to touch it? Do you want me to nudge it to the top again so you
find it?
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: "Man they love to hate" - a rebuttal |
19 Feb 2005 06:03:55 AM |
|
|
"David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108778332.900335.218830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey
What generally happens is that there is a core of people
getting into discussions with him who can manage to
keep a civil tongue in their head, but get very intolerant
if Jason cannot keep up with their endless screed of
questions.
And here, you begin to rather blatantly engage in rhetoric,
misdirection, and dishonesty.
"Endless screed of questions?"
Isn't there a thread on f.c. that says "Day 26, etc etc" which
asks the same question over and over, in violation of the
free.christians FAQ that allows a maximum of three asks
of the same question?
I'll take the blame for that one. First, as a usenet veteran you
should know well that the free. heirarchy has no rules. Hence, why the
FAQ charter? Why should anyone be made to abide by such a charter?
Second, if you have seen the question, and Jason has seen the question,
why are you afraid to answer? It is a perfectly civil question in
response to assertions made by Jason Gastrich. Do you agree he cannot
justify his assertions? Is that why he refuses to address the
question?
Third, why doesn't Jason post his FAQ? Is he worried that he will be
called on his misuse of a free. heirarchy on usenet, as he was before.
Gastrich's original claim was that he would post the FAQ every 15 days.
the last posting was in March 2004. That should be an indication of
the value that even Jason places on his FAQ. They are worthless and
you know it.
Fourthly, nudging the same question to the top of the pile is not the
same as asking the question multiple times. It is a way for people to
see that Jason is avoiding the original question. Harrassing someone
would be to chase someone from thread to thread with the same question.
I have not done this.
Lastly, are you willing to address the question since Jason does not
want to touch it? Do you want me to nudge it to the top again so you
find it?
David
I think your question was something like has there been an objective
appraisal of his e-book?
I cannot answer that question. I did get three copies, but I haven't managed
to open them yet. Probably my system is not compatible with the American
system. They just freeze my system. Therefore I cannot give an appraisal of
it, but if I had, it would certainly have been objective.
If that wasn't the question, then please redefine the question.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "David D." |
|
| Title: Re: "Man they love to hate" - a rebuttal |
19 Feb 2005 03:05:06 PM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey
What generally happens is that there is a core of people
getting into discussions with him who can manage to
keep a civil tongue in their head, but get very intolerant
if Jason cannot keep up with their endless screed of
questions.
And here, you begin to rather blatantly engage in rhetoric,
misdirection, and dishonesty.
"Endless screed of questions?"
Isn't there a thread on f.c. that says "Day 26, etc etc" which
asks the same question over and over, in violation of the
free.christians FAQ that allows a maximum of three asks
of the same question?
I'll take the blame for that one. First, as a usenet veteran you
should know well that the free. heirarchy has no rules. Hence, why
the
FAQ charter? Why should anyone be made to abide by such a charter?
Second, if you have seen the question, and Jason has seen the
question,
why are you afraid to answer? It is a perfectly civil question in
response to assertions made by Jason Gastrich. Do you agree he
cannot
justify his assertions? Is that why he refuses to address the
question?
Third, why doesn't Jason post his FAQ? Is he worried that he will
be
called on his misuse of a free. heirarchy on usenet, as he was
before.
Gastrich's original claim was that he would post the FAQ every 15
days.
the last posting was in March 2004. That should be an indication
of
the value that even Jason places on his FAQ. They are worthless
and
you know it.
Fourthly, nudging the same question to the top of the pile is not
the
same as asking the question multiple times. It is a way for people
to
see that Jason is avoiding the original question. Harrassing
someone
would be to chase someone from thread to thread with the same
question.
I have not done this.
Lastly, are you willing to address the question since Jason does
not
want to touch it? Do you want me to nudge it to the top again so
you
find it?
I think your question was something like has there been an objective
appraisal of his e-book?
Not quite. Jason has implied that the negative reviews for his e-book
are
NOT objective. When I read those reviews they seem to be very
objective.
My question for Jason, or you if you wish to comment, was "can Jason
point
out which parts of the following two reviews are NOT objective"? I
then
posted the two reviews (I have reposted them below for you to read
too). If
these two reviews are subjective it should be easy for him to back up
this
claim, if it has any validity. His silence would suggest his cannot
back up his
claim. What do you think Davey?
Below is an example of Jason doubting the objectivity of his reviewers.
Jason Gastrich wrote (http://tinyurl.com/4k5vt):
START Quote
Enkidu wrote:
"Jason Gastrich"
In my debate with Dan, I mentioned how I would
be writing a "corrected and explained" version of
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. In the subsequent
months, I did.
And we've read objective reviews of the result.
Objective, eh?
END Quote
START FIRST REVIEW Reviewer: Stasi Kay Not a good resource, October 8,
2004
I enjoy reading christian apologetics and works of comparative religion
and I was loaned a copy of this electronic, CD-based book to see what I
thought of it. I am afraid that my critical views align with some of
the others on the Amazon site.
This is a poor effort at apologetics, the intellectual value is on a
par with an albeit lengthy pre-secondary school report. There is always
some risk when presuming to take a list of errors while presuming to
correct them. One of those risks is that errors are not always errors.
Another risk is that the errors are legitimate but those things
presumed to be "answers," "corrections" or "explanations" fall well
short of the mark by either failing to provide a reasonable,
intelligent explanation or by misdirecting from the subject of the
supposed error. These things occur frequently in this volume.
