I have been waiting for Duane to start a we thread. Wanting to understand the background, I found the "Bill and E.Lee Debate" post, and this reason for E.Lee's use of the word we:

"Perhaps, a simple reading of the definition of the word “we” and how it is used by writers of the English language will help you understand our use of the word “we” as follows...pronoun, plural in construction...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. used by sovereigns; used by writers to keep an impersonal character.”

E. Lee is not using "we" in that sense. A writer will avoid referring to himself by using "we" to give the impression that there is indeed at least one other person the writer is speaking for. What E.Lee seems to be saying is "when I say 'we' I sometimes may be including others but it is also possible that I am only referring to myself and I can do that if I want to." Well, he certainly can. But he cannot use the secondary definition of we in the dictionary to justify his use of it. And the way he is suggesting it be used (that "we" might be a singular pronoun) is not the way described in the definition.

I am an english major. I can tell you why and how writers use "we" to keep an impersonal character. Since we means more than one, or plural, a writer will refrain from speaking for himself alone. He will purposefully include at least one other person in every statement he makes.

It would be as if I called E. Lee on the phone, and said "How are you doing, E. Lee? Do you still have that nasty cold?" and he said, "Yes, we still have it" I would guess that others in his household had the cold also.

If I heard a belching noise over the phone, and asked him, "Did you just belch?" and he said, "Yes, we did," it would certainly make me wonder what was going on at the other end of the phone line.

It is okay to use we when you mean we. But when you mean "I" or "me" but you say"us" or "we" you risk causing Danny to stumble and call you an h-word.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Answers

You are good, Ben!

And I was wrong. It is okay to use "we" when you really do mean you and somebody else; just have a problem with somebody saying we if they really mean I.

To give another illustration: If I said to you, "Ben, you are a ninny" and you said "Why did you call us a ninny?" I would detect that the two of us are not using the same rules of language.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Brother Ben:

You may be an English major but you have not explained the fact that the dictionary gives “I” as a secondary meaning of the word “we” when it is use in two different ways. 1.) By sovereigns (which we are not and therefore cannot use it in this way and 2.) By writers to “keep an impersonal character”. See the definition 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, if you called me on the phone I would not be a “writer”. Instead I would be in a casual conversation with you and most likely would not respond to any of your questions about my specific personal health with the word “we” because in that situation I would not be trying to “keep an impersonal character with a personal friend. But if I am writing in a forum and wish to “keep and impersonal character” it is perfectly acceptable to use the word “we” in its secondary meaning of “I” as a writer to “keep an impersonal character”. And if you are English major you should know it.

But all of this is quite beside the point. It is our right to use any words that we choose and it is your right to not like it. But neither you, nor anyone else has a right to deny us the freedom to chose our own words and write in our own style. It is correct, in harmony with how the word is defined and how many writers use it. But even if it were not the best usage, which we do not agree that it is ineffective, it is our right and you can discuss it forever. But it is none of your business what words we shall chose. And we are going to use the word "we" in this way whether you, Duane, Brother Bill or anyone else likes it or not. Simply because you have not right to deprive us of our freedom of speech. And we will not allow anyone including you or Brother Duane to DICTATE to us about it.

I accept the fact that you do not like the usage. And I accept the fact that some others do not like it. That is your right. But I maintain my right to use it. I like it and that is all that matters in this case for it is nothing more than a matter of personal preference and you nor anyone else will be allowed to force your personal preferences upon me. It is that simple and that is the way it is going to be. Now, I have a lot to be doing and I have justified my use of the word “we” more times than is necessary. You can enjoy this thread as much as all of you like. But I will use the word “we” as I see fit whether anyone agrees with it or not. SO, your discussions of this matter may be fun for you and others but every time you read my words in this forum I will use the word “we” in its secondary meaning of “I” to keep a personal character. And Brother Duane can kick me out of HIS FORUM if he so desires. But if he allows me to write in his forum I will use the word “we” as I chose to do. In fact, because of this ignorant and stupid insistence that we do otherwise we shall in fact deliberately use the word “we” in it’s secondary meaning as often as possible. Just for the purpose of maintaining our rights to do so and in absolute complete defiance of anyone who would like to prevent us from having freedom of speech in this or any other forum. That is the way it is. That is the way it will be. And nothing this side of eternity has the power to stop us from doing it, if we are allowed to write in this forum. If Brother Duane is ready to exclude us from his forum that is his right. But so long as he aloows us to write in this forum we will not allow him to dictate to us concerning any words that we shall chose to use or haw we shall chose to use them.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

E.Lee, Nobody's talking about rights or kicking anyone out of anywhere, and for a person who says he wants to keep an impersonal character, you sure take a lot personally! But take your red herrings into another thread. This thread is to talk about the we word, NOT about some conspiracy to silence you.

If you don't want to answer questions directly, that is also your perogative.

Definition TWO of a word does not mean the OPPOSITE of definition one. Definition TWO says nothing about substituting singular I for plural we. Definition TWO does not give the word we permission to become singular.

