Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Jerry McDonald's False Colorado Report!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    I, Robert Baty, believe that more than sufficient time has elapsed to allow Jerry McDonald to determine the facts, admit his errors, explain his errors, and
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 8 12:54 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I, Robert Baty, believe that more than sufficient time has elapsed to allow Jerry McDonald to determine the facts, admit his errors, explain his errors, and correct his errors.

      Jerry McDonald, having failed to do so, has prompted me to write this message in order to more clearly establish the facts of the historical record which Jerry McDonald has effectively denied with his false reports about me and the Colorado situation.

      The responsibility remains with Jerry McDonald to admit his errors, explain his errors, and correct his errors in these most simple of historical facts.

      The factual errors addressed in this message are not intended to be all-inclusive as to Jerry McDonald's false reports about me, but represent two substantive factual errors that can be easily determined with reference to readily available documentation and direct testimony from witnesses.

      Following is a link to the public claims of Jerry McDonald regarding these matters and excerpts from the link:

      --------------------------------------

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/27588

      From: Jerry McDonald
      To: CFTF list
      Date: November 7, 2007

      (excerpts)

      (Robert Baty) had only been there (Bellvue, CO) about a year.

      Back in August (Robert Baty) started in on the preacher there...

      Up until August, Robert kept his mouth shut.

      (Robert Baty) did start in on the preacher there in August.

      Robert (Baty) kept his mouth shut until August.

      In Christ Jesus
      Jerry McDonald

      http://www.challenge2.org
      http://www.biblical-criticism.com

      ------------------------------------
      ------------------------------------

      My further comments:

      I, Robert Baty, propose that it is false that:

      > 1. I "kept my mouth shut" until
      > August of 2007,

      and I, Robert Baty, propose that it is false that:

      > 2. I "started in on the preacher"
      > in August of 2007.

      In support of my claim regarding #1 above, I provide the following e-mail which I received from the preacher, in response to an e-mail from me regarding my "Goliath of GRAS", many months before August of 2007:

      --------------------------------------

      To: rlbaty@...
      From: Marty Trujillo
      Date: December 7, 2006

      Subject: Re: The fundamental issue!

      (excerpts)

      Dear Robert,

      Robert I know you have spent much time, thought and prayer on this and I appreciate that.

      Let us consider together.

      I will work on the arguments you put forth as time deems.

      I will solicit my father in law who is a scientist who teaches biology in a private school.

      Thanks for your time brother.

      Because of Christ,
      Marty Trujillo

      ----------------------------------
      ----------------------------------

      My further comments:

      The above conversation continued for some time before being terminated without resolving our differences.

      As the above record, and more complete unpublished record, shows, I did not keep my mouth shut until August 2007 as has been falsely claimed by Jerry McDonald.

      While that should be sufficient to document the falsity of Jerry McDonald's public claims about such matters, it appears appropriate to address the August 2007 claim in further detail.

      Something did happen in August 2007.

      I happened to wind up on a number of e-mail lists in consequence of my Colorado church membership. One such list maintained by a church member included about 60 addresses, many, if not most, of which were not members of the church.

      In August of 2007, I sent out to that list my standard invitation to discuss my "Goliath of GRAS". A copy of that invitation follows my name below.

      There was no response and I subsequently deleted the message from my e-mail account.

      Weeks and weeks went by!

      I was subsequently advised that there was one or more persons who were offended at having received the invitation, though no person was named and no person came to me to personally claim any offense at having received the invitation.

      At the time, I had no copy of what the fuss was all about and had only a vague recollection of what might have been included in the subject e-mail of August 2007.

      After a long delay and a number of requests, I was finally provided with a copy of the subject e-mail.

      Immediately upon receipt thereof, I sent a follow-up e-mail to the same e-mail list addresses wherein I apologized to any who may have been offended at having received the invitation.

      No one came forward to admit to having been offended at having received my invitation or to accept my apology.

      There are, of course, many other issues related to these matters, but they are not necessary or appropriate subjects of this presentation.

      The material reflected in this presentation, when properly considered and in light of the direct testimony of relevant witnesses, is sufficient to sustain the proposition that Jerry McDonald's claims, noted above, are false and that my oft repeated request that he admit, explain and correct his false reports about the matters is most reasonable.