Also, there have been some attempts to demonize critics of this work as
"atheists" both in reviews on Amazon and elsewhere. This strikes me as
unfortunate, because it avoids the legitimate criticisms by
perpetuating a division among intelligent, thinking people with
differing world views through means that are not legitimate. Even if it
were true that some reviewers are atheists (though it is not true in
any case of which I am aware, including reviews on Amazon), it makes no
difference when considering the intellectual value of the review. An
atheist can write an intelligent review of an apologetic work as
readily as a christian can presume to "correct" or "explain" a
presumably atheist work such as the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible." If
there is substance to an unflattering review, that is what should be
addressed, not the religious beliefs -- real, manufactured, or imagined
-- that might be held by the reviewer.
Having said that, I feel that I cannot recommend this electronic book,
mostly because it fails to do what it claims to do. Other reviewers
have noted that it does little more than provide superficial coverage
of topics that are addressed. "Answers" and "explanations" that are
provided make unwarranted assumptions and are intellectually deficient,
as well as lacking in documentary evidence. Very little in this volume
would be of value as an evangelistic tool. It might best serve as a
"faith-affirming" tool for those whom do not give much critical thought
to their beliefs and whom already believe as the author does. It
certainly will not be convincing to thoughtful skeptics of the faith or
the Scriptures. As a christian, I have disagreements with some of what
appears in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, but this volume is not a
satisfactory rebuttal.
END FIRST REVIEW
START SECOND REVIEW Reviewer: Laurence Jameson "Larry" (Chicago)
Thumbs
down, October 13, 2004
This is not a very good compilation of alleged corrections to errors.
There have been many comments here and there about the lack of
substance to this CD as well as the lackluster attempt at whatever is
being called "research," and those comments are supported by any
unbiased examination of the contents. Indeed, much is not explained or
corrected. In newsgroups, inadequate response of this sort to criticism
is categorized as "is not." There isn't much more than that in this CD.
In fact, most of this CD is composed of material that doesn't even
belong to the author, provided, as guess, as "supplemental." Okay. None
of it helps the general tone of the project (I can't call it a "book").
It seems to be added to project some sort of legitimacy, but that can
only be gained by the effort itself. Unfortunately the effort, like the
CD itself, is a failure.
By the way, I'm not an atheist, either. I have a legitmate advanced
degree in Biblical Studies from an old, reputable, accredited
institution, as well. That's all I'll say about that, but I would also
srongly suggest that my fundamentalist brethren stop using that line of
attack. It makes Christians appear mean-spirited and bitter, which is
contrary to the teachings and example of Christ.
I can say that this CD might be okay for one who is new in the Faith --
what we sometimes call a "baby Christian," but it will not be useful as
the weapon against atheists, if my evaluation of the author's debate
performances, as well as this CD, is any indication. At any rate, I
wouldn't use it for any faith-affirming tool for even a new Christian,
I simply suggest that it might serve that purpose because I can't
really find anything else positive to say about it. I would also have
other reasons for not using it.
Elsewhere it has been said that "anyone can write a book," and in this
day and age, anyone can "publish" one and get it placed on sites such
as Amazon. Usually this is a great service because we get to see many
competent and even outstanding authors that the publishing houses would
somehow pass over. That isn't the case here. This CD compilation is an
amateurish piece of work, and there are far better researched and
better-argued apologetics out there, not burdened down with the
author's vacation pictures and other useless material apparently
designed to pad the volume of the CD.
END SECOND REVIEW
<snip>
If that wasn't the question, then please redefine the question.
Have I redefined the question sufficiently? I really am interested to
hear your
honest opinion.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: "Man they love to hate" - a rebuttal |
19 Feb 2005 04:09:36 PM |
|
|
Uzytkownik "David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1108847106.281714.259570@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey
What generally happens is that there is a core of people
getting into discussions with him who can manage to
keep a civil tongue in their head, but get very intolerant
if Jason cannot keep up with their endless screed of
questions.
And here, you begin to rather blatantly engage in rhetoric,
misdirection, and dishonesty.
"Endless screed of questions?"
Isn't there a thread on f.c. that says "Day 26, etc etc" which
asks the same question over and over, in violation of the
free.christians FAQ that allows a maximum of three asks
of the same question?
I'll take the blame for that one. First, as a usenet veteran you
should know well that the free. heirarchy has no rules. Hence, why
the
FAQ charter? Why should anyone be made to abide by such a charter?
Second, if you have seen the question, and Jason has seen the
question,
why are you afraid to answer? It is a perfectly civil question in
response to assertions made by Jason Gastrich. Do you agree he
cannot
justify his assertions? Is that why he refuses to address the
question?
Third, why doesn't Jason post his FAQ? Is he worried that he will
be
called on his misuse of a free. heirarchy on usenet, as he was
before.
Gastrich's original claim was that he would post the FAQ every 15
days.
the last posting was in March 2004. That should be an indication
of
the value that even Jason places on his FAQ. They are worthless
and
you know it.
Fourthly, nudging the same question to the top of the pile is not
the
same as asking the question multiple times. It is a way for people
to
see that Jason is avoiding the original question. Harrassing
someone
would be to chase someone from thread to thread with the same
question.
I have not done this.
Lastly, are you willing to address the question since Jason does
not
want to touch it? Do you want me to nudge it to the top again so
you
find it?
I think your question was something like has there been an objective
appraisal of his e-book?
Not quite. Jason has implied that the negative reviews for his e-book
are
NOT objective. When I read those reviews they seem to be very
objective.
My question for Jason, or you if you wish to comment, was "can Jason
point
out which parts of the following two reviews are NOT objective"? I
then
posted the two reviews (I have reposted them below for you to read
too). If
these two reviews are subjective it should be easy for him to back up
this
claim, if it has any validity. His silence would suggest his cannot
back up his
claim. What do you think Davey?