Definition TWO says that authors sometimes PLACE THEMSELVES IN THE "WE" CATEGORY in their writing; that is, they write something that can ONLY be understood as PLURAL... they avoid any writing which might suggest an indivdual person....So, in order to keep an impersonal character, the writer voluntarily includes at least one other person in every statment they make. If the writer MUST share a thought that the writer wants the readers to know is a unique,personal thought, the writer will write, "This writer believes..." but the writer will NOT say "we believe" when he wants to convey "I believe"



-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

When you get around to replacing my post which you unjstly deleted from this forum then we might have some reason to believe that there is not conspiracy to prevent us from being heard. Until then there is no "Red Herring" here but clear evidence of your deliberate attempts to silence us in this forum in some places. Keep you promise to put those post back in or accept the fact that you have deliberately made an attempt to silence us.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

You have them Lee. Feel free to re-post them. Just do it in another thread, ok? Let's continue with the topic at hand... using we when we mean me:

Defenders of E. Lee should consider this is not a harmless quirk of speech. Words mean things. Confusion hinders communication. When Darrell apologizes to E. Lee and E. Lee says "we forgive you" the unknowing reader would assume that Darrell had apologized to more than one person. And that might be true. But it also tells the unknowing reader that E. Lee was accepting the apology on behalf of all of the alleged offendees...I miss the old E.Lee: How I loved some of his old posts in the past, like the one in This thread. Notice how many times he writes "I"... he also uses "we" towards the end, but you always know when he means I and when he means we:

"Brother Danny:

I appreciate your post. You are correct in what you have said. I have been to denominational "revival" meetings myself. But I did not go to "unite" or fellowship those who are not in Christ. I went to Convert those who showed that they want to follow Christ but have never had the opportunity to hear the truth.

For example, I attended one such meeting for a week and every night I challegned the preacher concerning his teaching and taught from the scriptures that we must obey the gospel to be saved which meant that we must be baptized. (2 Thess 1:7-9; Acts 2:38; Mark 16;16; Acts 22;16; 1 Peter 3;21; Gal. 3:26,27. It is needless to say that it was quite a fight. I was called every conceviable name in the book of curses. I was physically threatened but fortunately never physically harmed. The police were called to force me to leave but I retuned the following evening to continue. The week following the meeting their preacher decided to have a "series" of lessons entitled "what is wrong with the Church of Christ".

When he finished his series we baptized seven of the members of his denomination including the daughter of the preacher that established that sect. After a period of time we were able to convert about 30 from that denomination to Christ. The reason this was successful was because their were several in that denomination who loved the Lord and wanted to serve Him faithfully but they did not know that they were not in Christ. They did not know that they were yet in their sins. They did not know that they need to obey the gospel of Christ. They thought that they were saved just by "believing" without being immersed into Christ. They did not know that Christ did not establish any denominations but that he had build His one Church( Matt16:16; Eph. 1:22,23; Eph. 4:4.)

And I can tell you that if we had not gone there with the intent to teach them the truth and convert them to Christ and if we had gone just to fellowship those who were outside of Christ as if they were Brothers and sisters in Christ they would still be in their sins without God and living in the delusion that all was well with their souls. They would still be thinking that they were forgiven and that they were God's Children and that they were in the kingdom of God while in truth they were still outside of Christ. Was it worth the trouble? Yes! Without question. Some of them are no longer alive. If only we could ask them to tell us if it were worth the trouble we could probably end this scuabble over promise keepers immediately.

I can tell you that this was the most severe fight that we have encountered in doing these things. It is still my proceedure and I still attend such meetings to teach. The field there is "white unto harvest" and the church is growing because of such. Now there is no question that we have become considered as the church in the New Testament was the "sect that was every where spoken against". But it is true that were are at least spoke about. We are not easily ignored I can assure you of that. Sectarian preachers often find it very difficult to avoid some form of debate with us. If we are more concerned with the impression that we make on others than we are with teaching the truth and refuting false doctrine we will not accomplish God's purpose. We must not be a praty to anything that allows those who are lost to continue the ruse that they are "saved" and are in Christ when such is not true. When one attends the PK meetings without making any effort whatsoever to teach them the truth he is allowing those persons to live in the deception that they are Christians when in fact they are not. I know that there may be some Christians there who have never heard of us or the "restoration movement" but God's word is clear in it's teaching that there are none there who have not been obedient to the gospel of Christ. (2 Thess 1;7-9).

I still firmly believe that PK would be a great opportunity to convert more such people to Christ. I cannot for the life of me understand how Christians, who know that these persons are outside of Christ because they have never obeyed the gospel, can just assist in continuing the ruse that these persons are Christians. Especially, when they are in truth yet in their sins and have never come into contact with the precious blood of Christ that will cleanse them of their sins and give them a GENUINE hope of eternal life.

