A Free Subscription for Matt?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 10:06 AM 10/11/98 +0100, Matthew Bell wrote:


>F.TILL

>> If you think that I have published only those things that presented me as a

>> winner, why don't you cite an example of something I have refused to

>> publish?  In *The Skeptical Review,* I have maintained an open-door policy

>> on the subject of biblical inerrancy, and I have given thousands of dollars

>> of free publishing space to biblical inerrantists.  This has included

>> articles by Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. James D. Price, Dr. Gleason Archer, and

>> various other inerrantists.  I have indeed refused articles that did not

>> relate to the subject of biblical inerrancy, but these refusals were in

>> keeping with the editorial policy that I announced on the front page of the

>> first issue of TSR in January 1990, which was that this paper would confine

>> itself to the debating of biblical inerrancy.  On the errancy list, I posted

>> a series of 28 responses to RobertTurkel (known to Christians as James

>> Patrick Holding), and in these responses, I cut NOTHING from his article

>> (about me) that I was responding to.

>

>M.BELL

>Did you notice something about those 28 posts? I did. They were originated in a

>point of eisegesis by JPS?


TILL
No, I didn't notice this, but I did notice that you failed to identify what
you are talking about.  After all, there were 28 postings.  How do you
expect me to figure out what you perceive as a "point of eisegesis,"
especially since I know you as a person who perceives eisegesis in just
about every skeptical argument but can't seem to see it in his own work.

BELL

> I thought such was invalid by your standard? 


TILL
Does the question mark mean that you aren't sure that this (whatever it was)
was invalid?  At any rate, Turkel has chickened out of a face-to-face
internet debate on the Jehu issue.  Would you care to step in for him?

BELL

>How many standards do you have? 


TILL
Since I don't even know what you are talking about, I can't answer your
question.  Anyway, let's wait to see if the CCBE replies to my latest
postings comply to the rigid standards that you demanded of me, and then we
can talk about standards.

BELL

>I am perusing intently all of the articles in TSR from volume One through

to the >present. 

TILL
You're perusing all of these articles intently?  Hmmm, you must think that I
merit more attention than your postings for the benefit of your CCBE members
indicate.
"Peruse," by the way, means to study or examine with great care or intensity.

BELL

>My free subscription of course has expired so I now need to wait until they

are >put on the web. Would this be an appropriate juncture to request that
you >continue to send me spare copies free of charge, as I prevented by my
faith from >contributing financially to your work?


TILL
No, I can't continue to send you free copies.  It costs $1.32 to mail a copy
to England, so this amounts to $7.92 per year just for postage.  The $9 fee
for foreign subscriptions doesn't even begin to cover the cost.  I might add
that I understand your reluctance to pay for a subscription.  I refuse to
support religious causes, and so when church groups come by my house selling
candy, raffle tickets, and such like, or even openly soliciting
contributions, I tell them that I will not give any support to religious
groups.  However, I consider literature to be different, and I spend many
dollars on subscriptions to religious papers and the purchase of religious
reference books.  I look upon this as merely paying for a product, and I
have several fundamentalists who apparently see my paper in the same way.
They pay their money, and they get a product in exchange that they must
consider important enough for them to have.  I can't see why you could not
look on this in the same way, but I can't make an exception for you.

I do, however, have a policy of giving a free lifetime subscription to
everyone whose articles I publish, so if you want to write a defense of
inerrancy or refute any arguments against inerrancy, submit your article.
If it is competently written, I will publish it.  If I publish it, you will
then be put on my list of free subscriptions.

>

> F.TILL

>> All of these responses have been

>> posted to the secular web, so I have given Turkel an audience of several

>> hundred readers.  He, however, will not reciprocate, because he publishes

>> only articles in which he selectively quotes me, and he has refused to

>> engage in a debate on the internet in which the two of us will meet face to

>> face in a format that will let readers see everything that both of us have

>> to say. 

>

>M.BELL

>I thought he had reciprocated through a web page?

>


TILL
Try to notice what I said.  He publishes articles about me on his web page,
but he "selectively quotes me."  This means that his readers will see in my
writings only what he wants them to see.  On the other hand, I didn't cut
anything from his article that I answered.  My readers saw everything he
said, and I wouldn't have it any other way.  So many of his points are
ridiculous and the others are so easy to answer that I want everyone to see
everything.  I'm convinced that he won't agree to a face-to-face,
point-by-point debate with me on the internet, because he knows that he
would not be able to control the information that the readers would see.



Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

• Previous message: Standards That Bell Has Set
• Next message: A Free Subscription for Matt?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]