Below is an example of Jason doubting the objectivity of his reviewers.
Jason Gastrich wrote (http://tinyurl.com/4k5vt):
START Quote
Enkidu wrote:
"Jason Gastrich"
In my debate with Dan, I mentioned how I would
be writing a "corrected and explained" version of
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. In the subsequent
months, I did.
And we've read objective reviews of the result.
Objective, eh?
END Quote
START FIRST REVIEW Reviewer: Stasi Kay Not a good resource, October 8,
2004
I enjoy reading christian apologetics and works of comparative religion
and I was loaned a copy of this electronic, CD-based book to see what I
thought of it. I am afraid that my critical views align with some of
the others on the Amazon site.
This is a poor effort at apologetics, the intellectual value is on a
par with an albeit lengthy pre-secondary school report. There is always
some risk when presuming to take a list of errors while presuming to
correct them. One of those risks is that errors are not always errors.
Another risk is that the errors are legitimate but those things
presumed to be "answers," "corrections" or "explanations" fall well
short of the mark by either failing to provide a reasonable,
intelligent explanation or by misdirecting from the subject of the
supposed error. These things occur frequently in this volume.
Also, there have been some attempts to demonize critics of this work as
"atheists" both in reviews on Amazon and elsewhere. This strikes me as
unfortunate, because it avoids the legitimate criticisms by
perpetuating a division among intelligent, thinking people with
differing world views through means that are not legitimate. Even if it
were true that some reviewers are atheists (though it is not true in
any case of which I am aware, including reviews on Amazon), it makes no
difference when considering the intellectual value of the review. An
atheist can write an intelligent review of an apologetic work as
readily as a christian can presume to "correct" or "explain" a
presumably atheist work such as the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible." If
there is substance to an unflattering review, that is what should be
addressed, not the religious beliefs -- real, manufactured, or imagined
-- that might be held by the reviewer.
Having said that, I feel that I cannot recommend this electronic book,
mostly because it fails to do what it claims to do. Other reviewers
have noted that it does little more than provide superficial coverage
of topics that are addressed. "Answers" and "explanations" that are
provided make unwarranted assumptions and are intellectually deficient,
as well as lacking in documentary evidence. Very little in this volume
would be of value as an evangelistic tool. It might best serve as a
"faith-affirming" tool for those whom do not give much critical thought
to their beliefs and whom already believe as the author does. It
certainly will not be convincing to thoughtful skeptics of the faith or
the Scriptures. As a christian, I have disagreements with some of what
appears in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, but this volume is not a
satisfactory rebuttal.
END FIRST REVIEW
START SECOND REVIEW Reviewer: Laurence Jameson "Larry" (Chicago)
Thumbs
down, October 13, 2004
This is not a very good compilation of alleged corrections to errors.
There have been many comments here and there about the lack of
substance to this CD as well as the lackluster attempt at whatever is
being called "research," and those comments are supported by any
unbiased examination of the contents. Indeed, much is not explained or
corrected. In newsgroups, inadequate response of this sort to criticism
is categorized as "is not." There isn't much more than that in this CD.
In fact, most of this CD is composed of material that doesn't even
belong to the author, provided, as guess, as "supplemental." Okay. None
of it helps the general tone of the project (I can't call it a "book").
It seems to be added to project some sort of legitimacy, but that can
only be gained by the effort itself. Unfortunately the effort, like the
CD itself, is a failure.
By the way, I'm not an atheist, either. I have a legitmate advanced
degree in Biblical Studies from an old, reputable, accredited
institution, as well. That's all I'll say about that, but I would also
srongly suggest that my fundamentalist brethren stop using that line of
attack. It makes Christians appear mean-spirited and bitter, which is
contrary to the teachings and example of Christ.
I can say that this CD might be okay for one who is new in the Faith --
what we sometimes call a "baby Christian," but it will not be useful as
the weapon against atheists, if my evaluation of the author's debate
performances, as well as this CD, is any indication. At any rate, I
wouldn't use it for any faith-affirming tool for even a new Christian,
I simply suggest that it might serve that purpose because I can't
really find anything else positive to say about it. I would also have
other reasons for not using it.
Elsewhere it has been said that "anyone can write a book," and in this
day and age, anyone can "publish" one and get it placed on sites such
as Amazon. Usually this is a great service because we get to see many
competent and even outstanding authors that the publishing houses would
somehow pass over. That isn't the case here. This CD compilation is an
amateurish piece of work, and there are far better researched and
better-argued apologetics out there, not burdened down with the
author's vacation pictures and other useless material apparently
designed to pad the volume of the CD.
END SECOND REVIEW
<snip>
If that wasn't the question, then please redefine the question.
Have I redefined the question sufficiently? I really am interested to
hear your
honest opinion.
David
I assume they gave their opinions honestly, and tried to be fairly
objective.
The first became less than objective when he said that the quality was
pre-secondary school. This is not written as if by a ten yearb old. That was
a piece of hyberbole and cast doubt on the objectiveness of the review.
The second review had more objectivity, but was still colored by the fact
that the author simply disagrees with the theology. Also, why criticise the
photographs? Did they cause him to pay more for postage and packing? Did
they burden his bandwidth? Did they tempt him to gross moral turpitude?