I pray that God will bless you brother.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold"



-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Hey E. Lee, (and I speak to you alone. I do not refer to your wife, your family, friends, or fellow Christians)

You want Duane to censor me? He said he was going to start a thread on "we" but I started one. Is that a rule you want Duane to establish to make you happy? "NO POSTING THREADS WHICH DUANE SAYS HE IS GOING TO POST"

You can't have it both ways.

And since when do you use a dictionary to justify your conduct? I thought you were a man of the Word. Can you show me anywhere where GOD authorizes you to say one thing and mean another? Should not your yea be yea and your nay be nay? Should not your me be me and your we be we?

If I recall, didn't Paul once even go to extra lengths to insure his readers when he meant "me" (Paul) and when he meant we (me and God)?

Ah, but the dictionary...give me a break. Make that give us a break.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Brothers and Sisters,

This grumbling and complaining over the use of the word WE, (IMHO) has gone on for far too long. What difference does it make really? Except of course to cause hate and discontent? I just have to shake my head that we who call ourselves Christians continue to exhibit this kind of behavior. Let us all keep the following in mind: "Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth." (Col 3:2)

Let us all also always remember to: "Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain." (Phil 2:14-16)

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

I have been staying out of this as much as possible, but our esteemed English major is correct. We is only used in the editorial sense when the writer is speaking for himself and someone else. This leaves only two options: Either Lee is a megalomaniac and is using "We" in the sovereign sense, believing himself to be above everyone else (which I sincerely doubt), or it is a deliberate and calculated matter of pride.

Duane you are right that Lee used to use "I" instead of "We." He also used to be a lot less verbose and combative. I noticed some of his posts in another forum and they were all short and to the point. It is always better in any debate to state your matter concisely, and Lee I think knows this. Which makes me wonder why he goes on and on and on with his posts in this forum. Unless it is again a matter of pride, of drowning out his detractors with the sheer volume of his words. Or perhaps it is an effort to impress with many words, as the Pharisees of old did with their many-worded prayers.

Proverbs 10:19 "When words are many, sin is not absent, but he who holds his tongue is wise."

Ecclesiastes 5:3 "As a dream comes when there are many cares, so the speech of a fool when there are many words."

Ecclesiastes 5:7 "Much dreaming and many words are meaningless. Therefore stand in awe of God."

I'm not trying to attack you, Lee, but having stood on the sidelines in this and watched both sides, to you I say as a brother and a friend, have a care and examine your heart, lest you be found to be in sin. For the heart is deceitful above all things, and it is easy to let ourselves be deceived by our own prideful hearts and not even know it, unless we are on guard.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

John,

Your post was directed to all readers in parts, and in other parts, to individuals. Thank you for the clarity--I was able to take ALL of it personally, and am grateful for the introspection you initiated within me.

Technically, according to what progression of thought I have been able to pull out of the muck, as it were, E. Lee still has the option of definition 2, which Ben did not fully paste, which (at least in that dictionary) says that writer may use we for I to keep an impersonal character.

The real question, I guess, would be how helpful is the impersonal character when one wants to be understood as communicating a personal message. It is not an issue of rights, because certainly one has the freedom to choose any style of speech or writing to communicate. One could write allegorically, symbolically, whatever.

Nobody is denying that freedom (knock on wood, I admit that immediately upon declaring a ban on "we" speech, I did 3 things; 1. posted the ban 2. deleted violations, and some posts that responded to them, and 3. put "NO POSTING IN PLURALS" in the About Section. I then retracted (repented) for reasons given, and vowed to restore what I could and allow others to re-post anything which they wanted, and asked for grace as we continue forward...)

The question is "does using "we" for "I" in this way contribute to the purpose of the communication? Is it the best way? Is it excellent?

Can I say that I meet these standards? Of course not! Can any of us? The very thought of how far short ALL of us fall compared to Christ, should be enough to humble all of us. As I said before, I am done throwing stones. Email me privately if you still see any of my stones anywhere, and I'll do my best to pick them up.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

John, I meant Kevin's post, more so than yours, which really hit me. But yours too. I read them both together...

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Amen, Kevin! I do need some clarification, though, if you don't mind:

This grumbling and complaining (are you including E. Lee's in this?) over the use of the word WE, (IMHO) has gone on for far too long. What difference does it make really?(so give it up, E. Lee, right Kevin?) Except of course to cause hate and discontent? I just have to shake my head that we (including yourself?)who call ourselves Christians continue to exhibit this kind of behavior.

If your answer to all 3 questions is yes, then I agree, we are all guilty.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

"We" lurkers would like to see you posters have a group hug and get on with the debate already

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Benjamin,

I purposely left out any names when I posted my opinion. So, in other words, if the shoe fits wear it.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

We Agree!!

