Theos-Talk Archives (June 1995 Message tl00117)

According to MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU:
>
> If Paul Johnson is not willing to discuss in a free and open way
> valid criticisms of his thesis that is his choice.  But I repeat
> again: A bad

I didn't say I was not willing to discuss in a free and open way
valid criticisms of my thesis (what thesis?).  I said I would not
be drawn into defending my work (meaning on theos-l.)

Free and open discussion is wonderful.  Attacks that escalate
with every attempt at defense only poison the atmosphere here.
Your use of capitals, exclamation points, loaded terms like
"house of cards" create a situation in which the emotional
communication drowns out the intellectual content-- at least for
the target.  What you communicate emotionally is a sense of
outrage, accusation, condemnation.  Maybe in another life I can
focus entirely on the intellectual content and ignore the
emotional attack.  This time around, since I'm still vulnerable
to getting sucked into a fruitless cycle of defending, provoking
further attack, more defending, ad nauseum, it's better to just
opt out.  Sorry to disappoint you.  But take heart; the other
cheek will be published in three weeks :)

I've devoted many hours to responding to your complaints, by
mail, on theos-l, by e-mail.  Clearly, none of those responses
carried any weight with you at all.  Why, then, go through it all
again? No one on theos-l seemed to enjoy it.  I sure didn't.

> In Part II, I will give examples from THE MASTER REVEALED that
> indicate that there are many statemnts therein that are simply
> wrong, totally in error in light of primary source documents.
>
> Daniel Caldwell

You might recall that there was a strong consensus last time
around that this line of discussion be posted to theos-roots
rather than theos-l.  That still seems the best policy.  I
encourage other theos-l participants to comment yea or nay on
this suggestion.