Again, he simply showed in that comment a certain prejudice towards the
matter.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "David D. aa#2219 thanks to Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: "Man they love to hate" - a rebuttal |
10 Mar 2005 12:25:16 PM |
|
|
<snip>
Jason Gastrich wrote (http://tinyurl.com/4k5vt):
START Quote
Enkidu wrote:
"Jason Gastrich"
In my debate with Dan, I mentioned how I would
be writing a "corrected and explained" version of
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. In the subsequent
months, I did.
And we've read objective reviews of the result.
Objective, eh?
END Quote
Jason does not believe that the negative reviews of his e-book
are objective. Here are two of those negative reviews.
START FIRST REVIEW Reviewer: Stasi Kay Not a good resource,
October 8, 2004
I enjoy reading christian apologetics and works of comparative
religion
and I was loaned a copy of this electronic, CD-based book to see
what I thought of it. I am afraid that my critical views align with
some of
the others on the Amazon site.
This is a poor effort at apologetics, the intellectual value is on
a
par with an albeit lengthy pre-secondary school report. There
is always some risk when presuming to take a list of errors while
presuming to correct them. One of those risks is that errors are
not
always errors. Another risk is that the errors are legitimate but
those
things presumed to be "answers," "corrections" or "explanations"
fall well short of the mark by either failing to provide a
reasonable,
ntelligent explanation or by misdirecting from the subject of the
supposed error. These things occur frequently in this volume.
Also, there have been some attempts to demonize critics of this
work as "atheists" both in reviews on Amazon and elsewhere. This
strikes me as unfortunate, because it avoids the legitimate
criticisms
by perpetuating a division among intelligent, thinking people with
differing world views through means that are not legitimate. Even
if
it were true that some reviewers are atheists (though it is not
true in
any case of which I am aware, including reviews on Amazon), it
makes no difference when considering the intellectual value of the
review. An atheist can write an intelligent review of an apologetic
work as readily as a christian can presume to "correct" or
"explain" a
presumably atheist work such as the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible."
If there is substance to an unflattering review, that is what
should be
addressed, not the religious beliefs -- real, manufactured, or
imagined -- that might be held by the reviewer.
Having said that, I feel that I cannot recommend this electronic
book,
mostly because it fails to do what it claims to do. Other reviewers
have noted that it does little more than provide superficial
coverage
of topics that are addressed. "Answers" and "explanations" that are
provided make unwarranted assumptions and are intellectually
deficient,
as well as lacking in documentary evidence. Very little in this
volume
would be of value as an evangelistic tool. It might best serve as a
"faith-affirming" tool for those whom do not give much critical
thought
to their beliefs and whom already believe as the author does. It
certainly will not be convincing to thoughtful skeptics of the
faith or
the Scriptures. As a christian, I have disagreements with some of
what
appears in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, but this volume is not a
satisfactory rebuttal.
END FIRST REVIEW
START SECOND REVIEW Reviewer: Laurence Jameson
"Larry" (Chicago) Thumbs down, October 13, 2004
This is not a very good compilation of alleged corrections to
errors.
There have been many comments here and there about the lack of
substance to this CD as well as the lackluster attempt at whatever
is
being called "research," and those comments are supported by any
unbiased examination of the contents. Indeed, much is not explained
or corrected. In newsgroups, inadequate response of this sort to
criticism is categorized as "is not." There isn't much more than
that in
this CD.
In fact, most of this CD is composed of material that doesn't even
belong to the author, provided, as guess, as "supplemental." Okay.
None of it helps the general tone of the project (I can't call it a
"book").
It seems to be added to project some sort of legitimacy, but that
can
only be gained by the effort itself. Unfortunately the effort, like
the
CD itself, is a failure.
By the way, I'm not an atheist, either. I have a legitmate advanced
degree in Biblical Studies from an old, reputable, accredited
institution, as well. That's all I'll say about that, but I would
also
srongly suggest that my fundamentalist brethren stop using that
line
of attack. It makes Christians appear mean-spirited and bitter,
which
is contrary to the teachings and example of Christ.
I can say that this CD might be okay for one who is new in the
Faith -- what we sometimes call a "baby Christian," but it will not
be
useful as the weapon against atheists, if my evaluation of the
author's
debate performances, as well as this CD, is any indication. At any
rate,
I wouldn't use it for any faith-affirming tool for even a new
Christian, I
simply suggest that it might serve that purpose because I can't
really
find anything else positive to say about it. I would also have
other
reasons for not using it.
Elsewhere it has been said that "anyone can write a book," and
in this day and age, anyone can "publish" one and get it placed
on sites such as Amazon. Usually this is a great service because
we get to see many competent and even outstanding authors
that the publishing houses would somehow pass over. That isn't
the case here. This CD compilation is an amateurish piece of work,
and there are far better researched and better-argued apologetics
out there, not burdened down with the author's vacation pictures
and other useless material apparently designed to pad the
volume of the CD.
END SECOND REVIEW
<snip>
Davey then points out where he finds these reviews to be subjective.
I assume they gave their opinions honestly, and tried to be fairly
objective.
The first became less than objective when he said that the quality
was
pre-secondary school. This is not written as if by a ten yearb old.
That
was a piece of hyberbole and cast doubt on the objectiveness of the
review.
When I first read your post Davey I was willing to give you the benefit
of the doubt with reagrd to this reviewers hyperbole. Since then I
have
visited the www.gastrich.org site to see some of the quotations from
the e-book as well as the commentary with regard to their scholarship.
Here are two examples that I think actually confirm the reviewers
premise that the book is no better than a elementary school level or at
most a lower secondary less.
For example:
"2 Samuel 10:18 indicates David killed 700 men in chariots. 1
Chronicles
19:18 indicates he killed 7000 men in chariots ... The author of 2
Samuel
simply indicated the number of companies (or leaders). There were 700
companies with 100 in each. Therefore, there were 7000 men in
chariots."