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

I have been reading this Forum off and on since its inception, have never posted--and I am also an elder in a Church of Christ, non- instrumental. I am in full agreement with Mr Saffold on the authorization issue. Brothers (and I do mean that if you have obeyed the Gospel), I am eager to see the debate begin, if there is to be one. Mr Saffold appears to be well-versed in the authorization issue, and up to the task. That is, if he gets a chance. He is way off base on this we thing, in my opinion, but I think you guys have backed him into a corner and all he can do is squeal. I have emailed a professor friend at Abilene University who may be willing to debate the authorization issue; for it appears that Mr. Saffold is not qualified to represent "us" for the same reasons Duane or Darrell should not be moderators. I for one, for now, cannot see him as being objective. He is no longer answering valid rebuttal points, but instead is beating the dead horse of Duane's dumb deletions, (and I agree it was dumb...sorry Duane)

But Duane has pretty much agreed it was dumb too, and is trying to separate the issues and get on with things. Mr Saffold will not let the dead dogs lie. His behaviour has been childish and it is obvious to all. I for one, hope he is not including "me" when he says "we".

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Speaking of valid rebuttal points which E. Lee has not responded to, allow me to re-ask a few:

And since when do you use a dictionary to justify your conduct? I thought you were a man of the Word. Can you show me anywhere where GOD authorizes you to say one thing and mean another? Should not your yea be yea and your nay be nay? Should not your me be me and your we be we?

Now let's see if he actually answers my questions with content (as he used to do) or keeps up his pity party.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Andy,

E. Lee continues to "beat the dead horse" as you say, because Duane indicated he would re-post deleted messages... but has NOT done so. In my case, Duane admitted that he lost the my messages that he deleted, so he could not re-post.... If that is the case with E. Lee's, then it is indeed a "dead horse". But, Duane has not yet said he lost E. Lee's messages... as far as I know.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

I lost them.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Benjamin,

You have said, "Can you show me anywhere where GOD authorizes you to say one thing and mean another? " He doesn't have to... for he is not saying one thing and meaning another!! He has shown that his use of 'we' is a legitimate usage... numerous times.

Even Duane (who as of late has not said much in support of E. Lee) has said, "Technically, ..., E. Lee still has the option of definition 2, which Ben did not fully paste, which (at least in that dictionary) says that writer may use we for I to keep an impersonal character." I wonder why "Ben did not fully paste" it??? :-)

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

For all the words and wisdom of this group, ya'll missed two other reasons a person uses the the word, "we."

There is the usage of the word WE as implying inclusiveness to gain cooperation from a group of possible dissenters. A good example would be the kindergarten teacher who announces, "WE are going to enjoy our quiet time nap and then WE will have fun on the playground." It is clear to me, the teach will enjoy the children taking a nap, not the children and the teacher will not be napping. It is the children who will have fun on the playground but in all probablility, it will not be fun for the teacher.

The other time a person standing alone, uses The word "WE" is when that particular person also has a mouse in their pocket.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion you seem to have over various usages of the word WE.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Duane,

You say: “Defenders of E. Lee should consider this is not a harmless quirk of speech. Words mean things. Confusion hinders communication.”

WHO is confused? What is so confusing about E. Lee’s use of the word “we”? Come on…I didn’t even go to college and can understand what he is saying. That is a weak argument!

Of course words mean things, and E. Lee has explained numerous times how he is using the word from the dictionary. If I can "get it" then you can too Duane.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

D Lee Muse,

"WHO is confused? What is so confusing about E. Lee’s use of the word “we”? Come on…I didn’t even go to college and can understand what he is saying."

Yes maybe you do, however the casual visitor to this forum would definately think Saffold was referring to more than one person with his use of the word 'we'. Obviously you do not care whether any such casual visitor, who may drop by, misunderstands Saffold's posts.

Still that is your choice. Nobody said (I should think) you had to be concerned about the casual visitor.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Sam,

I am not sure exactly what you meant by “casual visitor”, but if the casual visitor on the forum took a little time and read several of E. Lee’s posts, they too would not have trouble understanding what he is saying. They could probably “get it” in just reading one or two of his posts. And E. Lee often is referring to more than one person with his usage.

You say: “Obviously you do not care whether any such casual visitor, who may drop by, misunderstands Saffold's posts.”

Again I say…if a casual visitor reads for any length of time he will understand what is going on. And if they are so casual about the reading and do not spend the time reading and only visit us for a short time, what is the need for them to understand in the first place? Anything worth doing takes time and effort.

You say: “Nobody said (I should think) you had to be concerned about the casual visitor.”

I am not concerned for the casual visitor at all if by that you mean one that will only spend a very short time here then leave. Spending a short time here than leaving will not accomplish much at all as far as I am concerned.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Brother Andy:

You have said:

“I have been reading this Forum off and on since its inception, have never posted--and I am also an elder in a Church of Christ, non- instrumental.”

Well, Brother I sincerely hope this is true. I will only assume for the moment that you are in fact an “elder” in the church of Christ and will therefore accord you the respect that is due an elder in the church of our Lord.

Then you say:

“ I am in full agreement with Mr Saffold on the authorization issue. Brothers (and I do mean that if you have obeyed the Gospel), I am eager to see the debate begin, if there is to be one.”

There will be a debate and I am as eager as are you for the debate to begin.

Then you say:

“Mr Saffold appears to be well-versed in the authorization issue, and up to the task.”

I appreciate your confidence in our understanding of what the word of God teaches on these matters.

“That is, if he gets a chance.”

Well, Brother I have been working toward this “chance” for over a year now. And I wonder where you have been all of this time and how much you have contributed toward making this event happen which you claim to be so eager to see happen? Why do you only NOW appear on the scene to offer some “help” when for all of this year, an elder in the body of Christ has been sitting on the sidelines watching this with NOTHING to say, Not a single word of encouragement or criticism. Just sit there, an elder in the Lord’s body. Just idly sitting around with nothing to say until the debate is about to happen and then he rushes in to hopefully arrange for someone else to do the job that he had not interest in doing until just now. I do not want to rebuke an elder without having very strong evidence to support what I am accusing him of therefore I will only say that this appears very much like you are not as concerned about this matter as you appear to be, doesn’t it?

Then you say:

“ He is way off base on this we thing, in my opinion, but I think you guys have backed him into a corner and all he can do is squeal.”

Well, Brother I am not in the least bit off base on this “we” thing and you cannot and neither has anyone else proven otherwise. What you have said above is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But it is nothing more than a mere assertion, which you could not prove to be true if your life depended upon it, now could you? In fact, it is a fine assertion for which you have no proof. It is just your opinion and one that you hold without any evidence that it is true. And we have not done any “squealing” as you falsely assert. We have given evidence that supports our use of the word “we” as meaning “I” when used by a writer to “keep an impersonal character”. You nor anyone else has shown anything from a single source, including dictionaries or English grammars that would in the least bit indicate that our use of the word “we” is not correct English. And neither has anyone shown that it is for any other reason wrong, sinful or contrary to good usage for us to use the word as we use it. SO, just because you are an elder in the church does not mean that you are not also required to prove what you say. And so far you have failed miserable to do it.

Then you say:

“I have emailed a professor friend at Abilene University who may be willing to debate the authorization issue; for it appears that Mr. Saffold is not qualified to represent "us" for the same reasons Duane or Darrell should not be moderators.”

Now, you are just as presumptuous in this matter as are our friends who use instruments in their worship. For I have not even remotely suggested that I am “representing you” in this debate. Brother Saffold is not qualified to represent “you” and has not ever tried to represent you. I am not even trying to represent the “church of Christ”. I am a Christian who is speaking what Christ said in the word of God concerning how all Christians should worship in spirit and in truth. No one has even sought to represent you. And Brother Jewell did not challenge you or any university professor to debate this matter. He directly challenged E. Lee Saffold. Now, if he would rather withdraw from debating E. Lee Saffold and debate your university professor then that is his right. But that university professor was nowhere to be found during these past two years when talk of debating this issue was present. And he did nothing, and neither did you to bring this thing to fruition. But now you want to step in and make it all go as you would like for it to go by arranging for the debate to be with someone else of your choosing. If you want fruit from the field then get out and work the field. DO not just show up at harvest time to take that which you have not labored toward. But, we wish God Speed in finding anyone in this forum who is willing to debate your university professor. Ha! For it has taken us more than a year to find one person that was even willing to debate this ignorant little E. Lee Saffold. Ha! Give it your best shot. But do not foolishly expect this professor, if he will speak for the truth, to actually receive any better hearing of it in this forum than we have received. For that is not going to happen and if you think that it is you are too nieve to be a wise elder in the church of Christ.

But E. Lee Saffold is not representing the “Church of Christ” in this debate and never claimed to do such. He is representing the truth of Christ to his brethren in the church of Christ which includes all who are Christians including our brethren in the “Christian church” who are also members of the church of Christ. Now how can I represent the church of Christ when the issue is a difference between brethren in the church of Christ? No you cannot speak of things in this way unless you perceive of the church of Christ some sectarian denomination within the church of Christ. For our brethren here who do not use instruments of music are members of the church of Christ as much as you or myself. So, I cannot represent the church of Christ in the aggregate now can I? Nor can you or your university professor for that matter, can you? But rather I am representing the doctrine of Christ to my brethren, all of my brethren, in the church of Christ including those who use instruments and those who do not. I am representing the truth as it is taught in the word of God to the church of Christ. Whereas you are seeking to do so in some sectarian way that treats our brethren as “we” and “us” or “us” against “them” when we are striving to speak of what the word of God says to all of “US” including them. And brethren this is a vast difference between myself and this brother who says he is an elder in the “church of Christ” while treating the “church of Christ” in language as if it were a denomination or a sect within the body of Christ. I reject that perception of things for we are all members of the church of Christ and we have a divisive issue to resolve and a responsibility before God to make some attempt to resolve it. And this is what E. Lee Saffold is striving for.