      Jerry McDonald, will you now admit, explain and correct your false reports regarding these most simple, historical facts?

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

      The August 2007 e-mail:

      From: Robert Baty
      To: Approximately 60 addresses
      Date: August 10, 2007

      Subject: Testing a fundamental position!

      I thought I would take the opportunity to invite any who might be interested to consider the outstanding invitation contained in the message following.

      It is preferred that responses to this message be addressed not to me personally but sent to the discussion list by addressing your response to the following e-mail address:

      Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

      The website and public archives of the above referenced discussion list can be found at:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty

      Here's the message/invitation:

      I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science" movement.. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

      I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" argument for any who may want to "come out" in response to its call and take up the public discussion as to the argument's validity, soundness and the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the evidence of age.

      The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

      Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth, creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

      -------------------------------

      http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

      THE YOUNG EARTH

      (excerpts)

      "(T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and
      the evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history

      > in other words,
      > the age of the Earth.

      While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist, it is the death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.

      A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.

      Much of the controversy today between creationists and evolutionists revolves around the age of the Earth.

      A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that there is no compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the gulf separating the biblical and
      evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just too large

      (W)e must "query if vast time is indeed available."

      That is our purpose here.

      There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time is not available, and that the Earth is relatively young, not extremely old.

      That evidence needs to be examined and considered...

      There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age of only a few thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates."

      (end excerpt)

      ------------------------------

      It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe that the Bible teaches that "nothing is more than a few thousand
      years old".

      The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental "young-earth,
      creation-science" position on that point is whether or not the real world evidence really does support that interpretation or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world
      evidence.

      I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science" (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
      evidence.

      Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

      Major premise:

      > If God's word (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a few
      > thousand years, then the
      > interpretation of the text by
      > some is wrong.

      Minor premise:

      > God's word (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a few
      > thousand years.

      Conclusion:

      > The interpretation of the text
      > by some is wrong.

      You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity of the argument, or simply accept it for what it is...a simple, logically valid statement of the real world falsification test for the fundamental real world claim commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science" movement.

      It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the above argument, in the context of the popular "young-earth, creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

      In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
      propositions:

      Proposition #1:

      > The empirical evidence shows
      > that the Earth has been in
      > existence longer than one
      > hundred thousand (100,000)
      > years.

      > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
      > Deny: ???

      Proposition #2:

      > The empirical evidence shows
      > that the Universe has been in
      > existence longer than one
      > hundred thousand (100,000)
      > years.

      > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
      > Deny: ???

      Proposition #3:

      > The empirical evidence shows
      > that the Earth is less than one
      > hundred thousand (100,000)
      > years old

      > Affirm: ???
      > Deny: Todd S Greene

      Proposition #4:

      > The empirical evidence shows
      > that the Universe is less than
      > one hundred thousand
      > (100,000) years old.

      > Affirm: ???
      > Deny: Todd S. Greene

      To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

      The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage in the
      discussion.

      Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position popularized by Dr. Fox and summarized as follows:

      > I've got my interpretation
      > of the text regarding the
      > real world and that trumps
      > any real world evidence
      > to the contrary.

      Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth, creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies "young-earth, creation-science".

      That is a good thing to know.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      --------------------------
      --------------------------



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Baty
      Jerry McDonald s reply to this thread subject follows my name below. Jerry McDonald appears content to continue making false and misleading claims about me and
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 15 6:02 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Jerry McDonald's reply to this thread subject follows my name below.

        Jerry McDonald appears content to continue making false and misleading claims about me and the Colorado situation rather than simply admit, explain and correct the most simple of undeniable errors in his previous public claims.

        My original post to this thread contained sufficient factual documentation and my direct testimony to indicate that Jerry McDonald's statements were, as claimed, false.

        Any doubts about that can easily be resolved by interested parties by considering other available documentation and direct testimony of witnesses.

        By way of summary and to address Jerry McDonald's latest false report below, I make the following observations:

        1.

        Jerry McDonald claims that I kept my mouth shut until August of 2007.

        This is false!