- Jason Gastrich, The Skeptics Annotated Bible: Corrected & Explained
Pretty big math error here Davey. Would you expect this from an eleven
year old?
Here is a direct quote from http://www.gastrich.org/forever.html:
START QUOTE
"* In Ecclesiastes 1:4, this Hebrew word "forever" is better
translated
"concealed the vanishing point." A better translation is this: "One
generation passes away and another generation comes, but the Earth
stands and its vanishing point is concealed." No, the Earth won't last
forever."
Jason Gastrich, Skeptics Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained,
'Acts'
What??!!!
Gastrich said that 'forever' means 'concealed the vanishing point'???
What is Gastrich going on about here? Now, even if you don't know
any Hebrew, it will be clear to you already that "forever" is merely
an
adverb. But "concealed the vanishing point" is an entire phrase
including at least a verb and a noun. So, it is clear that in no way
can
the Hebrew word for "forever" (a mere adverb, remember), mean
"concealed the vanishing point".
Where on earth did Gastrich get this idea from?
1. Embarrassingly, he got it from his misreading of a concordance!!
The concordance, when read properly, doesn't say this at all.
Here is Strong's entry for the Hebrew word 'forever':
"Hebrew: 5769. 'owlam, o-lawm'; or 'olam, o-lawm'; from H5956;
prop. concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; gen. time out of mind
(past or fut.), i.e. (practically) eternity; freq. adv. (espec. with
prep.
pref.) always:-- always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance,
eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long
(time),
(of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world
(+ without end). Comp. H5331, H5703."
Ooops, Mr Gastrich! What a massive and embarrassing reading
comprehension error!! Your first error was to misread what "i.e."
means. As is well known, 'i.e.' means 'that is to say'. It follows
that 'concealed' or 'the vanishing point' each refer to the same
meaning!! So, Gastrich's double-up of the same definition was the
result of his embarrassing error of not actually knowing what "i.e."
means.
(When challenged about this, Gastrich actually insisted that "i.e."
meant the same as "e.g." - a remedial error. And this demonstrates
both his general incompetence, and the very reason why he came
up with translating a single adverb as "concealed the vanishing
point"!!)
2. But Mr Gastrich actually made a second mistake in his
(mis)reading of Strong's Concordance!! "Concealed" is in fact the
definition of the root word, H5956!! The word we are dealing with,
H5769, means 'forever' or 'everlasting'. But 'concealed' is a
translation of 'alam (H5956). So Strong's Concordance is saying
that (1) 'alam means 'concealed', therefore (2) 'olam, which is
derived from it literally refers to 'the vanishing point' - which in
relation to its normal context of time translates to 'eternity'.
END QUOTE
What do you make of that Davey? Apparently Gastrich does not know
how to use a dictionary? So, we are quibbling as to whether he is
operating at the level of an eleven year old pre-secondary, or at the
level of a 13 year old, lower secondary. Basically the reviewers
judgment might be slightly exaggerated but not by much.
I have not even gone into the quality of the arguments that he
presents.
Judging by his devotionals i think lower secondary is quite comparable
to Jasons work. So a slight exaggeration, yes, hyperbole no.
With regard to the first reviewer, are you saying that all the other
comments are accurate or did you just write everything else off due to
the supposed hyperbole?
The second review had more objectivity, but was still colored by the
fact that the author simply disagrees with the theology.
One cannot write an objective review unless you agree with the
argument? I know you do not believe this Davey.
Reading the second review I wonder why you think this reviewer
disagrees with the theology? He does not discuss the theology in
the review. Even if he does disagree with the theology none of his
objections to the acadmeic value of the book are based on theology.
He seems to be saying it is not a useful tool for understanding the
bible. Given the errors quoted above from www.gastrich.org, this
seems like a valid opinion regardless of theology.
Also, why
criticise the photographs? Did they cause him to pay more for postage
and packing? Did they burden his bandwidth? Did they tempt him to
gross moral turpitude? Again, he simply showed in that comment a
certain prejudice towards the matter.
Davey, I've seen some of those photo on Jason's web site. They are
holiday snaps. One would expect them to be relevent to the passages
discussed in the book. In fact, this goes back to the elementary
school
analogy. Packing the report with irrelevant fluff does not make it
better.
Short and concise is far better than the brain dump that many student
seem to think will gain them credit.
You have yet to convince me that these reviews are subjective and you
have not shown their substance to be in error. The fact that Jason has
not jumped in with a critique is also evidence that he cannot back up
his claim.
David D.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David D." |
|
| Title: Re: "Man they love to hate" - a rebuttal |
19 Feb 2005 04:19:37 PM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1108847106.281714.259570@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey
What generally happens is that there is a core of people
getting into discussions with him who can manage to
keep a civil tongue in their head, but get very
intolerant
if Jason cannot keep up with their endless screed of
questions.
And here, you begin to rather blatantly engage in rhetoric,
misdirection, and dishonesty.
"Endless screed of questions?"
Isn't there a thread on f.c. that says "Day 26, etc etc"
which
asks the same question over and over, in violation of the
free.christians FAQ that allows a maximum of three asks
of the same question?
I'll take the blame for that one. First, as a usenet veteran
you
should know well that the free. heirarchy has no rules. Hence,
why
the
FAQ charter? Why should anyone be made to abide by such a
charter?
Second, if you have seen the question, and Jason has seen the
question,
why are you afraid to answer? It is a perfectly civil question
in
response to assertions made by Jason Gastrich. Do you agree he
cannot
justify his assertions? Is that why he refuses to address the
question?