Therefore, I have not sought to represent ANY group of people or set of Christians in any place. I do not represent you or the church of Christ. I am representing the truth and what the Lord Jesus Christ taught in the word of God. And whether I am actually representing Him and his word or not depends upon whether what I am teaching concerning authorization and instrumental music is what he taught, isn’t it? And that, we shall find out at the debate, now won’t we? And I am speaking this to all Christians that will read or hear our debate. I am speaking as one Christian on behalf of the teaching of Christ in God’s word to all of my brethren in the church of Christ both those who use instruments and those who do not.

Now, if you would like to arrange your own debate and pretend to represent the entire church of Christ then fine that is your prerogative. But you cannot make such pretence without having the sectarian and denominational perception of the church of Christ. For those of our brethren who use instruments of music in their worship are as much members of the church of Christ as are you and I. neither you nor I pretend that we represent them, now do we?

But do not come in here and pretend that I have ever sought to represent you or the church of Christ. I am a Christian only and I represent Christ only and what he taught in his word. I have never said anything about representing the church of Christ or the “accapella brethren” as opposed to the “instrumental brethren”. Instead I am representing what Christ is teaching in his word to all of the church of Christ. And I am opposed to sectarianism in that body for God condemns it (1 Cor. 1:10). For that reason alone I have made it abundantly clear to everyone when I use the word “we” I am referring correctly and solely to MYSELF as a writer in order to keep an impersonal character. That is a correct use of the word. I am using it that way and have been quite clear about the matter. And for you to come in here and pretend that I have in any way whatsoever sought to represent you when I do not even know you or anyone around you is just plain STUPID. And even though you claim to be an elder in the body of Christ you have no right to deliberately misrepresent me in this matter.

Then you say:

“ I for one, for now, cannot see him as being objective.”

Well, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But you are not the one who will decide that mater now are you. And you also have no justification for that assertion. And you certainly cannot prove that we will not be objective. All you can do is assume that we may not be objective.

Then you say:

“He is no longer answering valid rebuttal points, but instead is beating the dead horse of Duane's dumb deletions, (and I agree it was dumb...sorry Duane)”

Now, Brother the debate has not begun yet so how could we be not answering valid rebuttal points? And if you are talking about the “we” question we have already told everyone that we have said all that needs to be said about that matter. For we are going to use that word whether you like it or not. We have said all that needs to be said about our reasons for doing so and we are not intending to be sidetracked from our debate on authority and instrumental music by this nonsense about the word “we”.

But you act as if we are already in the debate and are not answering valid rebuttals. How ignorant can a person be? We have said all we need or are required to say “we”. And we have not said much more about it and have no intentions of doing so because it is our intent to debate the issue of authority and instrumental music. And our complaints about Brother Duane deleting our post were not “beating a dead horse” but rather a sincere effort to get him to keep his promise to us concerning it. And to insure that it would not happen to us during the debate. This was legitimate for us to do and was not “beating a dead horse”. For if the horse is still kicking and can still hurt you in some way HE IS NOT DEAD. And as long as it was possible for Brother Duane to continue to delete our post in the future, Then it was hardly a “dead issue” now was it? Now, he has satisfied us on the matter now but when we talked about it he had not done so. SO, now the horse is dead but when we continued to fire on him he was not dead.

Then you say:

“But Duane has pretty much agreed it was dumb too, and is trying to separate the issues and get on with things.”

He has agreed that it was dumb and has satisfied us on the matter but at the time we were writing him about it that was not the case. And he wants to go on with things and he knows that we want the same and you would know it too if you would only pay attention instead of assuming so much that is not to be found in a single thing we have said.

Then you say:

“ Mr Saffold will not let the dead dogs lie.”

Brother, E. Lee Saffold will not let a “live dog live just because he is pretending to be DEAD”. This policy has prevented him from being BITTEN many times. If you allow a dog to play “possum” on you then are going to get bitten, brother. And you have not been in this forum dealing with these issues at all. You have been meekly sitting on the sidelines with nothing to say until now. So, you do not have enough experience in this forum to determine when a “dog is dead”. But we do. And if he really a “dead dog” then it will not hurt us to put another bullet in him to make sure he does not “come back to life” now does it.

Then you say

“ His behaviour has been childish and it is obvious to all. I for one, hope he is not including "me" when he says "we".”

Now, we do not believe that you can prove that we have been “childish” but you are welcome to hold an opinion that you cannot prove to be true. And it is not “obvious to all” and you cannot speak for “all” can you? But we have made it as clear as we possibly could concerning our use of the word “We”. We have told everyone that when we use this word we are using it in it’s secondary sense of “I” when use by a writer to keep an impersonal character” and that therefore we are not referring to anyone but ourselves when we use it in this way. SO, you have been told not more than once that we are NOT INCLUDING YOU in our use of the word. And then you ignorantly ignore all that we have said and come in here and pretend that you “hope he is not including “me” when he has told you over five times that he is not including anyone but himself in the use of this word. SO, I hope that if you are really an elder in the church of Christ (I do not doubt it but I have no reason to believe it other than the fact that you claim it). That you have more wisdom and intelligence that you have demonstrated with this senseless statement you have made just here. For you have no excuse for not understanding that I am not including anyone but myself when I use the word “we” in its secondary sense of “I” as a writer to keep an impersonal character. And I have never [pretended to represent the “church of Christ” or anyone in it. I am, because I am a Christian a member of the church of Christ. But when I speak of what the word of God teaches I am not representing anyone other than Christ and the doctrine of Christ. And your pretense that I have been trying to represent you when I do not even know you, have never mentioned you, nor have I ever, by any means, sought to speak for you is just plain stupid, isn’t it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2001

As Ronald Reagan would have said, "Well ... there you go again." Calling people names again.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Brother John:

You have said:

“As Ronald Reagan would have said, "Well ... there you go again." Calling people names again.”

