If you simply wanted to be angry and vent at me, I didn’t mind a bit. Many have!

However, you have written that I “twist & turn and take out of context.” Well, where? Do you mind giving a specific or two? Being the recipient of Dr. Crenshaw’s expert training in “Critical Thinking,” didn’t you think that you should at least give an example or two?

Regards,

Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk

You’re welcome! Just know that the invitation is real. A goodly number in Due West can testify to my gracious hospitality.

No one has ever been turned away. No one has ever been treated unkindly in my home.

Regards,

Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk

I live about an hour from you at 204 Stonebrook, Drive, Seneca. If you have a hankering to speak with me, the welcome mat is out, the light is on, the door is open, the coffee is hot, and the cake is fresh. You don’t even need to knock; just walk in like most folks do. Take a seat. We’ll talk as long as you have voice. I’ll even share a cigar with you.

BTW, if you don’t like coffee and cake, let me know what you do like and it will be waiting for you.

Regards,

Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk

Have you concluded our chats?

Have tested the waters in the pool and found them too shallow for diving in headfirst?

Regards,

Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk

I am going to be brief. Ditto Mr. Jim Curtis’ comments. I have nothing to add.

Regards,

Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk

What was your purpose for coming here at all? To show off?

Respectfully,
James Curtis

I’m not sure what your administrator comment refers to. If you think I was pointing out a flaw in your website, I was not. I was pointing out that your main form of response to what appear to be honestly curious comments, from what I read on the site, is to belittle those who comment. Which is against your own comment policy. Of course, it’s your website, and you can make the rules. But to not follow your own rules is hypocritical. Such hypocrisy does not foster an attitude of respect from those with whom you are seeking to have dialogue. But perhaps you are not seeking dialogue or respect, only a soapbox of your own. I don’t know you well enough to answer that myself. But a soapbox without respect, well, we see those on street corners every day.

I’m certainly not attempting to defend Mr. Bowen. He was but one example of the types of responses I’ve read throughout your web site. I’m sure, although I don’t know the gentleman, that he can take care of himself just as well as you can. I don’t have a dog in this fight, so to speak.

I find your responses confusing. In one breath you said “Try again” and “I’m not going to play your games. Find someone else!” Which is it? You also said you are unimpressed, and then turned around and said you are intrigued, which you considered a compliment. Which is it? Perhaps I should respond in a similar fashion as you, “Aww, you sweet little thing. Bless your heart. Please come back when you’ve made up your mind about what you want to say.” Apparently, you consider such phrasing ‘blunt’ and not ‘belittling.’ I’m learning so much about your own unique language and definitions today!

Finally, you make assumptions. You said you are ‘simply the messenger.’ I asked, genuinely curious, from whom the message you deliver comes. I was not making a snide remark. You do know what happens when you make assumptions, don’t you? I’m sure with all the comments about how old you are and how many degrees you have, you’ve heard that one before. (That was, in fact, a snide remark) Now your response is that you are not, in fact, a messenger, but a whistleblower. The ‘kicker of logs.’ Are you a messenger, with someone else pulling your strings? Or are you an instigator on a righteous mission? I do suggest you check your wrists and ankles very carefully these days. There are some extremely fine but strong threads available to those who would control us — almost invisible, as it were.

But all of this rhetoric is tired. You said yourself in your response to me that you don’t really take the comments seriously. I don’t see any reason to continue a conversation that isn’t taken seriously. I will allow you to have the final word in this exchange, in whatever form it takes. My energy is better spent working WITH people to make appropriate change, rather than AGAINST them. You, sir, are nothing but an energy suck for all of those who engage you. I imagine the look of glee on your face when you wake every morning, wondering what fresh meat awaits you in your inbox today. And the look of satisfaction when you think you’ve bettered those who attempt to engage you by calling them names and banning them. I think you live to be the underdog, fighting with your small group against the ‘establishment.’ Note that there are 2 times in a cycle when a small group exists. First, when it appears from within the establishment, helping the movement grow to a tipping point. Then, after the movement has tipped and become the new establishment, a small group remains, holding to outdated ideas and trying to hold back the inevitable change. I believe you to be among the holdouts, not the righteous grassroots of a movement.

I wish you health, wisdom, and clarity. Good day, sir.

Thank you for your comments. Before I get to my comments, I have a question. You brought up the value of a degree from Erskine over a degree from Columbia International University. How was it that a degree from Erskine was valuable than a degree from Columbia Internal University in getting into the Army? Now, let me get to my responses to you.

1. Don’t you realize that when you write “I don’t care what the Clemson Professors said” that you’re totally missing the point I was making? There are protocols that have been both ignored and broken at Erskine. If you do in the Army what you’re advocating for Erskine, you will be gone quickly and maybe even in a military jail.

2. Do I need to remind you that the problem is not Mary? You’re attempting to turn the focus on the victim – the victim for heaven’s sake!

3. Once again, do I need to remind you that this discussion is not about how your life was changed?

4. David, I don’t mean to be unkind to you (to be sure, I like and respect you), but you’re coming across as the “self-absorbed” one. Please, re-read what you have written – “me”, “I”, “my”.

5. You write: “Again, more people who have direct knowledge of this event probably need to post on this site, on this thread.” I don’t think they will. They don’t want the light on what has taken place at “Old Erskine.”

6. What you think a Presbytery should and should not do is irrelevant. BTW, this issue has nothing to do with Erskine. These men are not employees of Erskine; however, they are members of Second Presbytery. In point of fact, have you even read the “Home Page” of the EC Foundation? They may be the one who are planning legal proceeding against both the ARP Church and Erskine!

7. A position of ignorance (that is, not being informed) is not a good starting place in a debate. It’s simply emoting. Haven’t we had enough hand-wringing emoting?

8. I don’t think you have a handle on the theological and ecclesiastical implications involved in matters of the church and civil proceeding.

9. I too am still “rambunctious”; however, my disappointment was because of your avoidance of the points I brought up – not your rambunctiousness.

I hope you have an enjoyable time with the kids you teach. I suspect you get on well with them.

Regards,

Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk