This thread reserved for your comments concerning the ongoing "Authorization Debate"

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Answers

Duane,

Aren't you jumping the gun a bit? Or are you just being optimistic? Or... perhaps you have heard from E. Lee and he has agreed to the terms??

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Scott,

I am SO glad to see you admit that stumbling over the use of 'we' is SILLY!! :-)

I personally would like to see you remove the "No We" rule... because 1) it is Silly and 2) I would like to see a sincere debate Take Place.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

The debate will continue. If E. Lee does not want to accept, there are others who will, I am sure.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Thanks for taking a level-headed stand on the "we" issue re: the debate! As usual, Rush is right.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

The "we" issue should be a personal choice. Besides that, how many of us the rest of us use "we" on the forum. Just take a look back even recently and see how often each of us use it.

I think it is childish to make a rule stating that it can't or shouldn't be used.

If you are going to censor a little thing like the use of the word we, what next?

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

You will find this under the “Ask a Question” link. Considering all the guff that has been given E. Lee over his use of the word “WE”… this is too funny…(caps – mine)

“Please understand all visitors are welcome here to read our posts. But you must understand WE are a group of Christians who (for the most part) believe in a certain way. NEW RULE: NO POSTING IN THE PLURAL! For one man's opinions on what WE "generally believe", please take a look at "What We Believe" WE do not have the time nor inclination to examine all of your various world views. This Forum is not intended for you to expound them. They will be deleted as soon as they are noticed. WE do encourage discussion and debate however. If you are not sure if your question is appropriate, email me at ccfmoderator@aol.com and I will direct you to folks who will be happy to search God's Word with you so that WE may all come to know His truth more clearly. For a clearer understanding of "Our Position," please go there now so that you will have a better understanding of "where WE are coming from" when WE share our ideas and suggestions. Thank you, and may God bless all of us as WE attempt to restore the faith once delivered to the saints.”

Now in that ONE paragraph, I count about NINE times that the word “WE” was used in the plural. And MOST of those came AFTER the: “NEW RULE: NO POSTING IN THE PLURAL!”

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

That is funny, D. Lee. I had a good laugh when I saw it. Now, the only thing ADDED to that statement recently was the NO POSTING IN THE PLURAL... the other stuff ("we's" included) has been there...

However, if you look more carefully, you will see that the "we"s are used appropriately. In fact, at one point I switched over to the word "I" when I wanted to make it clear that I was not referring to the Christian Church at large. The issue is not over the use of "we" when it is referring to a collective "us" in the plural. The issue for me is using "we"(plural) when we mean "I" (singular) When I use the word "we" I am referring to myself and at least one other person. Does anybody else understand this?

But that is off-topic for this thread.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Sister Muse:

Amen and amen to your words. The New Rule as stated below is just plain STUPID and we will not abide by it and neither will Duane, as he has shown, or anyone else. And we will especially not allow this rule to have any impact upon the upcoming debate.

The so-called new rule states:

“NEW RULE: NO POSTING IN THE PLURAL!”

Now anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense knows that no one in this forum, including Duane is capable of following this rule. And they also know that this rule was not written for all to follow but only to prevent E. Lee Saffold from having the freedom of speech and the right to choose his own words. This new rule will only be enforced when E. Lee Saffold appropriately uses the word “we” to maintain an impersonal character and at no other time. You can rest assured of that.

Brother Duane says:

“However, if you look more carefully, you will see that the "we"s are used appropriately.”

But when he used the word “we” appropriately he violated his own rule that states “no posting in the plural”, didn’t he? Now anyone with a dictionary will see that the word “we” is in first person “PLURAL”. And they will also see that according to the dictionary it is appropriate for a single writer to use the word “we” as a special device designed to “maintain an impersonal character”. Now, if Duane can “appropriately” use the word “we” in the first person plural then we can use the word “we” in the first person plural appropriately for the purpose of “maintaining an impersonal character”. If not why not? For both uses are in fact “appropriately” using the “first person plural” and would in fact on that basis alone violate Duane’s “New Rule”. And both of those uses of the word “we” are appropriate uses of the first person plural “we” according to the dictionary. So why can Duane violate the rule of “no posting in the plural” by posting using the first person PLURAL word “we” and we cannot do it is hard for anyone with a brain to understand.

Now, we will again quote the Merriam-Webster dictionary as follows:

“Main Entry: we Pronunciation: 'we Function: pronoun, plural in construction Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wE; akin to Old High German wir we, Sanskrit vayam Date: before 12th century 1 : I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you -- used as pronoun of the first person plural; 2 : 1I -- used by sovereigns; used by writers to keep an impersonal character.”

Now this shows that the word “we” is a “pronoun PLURAL in construction”. Which means that no one can use the word “we” without posting a word that is “PLURAL” in construction. Which means that no one could obey Brother Duane’s new rule, including Brother Duane himself if he used the word “we” for ANY reason. For it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to use the word “we” without posting a word that is “plural in construction”. But, we could use the word appropriately as many writers do “to maintain an impersonal character” but we cannot use it without violating Brother Duane’s New Rule. For it is still “plural in construction”. And think of all of the other words that one would have to eliminate in order to obey Brother Duane’s new rule. According to his New Rule you could not use ANY word that was PLURAL for his new rule excludes posting anything in the PLURAL. For all it says is “NO POSTING IN THE PLURAL”. But it is not a real problem for Brother Duane since he has demonstrated that even he cannot follow his own rule in giving it as Sister Muse so cleverly pointed out. For his purpose is not to apply this rule to ANY ONE except E. Lee Saffold. It is just another tactic to deny us our freedom of speech in this forum. That is the truth pure and simple. And we tell everyone now that we will violate this rule every time we write in this forum and it is quite likely that you will also. For one cannot write often and for any reasonable length of time in any forum without saying something in the PLURAL. But Brother Duane has made something that is perfectly within our rights illegal in this forum. But do not worry. The rule does not apply to Duane or anyone else in this forum so you need not have too much concern about it. It applies solely to E. Lee Saffold. Now if he had been honest, which he has not, he would have said. New Rule: “When E. Lee Saffold post in this forum he must not use the word “we” to maintain an impersonal character even though it is a legitimate use of the word by writers according to the dictionary because we do not personally prefer that usage. We insist that he follow our personal preferences when posting in OUR forum.

Now that would have been the exact truth of the matter and he would not have made such a stupid rule that cannot be followed by anyone even himself.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

When I said I was dropping the "we" rule I meant it...I just forgot to take out the NO POSTING IN THE PLURAL part. Give me time! And technically, it is true, it is not "posting in the plural" that bothered me. Ben Watts just made that clear in his new post. Where this discussion should continue....

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Brethren:

Notice that Duane has said:

“When I said I was dropping the "we" rule I meant it...I just forgot to take out the NO POSTING IN THE PLURAL part. Give me time! And technically, it is true, it is not "posting in the plural" that bothered me. Ben Watts just made that clear in his new post. Where this discussion should continue....”

WE have given you plenty of time to replace all of our post that you have deleted. You promised in your email to us that you would complete the task yesterday afternoon. But you did not keep your promise. Can we trust you Duane? We are beginning to have serious doubts about your trustworthiness.

What bothers you Duane is our refusal to allow you to force us to yield to your personal preferences on this matter. And that is not going to happen in this lifetime. Even if you were able to persuade the entire world that my use of the word “we” is not a good choice I would not have any good reason to change it. Because it is correct usage and any person who pretends to be an English major that does not admit this to be true has failed to learn his lessons well. We can only hope that such an incompetent person is not teaching English to our young people. For he most certainly has not idea what he is talking about if he does not see that the word “we” has a secondary meaning of “I” when used by “sovereigns” and when used by writes to “keep an impersonal character”.

But just because you are ignorant of this fact does not give you or anyone else the right to demand and insist that we follow your ignorance.

And one who seems to not even have ever obeyed the gospel of Christ started the post where you want to continue this discussion. And you moderators are supposed to be watching for that according to another one of your “New Rules”. But you have failed to even enforce that rule in many cases in this forum until someone insists that you do so. It seems to me that you should think more deeply before making stupid rules that you cannot enforce.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Sigh... Feel free to re-post anything that was deleted... Feel free to not do so and waste your time whining about it.... Feel free to do whatever you want--you are hanging yourself with your own rope.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have said:

“Sigh...”

You would not be so frustrated or tired to feel like sighing if you had thought prayerfully and seriously about your decision to delete threads that did not suit your personal preferences, now would you?

Then you say:

Feel free to re-post anything that was deleted...”

We do not need your permission to “feel free”. WE are free without your permission and it feels great. So, we are indeed free to post anything again that you delete. And we will save all of our work in the future just so that we can post them again every time that you feel this ignorant urge to delete someone’s post simply because the writer does not write in a style that suits your personal preference.

But concerning the posts that you have unjustly deleted we say simply that you are the one that deleted them, Brother, and therefore you should be the one to replace them! Especially since we put them in the forum and trusted that you would leave them there we did not save them on our computer. We will do that in the future however. But for now you deliberately deleted our posts without any concern whatsoever whether we would ever be able to replace them. And now you ask us to do what you promised you would do and what you by all rights should do. SO, we cannot trust you to keep your word, now can we?

Then you say:

“ Feel free to not do so and waste your time whining about it....”

We are not “whining” Brother. We are pointing out how inconsistent and unjust you are so that all can see it. And you have helped greatly in making it abundantly clear just how unjust you can be haven’t you. This is what we want every one to see. Beware Brothers if you post anything in this forum you had better make sure that Brother Duane agrees with it. For if he does not like it he will delete it especially if he is angry about it. And if you do not save it you will not be able to post it again after it has been unjustly deleted. And Brother Duane will promise to repair his error and replace it but he will not keep that promise. Instead he will return and tell you to replace it.

Then he says:

“ Feel free to do whatever you want--you are hanging yourself with your own rope.”

Brother, we are not seeking to “feel free”. We are free and there is nothing you can do about it. You can cast us out of YOUR FORUM but if you allow us in here you are allowing a FREE MAN to be here, man who will not yield to your petty preferences just because you do not like how he says things. And we do not need your permission to do whatever we want. For we have demonstrated that this is what we are going to do whether you like it or not. That is what free men do. And we are indeed free, aren’t we?

And, we do not have any “rope” so it is not likely that we will hang ourselves. You are just angry and frustrated that we will not just allow you to easily “slip the noose” over our head, now aren’t you?

WE expect you to keep your promise to replace the treads that you deleted.

And we are watching to see if we can in fact trust you to keep that promise. If we cannot trust you to keep that promise then your trustworthiness will be forever in doubt in our minds. So, you do as you choose. Keep you promise or do not keep it. And we will do think and say whatever we believe about your choice.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Duane,

Do you even have E. Lee's posts that were deleted? Or did the text disappear on you? I know that you told me that you would re- post my deleted ones and then indicated that you didn't have them any longer... and since I did not either, that was the end of the story. If you don't have E. Lee's any longer... you obviously cannot repost them... wrong as that might be.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

I have been trying to upgrade my aol from 6.0 to 7.0, and the moderator email was in my AOL personal filing cabinet which now appears to be empty. I am told it still may be in my hard drive somewhere, but I cannot find it... There have been a few of you folks whose email I also deleted(on both sides) who said "don't worry about it" or as you said, the point is now moot. One example is a post of Ben Watts who criticized E. Lee for using patriotism to justify his we talk. I deleted it because I did not feel it contributed to the discussion, even though I agreed with Ben's take on the subject. Another email came from you, Kevin, asking about one of your posts.... you said not to worry about it. If someone wants his posts, those who get email alerts should have them if they dont immediately delete their email... I think there were two in particular from E. Lee.... Very long diatribes that had nothing to do with authorization or "we" but rather his reasons why he will keep on doing what he wants to do no matter what... They were deleted for one reason only.... Because I said I would no longer tolerate we talk in this forum, and he insisted he would continue.... But the CONTENT of his 2 or 3 posts was not some brilliant defense of his authorization view which I deleted in order to hide his pearls of wisdom... no conspiracy here... IT IS OVER... I have over 30 emails asking me to do something to appeal to everyone to just get on with the debate... if there will be one.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Thanks for admitting that you no longer have the messages to re-post as you promised. Although... your admission did include some personal comments about the content of E. Lee's deleted messages that were completely uncalled for and do not indicate goodwill.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Like you, Robin, I call em like I see em.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Duane,

The problem is that you are not seeing straight, considering all the deleting that has gone on recently.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Robin,

Why do you keep defending E. Lee? He comes on this board like the pompous, arrogant, butthead that he is, refuses to accept anyone's apology, let alone apologize for himself, rolls on the floor then stomps his feet like a two year old that doesn't get his way and whines to high heaven. Yet you have the gall to stand up for him? This guy's behavior is worse than the majority of non-Christians I know!

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Duane,

I think it is obvious to all that E. Lee will never engage in a debate.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Barry, Is it a must to accept an apology every time it is offered?

He did apologize…funny though that you think he hasn’t…did you think he was not sincere?

“butthead” – really Barry, how Christian is that? You talk about E. Lee doing something, yet look at what you do.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Brethren:

Notice how Brother Duane refuses to keep his promise to replace deleted post. Notice how he shifts responsibility for correcting this foolish mistake onto the victims of his unjust actions. And notice how he attempts to negatively characterize the nature of our posts, which he has so thoroughly deleted that no one can prove that he is right or wrong about his characterization of their contents. It is bad enough that Brother Duane deletes something that he does not personally like. But then to return and admit that you cannot replace them. Then after such admission to attempt to negatively characterize those post knowing that the writer of those post will not be able to refer to those post in order to defend his writing against such false charges is just plain evil, deliberately deceptive and sinful.

These are his words concerning our post which he unjustly deleted seeking to make people believe that they were not talking about either the subject of “we” or “authorization”. But he knows if he were to put them back in our readers would see that we were in fact discussing at least one of those two subjects in the POSTS (PLURAL) that he deleted without any decent justification for doing so. His words were as follows:

“But the CONTENT of his 2 or 3 posts was not some brilliant defense of his authorization view which I deleted in order to hide his pearls of wisdom... no conspiracy here... IT IS OVER... I have over 30 emails asking me to do something to appeal to everyone to just get on with the debate... if there will be one.”

Well, not only does Duane DELETE our post unjustly he now comes in to tell us his opinion of what was in those post that he deleted. We disagree entirely with his claim as to what those post were but no one will ever know the truth about it because he has deleted them so that no one will be able to verify what was actually contained in them. Brother Duane promised to replace those posts. And he has not kept his promise. And that, Brethren, is a form of LYING. He says they are not longer in his computer. That is understandable. Nut then he ask US to go out and find them in someone’s email that may not have actually deleted them yet. But it is his responsibility to do this. He promised to put them back and he admits that there yet might be a way from them to be located on some else’s email. Then why does he not go out and find those posts and put them back where they belong instead of asking us to do it. We did not delete them Brother Duane, YOU DID. And we did not promise to put them back, YOU DID. SO, you go find them and keep your promise and put them back. If you do not do this then your credibility as an honest person who can be trusted is forever damaged in our minds unless you repent for having lied to us by making a promise that you have not even attempted to keep. But, if you cannot keep your promise because the post cannot be found in any place then you should repent and apologize for your unjust deletions. And promise to not do such again in the future without first maintaining a way to ensure that you can put them back if you have made a mistake.

Now this is a matter of doing what is right. And in this matter you have been pathetically WRONG. But, it is your forum and you can be whatever you want it to be. But for now it is a forum with little or no integrity for it reflects the character of its owner who has shown himself to be completely untrustworthy and deceptive.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Duane has said:

“... IT IS OVER... I have over 30 emails asking me to do something to appeal to everyone to just get on with the debate... if there will be one.”

Brethren, there will be a debate after we have ensured that we can trust that Brother Duane will not delete the arguments that we shall make in that debate which does not suit him. There will be a debate after Brother Jewell and myself agree upon the propositions, terms, and conditions under which we will be conducting the debate. And there will be a debate after Duane, the OWNER OF THIS FORUM agrees in writing that he will not delete ANY single word of either participant in the debate. And there will be a debate when both participants have chosen their moderators.

Now, none of you have any rights or business to try to RUSH either participant to debate before all of the rules has been agreed upon. We will debate these subjects when the agreement to debate has been finalized. And that agreement to debate is between Brother Jewell and myself. And we want written authorization from the OWNER of this forum to conduct this debate in this forum and his assurances that he will not delete anything written by either participant in the course of that debate. For we cannot allow for a debate to take place under conditions wherein the owner feels free to delete anything he wants and takes no responsibility for correcting his deletion errors. And where he will delete our words and then later comment upon them when no one can see them or read them for themselves and characterize them to favor his position. This is not only STUPID it is absolutely unacceptable and none of you, if you were honest with yourselves would accept such conditions if you were in our shoes.

So, Brother Duane, we want to get on with the debate but you are hindering its progress by deleting our posts. For this causes us to not trust you. And now we must have a written agreement from you that you will not delete anything written by any participant in this debate. And we want written authorization from you, as the OWNER of this forum, indicating that you grant both participants without conditions attached thereto the right to conduct a formal debate in YOUR forum. And we want clear assurances that you will not interfere with the progress and conduct of it, nor delete a single word from it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

D. Lee,

"Butthead" was the nicest word I could come up with to describe him.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Pasted from my earlier post in "Formal Debate Challenge": "...I will retract my demand (in any of the threads) to refrain from the editorial we. Again, on a personal level, I don't want one issue (E. Lee's use of "we") to cloud other issues (my respect for E. Lee and desire to converse on other issues--both those we stand together on, and those we disagree on)"

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Davis says:

“Duane, I think it is obvious to all that E. Lee will never engage in a debate.”

Now nothing could be more ignorant than this remark. If Brother E. Lee Saffold will “never” debate it will be because men like Brother Davis refuse to debate him. And it is quite obvious to all that Brother Davis will never debate E. Lee Saffold because he will never even attempt to agree to a debate with him now will he? So, what is obvious is that Brother Davis will never debate us for he has not the ability nor the courage to do so, now isn’t it?

At least we are trying to reach an agreement with Brother Jewell to arrange for a fair debate. We have received an email from him and will respond to it today. And in his email he has made some very good suggestions that will help us to reach agreement quickly.

But Brother Davis does not even have the courage to attempt to debate us, does he? So, there will be a debate if such is authorized in this forum and if there are written guarantees that nothing will be deleted from the words of either participant in the debate.

So, it is not really obvious that E. Lee Saffold will never debate. But if this is true it will be because none in this forum are truly willing to debate him. Brother Jewell appears to be very willing and able to debate us and we are confident that we will have a debate if Brother Duane is willing to authorize us to debate in HIS FORUM without conditions and agrees to not delete anything that we say.

Anyway, We continue to offer to debate brother Davis and he continues to refuse to debate us. SO, it is quite obvious, isn’t it, that it is Brother Barry Davis who is NEVER GOING TO ENGAGE IN A DEBATE, isn’t it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Brethren:

Notice Brother Duane has retracted, as he had stated earlier, his demand that we refrain from the use of what he calls the “editorial we” as follows:

“Pasted from my earlier post in "Formal Debate Challenge": "...I will retract my demand (in any of the threads) to refrain from the editorial we. Again, on a personal level, I don't want one issue (E. Lee's use of "we") to cloud other issues (my respect for E. Lee and desire to converse on other issues--both those we stand together on, and those we disagree on)"

But, he has deleted our post because of his “demand”. And he has promised to replace them but has not kept that promise. Now he seems to indicate that he will not keep that promise. Now if he cannot keep that promise he should apologize for the irreparable damage he is responsible for causing. And he should apologize for his attempts to attack the words in those deleted posts because his deletions prevent the writer from defending his words, which are no longer available to our readers because he has deleted them completely.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

E. Lee,

What you fail to understand is that I don't want to have a formal debate, and have never stated such. You, on the other hand, keep claiming you want a formal debate, then you conveeeeeeniently keep finding ways to keep it from happening! Now you insist on a written agreement from Duane! Do you really think anyone takes you seriously?

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

I deleted posts. I promised to re-post them. I lost them and can no longer keep the promise. I apologize for that. If the debate ever starts, I will not delete any posts in the debate thread WITH THE EXCEPTION of any posts made by non-participants. The only participants will be the 2 debators and the 2 moderators. Upon request of the participants, I will edit any mispellings, etc. If they ask me to do so.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Brethren:

Notice that Brother Davis says the following:

“E. Lee, What you fail to understand is that I don't want to have a formal debate, and have never stated such.”

We understand that you do not WANT to have a formal debate. In fact, you do not WANT even an informal debate. That is a fact, isn’t it? You definitely do not WANT to debate E. Lee Saffold in any format, do you?

Then you say:

“ You, on the other hand, keep claiming you want a formal debate, then you conveeeeeeniently keep finding ways to keep it from happening!”

You are stupid aren’t you? It took us over a year to get anyone to agree to debate us. And someone requested this particular debate other than ourselves. And you cannot show one place where we have “conveeeeeeniently” or otherwise done anything whatsoever to prevent any debate from happening. We have accepted Brother Jewell’s offer to debate this matter and are currently working to formulate the rules and write the propositions and Brother Jewell is doing the same. It takes a few days to do these things and you are so ignorant of what a debate really involves as to think that the negotiation process that precedes an agreement to debate is nothing more than a tactic to prevent the debate. If this were the truth it would be a tactic that both participants are guilty of using because they both are involved in those negotiations. We must have a proposition clearly stated for both parties. And several other matters must be worked out and we are not the only one’s with issues to work out. The other side has them as well. Now the fact that they have issues to work out does not mean that they are deliberately trying to prevent the debate to which they have agreed to engage one another.

Then you say:

“ Now you insist on a written agreement from Duane!”

Indeed we do and for good reasons since he has deliberately deleted our posts that he did not personally like. We want him to agree to not delete our words against our will in this forum and we want him, since he is the OWNER of this forum to authorize us to debate this subject in this forum. It is a reasonable expectation. And we do INSIST upon it. WE do not want anyone to be allowed to just stop the debate in the middle after we have put much effort into it and say “it is my forum and I can do whatever I want to do. I do not like the way the debate is going and I never authorized it to happen in the first place.

Then you say:

“ Do you really think anyone takes you seriously?”

You had better believe that he takes us very seriously! HA!

And we have challenged you to a debate on the subject of "baptism for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). And you have not the courage or the ability to debate us and therefore you do not WANT to debate us on this subject. We have even tried to discuss that matter with you without a formal debate and you simply ignored all of our arguments. So, we can see why you do not WANT to debate. It is a simple fact that your doctrines cannot stand up in any debate formal or otherwise and you have not the courage or the ability to engage in such.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Good reply to Barry, E. Lee.

I think you have what you need to proceed; if not, let me know.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Duane,

And just what was "good" about E. Lee's reply?

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

E. Lee,

We had a question posted about baptism that you ignored. CLICK HERE to respond. Ha!

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

It was "good" because I agreed with it.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Gotcha! :)

Seriously, if you must know (now we're doing post- post analysis?) it was thought out, directed to one train of thought...he took each of your statements and gave a clear answer to each one. He did call you stupid, but at least he formed it in a question. I'll give it a nine. It was well-written, low on the we factor (loving joke, please interpret as intended) and to the point.

You have good posts too now and then (in my opinion, and that's what this post is all about), but lately I think they have been overtly taunting and distracting to your goal.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Specifically, his response to your charge that he is purposefully delaying the debate was that these things take deliberation, and he is right. His answer made sense. It was a good reply.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Duane, All I can say is "Ha!" You couldn't prove your assertions to save your life! :)

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

???

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Oh, about overtly taunting, etc? You are correct. That is why I did not say "I can prove that...." I said "I think..."

Praise the Lord that our lives are not threatened each time we have a thought, eh?

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Brothers and Sisters,

I know that you all are anxious for the debate to move forward. Please accept my apologies for the delay. This has not been E. Lee's fault in any way, shape, or form. We began the discussion of the rules for our debate and my web site and e-mail accounts that I provided stopped working. E. Lee has tried to contact me in good faith and my addresses have failed. Hopefully, we will be able to correspond again soon, but please be patient.

God bless,

Scott

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

What a waste of time, minds and energy! I am sure all these complaining, bickering threads make everyone's day SO much better! What a Godly place to invest one's energies! UGH!

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2001

I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Barry and Teresa. Having only visited this site a few times, one thing seems clear. E. Lee is very "wordy". He can run a dead horse into the ground. But I suppose it's necessary to weed out the real players. I'll enjoy reading the remainder of the dialouge. Love, John

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2002