TO which Mr. Reagan would most likely reply, “well…there you go again making assertions that others have done wrong when in fact you could not prove it to save your life”. WE have no idea specifically which persons it is that you are now accusing us of calling names nor what names it is of which you are objecting. But even if we called someone a hypocrite as Jesus called the Jews or “dogs” as Peter called the false teachers of his day you could not prove that it is wrong to do such a thing if your life depended upon it, now could you?

When a person is acting hypocritical we believe that it is right to refer to them as hypocrites. When a person is teaching that which is false we are convinced from the word of God that it is right to identify them as false teachers and mark them as such and warn others of their deceptions. (Romans 16:17; 2 John 9-11). We also believe firmly that if someone tells a deliberate lie and you can prove that they have lied that it is right to call them liars. (John 8:44) Now, if you would like to demonstrate from the scriptures that our Lord condemned such behavior while doing it himself and that the apostles did the same thing then we would be interested in hearing your evidence. But your attempts to make it appear that we have done wrong by calling persons by names that fit their behavior without proving that such is wrong is just plain useless except for the purpose of prejudicing our readers against us without just cause to do so.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

E. Lee wrote: TO which Mr. Reagan would most likely reply, “well… there you go again making assertions that others have done wrong when in fact you could not prove it to save your life”.

E. Lee could not prove this assertion of what Mr. Regan's reply most likely might be to save his life, now could he? E. Lee, where did Mr. Regan state or imply this concerning you? We would really like to know.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Lee, you called your brother Andy stupid. That is no assertion and I don't have to prove anything. Its there in black and white for everyone to see.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Brother John:

You have said:

“Lee, you called your brother Andy stupid. That is no assertion and I don't have to prove anything. Its there in black and white for everyone to see.”

Now the truth is that I called Brother Andy’s “pretense” that I was trying to represent him when I never claimed to do such stupid. I did not call Brother Andy himself “stupid”. And if you will read what is in “black and white” you will find that this is what I said:

“And your pretense that I have been trying to represent you when I do not even know you, have never mentioned you, nor have I ever, by any means, sought to speak for you is just plain stupid, isn’t it?”

And if you will read closely you will see that I said his pretense was stupid and put it in the form of a question by saying, “isn’t it”? This means that I was in fact questioning the intelligence demonstrated by his remark. It was a stupid remark and I said as much but left room for ANDY to prove otherwise if he thought he could do so.

So, it is therefore still nothing more than a false unproven assertion on your part that E. Lee has called Brother ANDY STUPID. He has instead accused Brother Andy of saying something that was stupid. And those two things are very different aren’t they? For it is indeed possible for an otherwise intelligent person to actually say something that is stupid, isn’t it?

So, try again Brother John for you have yet to prove that E. Lee Saffold has called his brother ANDY STUPID, now have you?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have correctly quoted my words to Brother John as follows:

“E. Lee wrote: TO which Mr. Reagan would most likely reply, “well… there you go again making assertions that others have done wrong when in fact you could not prove it to save your life”.”

To which you reply:

“E. Lee could not prove this assertion of what Mr. Reagan's reply most likely might be to save his life, now could he?”

Of course he couldn’t, now could he? He could not prove that Mr. Reagan would have replied in this way any more than Brother John could prove that Reagan would say to the comments of E. Lee Saffold in this forum the following:

“As Ronald Reagan would have said, "Well ... there you go again." Calling people names again.”

For our words was obviously a deliberate play upon Brother John’s words. For Brother John cannot prove that Mr. Reagan “would have said, "Well ... there you go again." Calling people names again.” Now could he? Therefore we responded to him in kind using the same tactic that he was using in order to demonstrate that just because he said it does not make it true. And the fact that you have responded this way to what I said in response to Brother John shows that you are able to recognize that such statements cannot be proven, doesn’t it? So, we wonder just why you did not ask Brother John to prove that Reagan would have said “well…there you go again” calling people names”. But you did not do that, now did you? The reason you did not do that is quite obvious, isn’t it? You are happy when people say something against E. Lee Saffold even if it cannot be proven to be the truth. In other words you are just plain biased, aren’t you?

Then you say:

“E. Lee, where did Mr. Regan state or imply this concerning you?”