Third, why doesn't Jason post his FAQ? Is he worried that he
will
be
called on his misuse of a free. heirarchy on usenet, as he was
before.
Gastrich's original claim was that he would post the FAQ every
15
days.
the last posting was in March 2004. That should be an
indication
of
the value that even Jason places on his FAQ. They are
worthless
and
you know it.
Fourthly, nudging the same question to the top of the pile is
not
the
same as asking the question multiple times. It is a way for
people
to
see that Jason is avoiding the original question. Harrassing
someone
would be to chase someone from thread to thread with the same
question.
I have not done this.
Lastly, are you willing to address the question since Jason
does
not
want to touch it? Do you want me to nudge it to the top again
so
you
find it?
I think your question was something like has there been an
objective
appraisal of his e-book?
Not quite. Jason has implied that the negative reviews for his
e-book
are
NOT objective. When I read those reviews they seem to be very
objective.
My question for Jason, or you if you wish to comment, was "can
Jason
point
out which parts of the following two reviews are NOT objective"? I
then
posted the two reviews (I have reposted them below for you to read
too). If
these two reviews are subjective it should be easy for him to back
up
this
claim, if it has any validity. His silence would suggest his cannot
back up his
claim. What do you think Davey?
Below is an example of Jason doubting the objectivity of his
reviewers.
Jason Gastrich wrote (http://tinyurl.com/4k5vt):
START Quote
Enkidu wrote:
"Jason Gastrich"
In my debate with Dan, I mentioned how I would
be writing a "corrected and explained" version of
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. In the subsequent
months, I did.
And we've read objective reviews of the result.
Objective, eh?
END Quote
START FIRST REVIEW Reviewer: Stasi Kay Not a good resource, October
8,
2004
I enjoy reading christian apologetics and works of comparative
religion
and I was loaned a copy of this electronic, CD-based book to see
what I
thought of it. I am afraid that my critical views align with some
of
the others on the Amazon site.
This is a poor effort at apologetics, the intellectual value is on
a
par with an albeit lengthy pre-secondary school report. There is
always
some risk when presuming to take a list of errors while presuming
to
correct them. One of those risks is that errors are not always
errors.
Another risk is that the errors are legitimate but those things
presumed to be "answers," "corrections" or "explanations" fall well
short of the mark by either failing to provide a reasonable,
intelligent explanation or by misdirecting from the subject of the
supposed error. These things occur frequently in this volume.
Also, there have been some attempts to demonize critics of this
work as
"atheists" both in reviews on Amazon and elsewhere. This strikes me
as
unfortunate, because it avoids the legitimate criticisms by
perpetuating a division among intelligent, thinking people with
differing world views through means that are not legitimate. Even
if it
were true that some reviewers are atheists (though it is not true
in
any case of which I am aware, including reviews on Amazon), it
makes no
difference when considering the intellectual value of the review.
An
atheist can write an intelligent review of an apologetic work as
readily as a christian can presume to "correct" or "explain" a
presumably atheist work such as the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible." If
there is substance to an unflattering review, that is what should
be
addressed, not the religious beliefs -- real, manufactured, or
imagined
-- that might be held by the reviewer.
Having said that, I feel that I cannot recommend this electronic
book,
mostly because it fails to do what it claims to do. Other reviewers
have noted that it does little more than provide superficial
coverage
of topics that are addressed. "Answers" and "explanations" that are
provided make unwarranted assumptions and are intellectually
deficient,
as well as lacking in documentary evidence. Very little in this
volume
would be of value as an evangelistic tool. It might best serve as a
"faith-affirming" tool for those whom do not give much critical
thought
to their beliefs and whom already believe as the author does. It
certainly will not be convincing to thoughtful skeptics of the
faith or
the Scriptures. As a christian, I have disagreements with some of
what
appears in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, but this volume is not a
satisfactory rebuttal.
END FIRST REVIEW
START SECOND REVIEW Reviewer: Laurence Jameson "Larry" (Chicago)
Thumbs
down, October 13, 2004
This is not a very good compilation of alleged corrections to
errors.
There have been many comments here and there about the lack of
substance to this CD as well as the lackluster attempt at whatever
is
being called "research," and those comments are supported by any
unbiased examination of the contents. Indeed, much is not explained
or
corrected. In newsgroups, inadequate response of this sort to
criticism
is categorized as "is not." There isn't much more than that in this
CD.
In fact, most of this CD is composed of material that doesn't even
belong to the author, provided, as guess, as "supplemental." Okay.
None
of it helps the general tone of the project (I can't call it a
"book").
It seems to be added to project some sort of legitimacy, but that
can
only be gained by the effort itself. Unfortunately the effort, like
the
CD itself, is a failure.
By the way, I'm not an atheist, either. I have a legitmate advanced
degree in Biblical Studies from an old, reputable, accredited
institution, as well. That's all I'll say about that, but I would
also
srongly suggest that my fundamentalist brethren stop using that
line of
attack. It makes Christians appear mean-spirited and bitter, which
is
contrary to the teachings and example of Christ.
I can say that this CD might be okay for one who is new in the
Faith --
what we sometimes call a "baby Christian," but it will not be
useful as
the weapon against atheists, if my evaluation of the author's
debate
performances, as well as this CD, is any indication. At any rate, I
wouldn't use it for any faith-affirming tool for even a new
Christian,
I simply suggest that it might serve that purpose because I can't
really find anything else positive to say about it. I would also
have
other reasons for not using it.
