An uneven playing field.
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Sun, 11 Oct 1998 01:36:22 -0700 (00908112982, 2.2.32.19981011083622.008a2e64@midwest.net)
At 01:48 AM 10/11/98 +0100, Matthew Bell wrote:
>M.BELL
>At this juncture of event I want it to be plainly noted that this discussion on
>the Blood, Water and Magicians thread is being carried out on an uneven playing
>field. Why? The reason is that now CCBE have eventually got some sort of
>response to one of their posts from F.Till, the responses to it will be put up
>on the CCBE forum for discussion, until an agreed response is decided upon. As
>Farrell Till is CCBE posts in advance this of course provides him with the
>opportunity to prepare rebuttals before CCBE even post their response. As has
>been noted by a member of CCBE,
>
>=====================
>'It is plain from the above:
>
>1 That Farrel Till, or one of his errantists, is able to read the ccbe
>list.
> We should take note of this. Either there is a spy in the camp, or
> else some security loophole in the mail list system.
>
>2. It has also been noted that Farrel's response to previous ccbe
> postings has been extremely rapid, probably due to the above.
>
>Why is he playing silly games now? Are they delaying tactics while
>he attempts to think of a way out? Is he hoping to divert attention
>down some side road? Has he been defeated, but is too proud or
>not man enough to admit to it?'
>======================
>
>When this thread is concluded the above 'advantage', and reasons for his speedy
>response(s) (the latest CCBE posts excluded of course), will be included in the
>web page response and indeed any other forums, publications etc, which receive
>the summation of the thread. Those individuals will then be able to draw their
>own conclusions on how good a debator Farrel Till is.
>
TILL
An uneven playing field? That's very funny coming from a group who wants to
have the advantage of putting its collective heads together to discuss (in
secrecy) a posting from me or others on the list as long as they want to and
then to post a collective answer that doesn't really let Errancy members
know what was discussed when the collective answer was being put together.
If the CCBE members want to join the errancy list, they may do so. Then we
will all be playing on the same field. Everyone can post his/her arguments,
rebuttals, comments, etc., and we will all receive the postings at the same
time. There's nothing unfair about it, so why don't the CCBE members stop
their whining and engage in serious debating? Can I help it if their
postings are so ridiculous that some of their own members felt that they
should be forwarded to me? I still don't know who some of these members are
except for the e-mail addresses that they have used in forwarding these
materials to me.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net