You are asking the wrong person. You should ask Brother John that question for it was he who said that Reagan “would have said, "Well ... there you go again." Calling people names again.” But, you did not ask Brother John that when he said it, now did you? Why didn’t you? Were you not as curious about that when John said it as you pretend to be when I made a ply upon his words? Ha! You are behaving rather hypocritically aren’t you?

Then you say:

“ We would really like to know.”

I think you are lying about this matter. For if you would have really wanted to know the answer to that question you would have asked brother John when he said that Reagan would have said something concerning us, wouldn’t you? I doubt sincerely if you or anyone else would really like to know the answer to that question but if they would they will have to ask Brother John who is the one who thought Reagan would have said something about E. Lee Saffold’s words. For we have no idea of what Reagan would think of our words and neither does Brother John. And that is the point we so clearly made by playing on the words that he said as we did, isn’t it?

So, try again Brother Davis. Who knows we might hear something intelligent from you yet?

Your Brother n Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Again E. Lee,

I am becoming more convinced every day that you are simply someone's fake persona they use to post here just to get a laugh.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“Again E. Lee, I am becoming more convinced every day that you are simply someone's fake persona they use to post here just to get a laugh.”

Well, Brother Davis, wishful thinking does not help you very much, does it? I am certain that you do sincerely wish that E. Lee Saffold were nothing more than “someone’s fake persona” designed to get a laugh. For if that were true you would have a good excuse for your absolute inability to answer his arguments, now wouldn’t you? And if you really do believe that such is the case none could imagine why a “joker” like yourself would complain about something that was designed so successfully to create laughter, now could they?

But, the truth is that this statement from you is only further evidence of your ostrich mentality. Wherein you have your head in the sand and your opposite end in the air hoping and wishing with all of your might that things are as you imagine them to be. Because you fear facing the truth you prefer the darkness and illusions found deep underneath the ground as if by hiding in the darkness where you do not have to see the actual dangers that you face. Hoping that they will by some magical means just go away or, if not, you may by some unknown good fortune actually avoid them.

It is our sincere hope that if you must remain as an ostrich you at the very least can get your head out of the sand.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

ROFLMBO

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

E. Lee, you wrote to Barry:

"I think you are lying about this matter"

Thank you...not so much for the content, but the fact that you said "I"!!!!. Now I am not being smart alecky, I really mean that. I understand how it is sometimes preferable to keep an impersonal character when we want to discuss "issues" and keep "personalities" out of it.

But at times, it becomes difficult to do; if for no other reason than the fact that a writer (who is trying to remain "impersonal") is "personally" attacked by another individual. At that point, it is useful to defend oneself by answering in the singular, in my opinion.

But there is also merit in the editorial we, and I really understand now, that sometimes it is necessary.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

By the way, I asked a question of you in another thread ("For E.Lee") and Kevin is making an awful mess of it...He seems to think that I am trying to get you to say that Darrell is not your brother, and that is not my intention. Now he has refused to answer the question.

Now, in fact, I am not even sure yet what my answer to this question is--I just am looking for a starting point for dialogue. Could you help?

Let me ask you: "Is it possible to be "in Christ" and lost?"

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Duane, you would like to thank Lee for using the word "I" ... I would also like to thank Lee, for using the word "think." I am also not being smart alecky about this. Lee, I am glad that you are now expressing that it is your opinion about other people's motives rather than expressing that you know for certain their hearts, which usually comes off as pompous and offensive. Which I guess just goes to show you that you really can teach an old dog new tricks! :)

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have said:

“Thank you...not so much for the content, but the fact that you said "I"!!!!. Now I am not being smart alecky, I really mean that. I understand how it is sometimes preferable to keep an impersonal character when we want to discuss "issues" and keep "personalities" out of it.”

And Brother John:

You have said:

“Duane, you would like to thank Lee for using the word "I" ... I would also like to thank Lee, for using the word "think." I am also not being smart alecky about this. Lee, I am glad that you are now expressing that it is your opinion about other people's motives rather than expressing that you know for certain their hearts, which usually comes off as pompous and offensive. Which I guess just goes to show you that you really can teach an old dog new tricks! :)”

I want to thank both of you for paying attention to the facts. For Duane there is a time and place for both the “editorial we” and the very personal “I”. Even you have admitted that E. Lee Saffold has used them both in this forum and not one to the exclusion of the other as others have sought to falsely leave the impression was the case.

Brother John if you were to take a brief stroll through the archives you would find many occasions wherein I have used the word “think”. And the times that I have done so was when it was true that I was expressing what I thought to be the case as opposed to what I knew to be the case. And the times when I did not say that I “think” but rather spoke with certainty was when I was without question fully convinced that I was correct of what I asserted and I always offered evidence to support those statements. So, saying that “I Think” is not a “new trick” to this old dog but a rather old and boring trick that the more he learns the less he has any use for. And I have not learned anything from anyone in this forum concerning the use of these simple words that I would prefer to imitate in the least.

But, I sincerely thank you for the complement though I cannot in all honestly give you or anyone in this forum credit for having taught this “old dog” any “new Tricks”.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001