Elsewhere it has been said that "anyone can write a book," and in
this
day and age, anyone can "publish" one and get it placed on sites
such
as Amazon. Usually this is a great service because we get to see
many
competent and even outstanding authors that the publishing houses
would
somehow pass over. That isn't the case here. This CD compilation is
an
amateurish piece of work, and there are far better researched and
better-argued apologetics out there, not burdened down with the
author's vacation pictures and other useless material apparently
designed to pad the volume of the CD.
END SECOND REVIEW
<snip>
If that wasn't the question, then please redefine the question.
Have I redefined the question sufficiently? I really am interested
to
hear your
honest opinion.
David
I assume they gave their opinions honestly, and tried to be fairly
objective.
The first became less than objective when he said that the quality
was
pre-secondary school. This is not written as if by a ten yearb old.
That was
a piece of hyberbole and cast doubt on the objectiveness of the
review.
The second review had more objectivity, but was still colored by the
fact
that the author simply disagrees with the theology. Also, why
criticise the
photographs? Did they cause him to pay more for postage and packing?
Did
they burden his bandwidth? Did they tempt him to gross moral
turpitude?
Again, he simply showed in that comment a certain prejudice towards
the
matter.
Great. You make some valid points. I don't have time right
now but I'll re-evaluate the reviews based on your comments above.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: "Man they love to hate" - a rebuttal |
19 Feb 2005 04:21:12 PM |
|
|
Uzytkownik "David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1108851577.350256.183350@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1108847106.281714.259570@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey
What generally happens is that there is a core of people
getting into discussions with him who can manage to
keep a civil tongue in their head, but get very
intolerant
if Jason cannot keep up with their endless screed of
questions.
And here, you begin to rather blatantly engage in rhetoric,
misdirection, and dishonesty.
"Endless screed of questions?"
Isn't there a thread on f.c. that says "Day 26, etc etc"
which
asks the same question over and over, in violation of the
free.christians FAQ that allows a maximum of three asks
of the same question?
I'll take the blame for that one. First, as a usenet veteran
you
should know well that the free. heirarchy has no rules. Hence,
why
the
FAQ charter? Why should anyone be made to abide by such a
charter?
Second, if you have seen the question, and Jason has seen the
question,
why are you afraid to answer? It is a perfectly civil question
in
response to assertions made by Jason Gastrich. Do you agree he
cannot
justify his assertions? Is that why he refuses to address the
question?
Third, why doesn't Jason post his FAQ? Is he worried that he
will
be
called on his misuse of a free. heirarchy on usenet, as he was
before.
Gastrich's original claim was that he would post the FAQ every
15
days.
the last posting was in March 2004. That should be an
indication
of
the value that even Jason places on his FAQ. They are
worthless
and
you know it.
Fourthly, nudging the same question to the top of the pile is
not
the
same as asking the question multiple times. It is a way for
people
to
see that Jason is avoiding the original question. Harrassing
someone
would be to chase someone from thread to thread with the same
question.
I have not done this.
Lastly, are you willing to address the question since Jason
does
not
want to touch it? Do you want me to nudge it to the top again
so
you
find it?
I think your question was something like has there been an
objective
appraisal of his e-book?
Not quite. Jason has implied that the negative reviews for his
e-book
are
NOT objective. When I read those reviews they seem to be very
objective.
My question for Jason, or you if you wish to comment, was "can
Jason
point
out which parts of the following two reviews are NOT objective"? I
then
posted the two reviews (I have reposted them below for you to read
too). If
these two reviews are subjective it should be easy for him to back
up
this
claim, if it has any validity. His silence would suggest his cannot
back up his
claim. What do you think Davey?
Below is an example of Jason doubting the objectivity of his
reviewers.
Jason Gastrich wrote (http://tinyurl.com/4k5vt):
START Quote
Enkidu wrote:
"Jason Gastrich"
In my debate with Dan, I mentioned how I would
be writing a "corrected and explained" version of
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. In the subsequent
months, I did.
And we've read objective reviews of the result.
Objective, eh?
END Quote
START FIRST REVIEW Reviewer: Stasi Kay Not a good resource, October
8,
2004
I enjoy reading christian apologetics and works of comparative
religion
and I was loaned a copy of this electronic, CD-based book to see
what I
thought of it. I am afraid that my critical views align with some
of
the others on the Amazon site.
This is a poor effort at apologetics, the intellectual value is on
a
par with an albeit lengthy pre-secondary school report. There is
always
some risk when presuming to take a list of errors while presuming
to
correct them. One of those risks is that errors are not always
errors.
Another risk is that the errors are legitimate but those things
presumed to be "answers," "corrections" or "explanations" fall well
short of the mark by either failing to provide a reasonable,
intelligent explanation or by misdirecting from the subject of the
supposed error. These things occur frequently in this volume.
Also, there have been some attempts to demonize critics of this
work as
"atheists" both in reviews on Amazon and elsewhere. This strikes me
as
unfortunate, because it avoids the legitimate criticisms by
perpetuating a division among intelligent, thinking people with
differing world views through means that are not legitimate. Even
if it
were true that some reviewers are atheists (though it is not true
in
any case of which I am aware, including reviews on Amazon), it
makes no
difference when considering the intellectual value of the review.
An
atheist can write an intelligent review of an apologetic work as
readily as a christian can presume to "correct" or "explain" a
presumably atheist work such as the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible." If
there is substance to an unflattering review, that is what should
be
addressed, not the religious beliefs -- real, manufactured, or
imagined
-- that might be held by the reviewer.
Having said that, I feel that I cannot recommend this electronic
book,
mostly because it fails to do what it claims to do. Other reviewers
have noted that it does little more than provide superficial
coverage
of topics that are addressed. "Answers" and "explanations" that are
provided make unwarranted assumptions and are intellectually
deficient,
as well as lacking in documentary evidence. Very little in this
volume
would be of value as an evangelistic tool. It might best serve as a
"faith-affirming" tool for those whom do not give much critical
thought
to their beliefs and whom already believe as the author does. It
certainly will not be convincing to thoughtful skeptics of the
faith or
the Scriptures. As a christian, I have disagreements with some of
what
appears in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, but this volume is not a
satisfactory rebuttal.
END FIRST REVIEW
START SECOND REVIEW Reviewer: Laurence Jameson "Larry" (Chicago)
Thumbs
down, October 13, 2004
This is not a very good compilation of alleged corrections to
errors.
There have been many comments here and there about the lack of
substance to this CD as well as the lackluster attempt at whatever
is
being called "research," and those comments are supported by any
unbiased examination of the contents. Indeed, much is not explained
or
corrected. In newsgroups, inadequate response of this sort to
criticism
is categorized as "is not." There isn't much more than that in this
CD.
In fact, most of this CD is composed of material that doesn't even
belong to the author, provided, as guess, as "supplemental." Okay.
None
of it helps the general tone of the project (I can't call it a
"book").
It seems to be added to project some sort of legitimacy, but that
can
only be gained by the effort itself. Unfortunately the effort, like
the
CD itself, is a failure.
By the way, I'm not an atheist, either. I have a legitmate advanced
degree in Biblical Studies from an old, reputable, accredited
institution, as well. That's all I'll say about that, but I would
also
srongly suggest that my fundamentalist brethren stop using that
line of
attack. It makes Christians appear mean-spirited and bitter, which
is
contrary to the teachings and example of Christ.
I can say that this CD might be okay for one who is new in the
Faith --
what we sometimes call a "baby Christian," but it will not be
useful as
the weapon against atheists, if my evaluation of the author's
debate
performances, as well as this CD, is any indication. At any rate, I
wouldn't use it for any faith-affirming tool for even a new
Christian,
I simply suggest that it might serve that purpose because I can't
really find anything else positive to say about it. I would also
have
other reasons for not using it.
Elsewhere it has been said that "anyone can write a book," and in
this
day and age, anyone can "publish" one and get it placed on sites
such
as Amazon. Usually this is a great service because we get to see
many
competent and even outstanding authors that the publishing houses
would
somehow pass over. That isn't the case here. This CD compilation is
an
amateurish piece of work, and there are far better researched and
better-argued apologetics out there, not burdened down with the
author's vacation pictures and other useless material apparently
designed to pad the volume of the CD.
END SECOND REVIEW
<snip>
If that wasn't the question, then please redefine the question.
Have I redefined the question sufficiently? I really am interested
to
hear your
honest opinion.
David
I assume they gave their opinions honestly, and tried to be fairly
objective.
The first became less than objective when he said that the quality
was
pre-secondary school. This is not written as if by a ten yearb old.
That was
a piece of hyberbole and cast doubt on the objectiveness of the
review.
The second review had more objectivity, but was still colored by the
fact
that the author simply disagrees with the theology. Also, why
criticise the
photographs? Did they cause him to pay more for postage and packing?
Did
they burden his bandwidth? Did they tempt him to gross moral
turpitude?
Again, he simply showed in that comment a certain prejudice towards
the
matter.
Great. You make some valid points. I don't have time right
now but I'll re-evaluate the reviews based on your comments above.
David
OK.
Davey
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: "Man they love to hate" - a rebuttal |
19 Feb 2005 04:17:00 PM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1108847106.281714.259570@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David D." <daycd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey wrote:
"David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Uncle Davey
What generally happens is that there is a core of people
getting into discussions with him who can manage to
keep a civil tongue in their head, but get very
intolerant
if Jason cannot keep up with their endless screed of
questions.
And here, you begin to rather blatantly engage in rhetoric,
misdirection, and dishonesty.
"Endless screed of questions?"
Isn't there a thread on f.c. that says "Day 26, etc etc"
which
asks the same question over and over, in violation of the
free.christians FAQ that allows a maximum of three asks
of the same question?
I'll take the blame for that one. First, as a usenet veteran
you
should know well that the free. heirarchy has no rules. Hence,
why
the
FAQ charter? Why should anyone be made to abide by such a
charter?
Second, if you have seen the question, and Jason has seen the
question,
why are you afraid to answer? It is a perfectly civil question
in
response to assertions made by Jason Gastrich. Do you agree he
cannot
justify his assertions? Is that why he refuses to address the
question?
Third, why doesn't Jason post his FAQ? Is he worried that he
will
be
called on his misuse of a free. heirarchy on usenet, as he was
before.
Gastrich's original claim was that he would post the FAQ every
15
days.
the last posting was in March 2004. That should be an
indication
of
the value that even Jason places on his FAQ. They are
worthless
and
you know it.
Fourthly, nudging the same question to the top of the pile is
not
the
same as asking the question multiple times. It is a way for
people
to
see that Jason is avoiding the original question. Harrassing
someone
would be to chase someone from thread to thread with the same
question.
I have not done this.
Lastly, are you willing to address the question since Jason
does
not
want to touch it? Do you want me to nudge it to the top again
so
you
find it?
I think your question was something like has there been an
objective
appraisal of his e-book?
Not quite. Jason has implied that the negative reviews for his
e-book
are
NOT objective. When I read those reviews they seem to be very
objective.
My question for Jason, | | | | | | |