        Jerry McDonald failed to directly address his false claim that I kept my mouth shut until August of 2007.

        My documented discussions of the topic prior to August 2007 provide ungetoverable evidence that I did NOT keep my mouth shut until August of 2007.

        I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

        2.

        Jerry McDonald claims that I started in on the preacher in August of 2007

        This is false!

        Jerry McDonald now falsely claims that I "went after" the preacher in August of 2007, taking up another of his word games to evade his responsibilities in this matter.

        Jerry McDonald's present claim is also false!

        As the record clearly shows, I simply sent out a standard invitation to take part in a discussion to approximately 60 e-mail addresses.

        I received no replies and did not pursue the matter.

        I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

        3.

        Given Jerry McDonald's indicated standard of judgment, if he made false statements about me and knows they are false, he is lying.

        Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Jerry McDonald is lying about these matters.

        I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

        4.

        Jerry McDonald falsely claims I used this as an excuse to back out of the Colorado debate he was clamoring for with me.

        This to is false!

        A review of the negotiations for the debate in this list's archives will demonstrate the error of Jerry McDonald's claim. Jerry McDonald is the one who backed out of the Colorado debate.

        Jerry McDonald refused to negotiate in good faith for the debate on even the simplest of uncontroversial matters.

        As to this issue, it was most reasonable for me to ask Jerry McDonald to bring forth his own witness to help him resolve the issue and his problem Jerry McDonald would not, could not, for his witness would easily be shown to have direct testimony against Jerry McDonald showing that Jerry McDonald's claims were, as I have shown, false.

        I did NOT keep my mouth shut until August of 2007 and did NOT start in on the preacher in August 2007 as Jerry McDonald has falsely and publicly claimed.

        I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

        5.

        Why Jerry McDonald continues to refuse his responsibility to admit, explain and correct his false claims about me as to these two easily verified and undeniable matters of fact may be beyond my comprehension.

        Matthew 7:1,2 & James 3:1

        I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

        6.

        There may be a difference of opinion as to the best way to expose Jerry McDonald's lies as to the two matters of fact addressed in this subject thread.

        I think I've done it the best I could, and it has been clearly shown that Jerry McDonald's two factual claims are clearly and undeniably false.

        I did NOT keep my mouth shut until August of 2007.

        I did NOT start in on the preacher in August of 2007.

        I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

        If, as Jerry McDonald opines, the best way for me to have exposed him as to these two factual errors would have been to engage the subject in the oral, Fort Collins debate, Jerry McDonald's cancellation of the debate negotiations and the debate when this subject was brought up is an indication that Jerry McDonald knew he was "found out" regarding his false claims and that Jerry McDonald wanted nothing to do with this subject being an issue in the debate.

        In other words, according to Jerry McDonald, I tried to do it the "best way", but Jerry McDonald is the one who ran off from the opportunity; for obvious reasons related to not wanting to be found, as the evidence would clearly show, to be a liar.

        Jerry McDonald had/has no credible documentation or witness testimony to justify his claims that I kept my mouth shut until August of 2007 or that I started in on the preacher in August of 2007. How Jerry McDonald came up with such claims in the first place has not even been demonstrated.

        The credible documentation and witness testimony establish beyond any doubt that Jerry McDonald's two factual claims are false.

        I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

        Jerry McDonald, will you now admit, explain and correct these two false, factual claims regarding me and the Colorado situation?

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty


        --------Jerry McDonald's Reply----------

        To: Robert Baty
        From: Jerry McDonald
        Subject: I made no false statements about you
        Date: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:41 PM

        
        Robert, I made no false statements about you and you know it.

        If you say that I did you are lying about it.

        Everything I said was right on the money.

        When I said that you didn't go after Marty until August of 07 you didn't.

        That did not mean that you did not have any discussions with him about it

        You did not start in on your tirades until August of 07 and you know it.

        You have used this as an excuse to get out of the oral debate that you were afraid you were going to have to show up for.

        Why you will continue bringing up these lies is beyond me, but I guess that is what an atheist does best; lie.

        In Christ Jesus
        Jerry D. McDonald

        P.S. If I had really told lies about you, the best way you could have exposed me to was get me in front of people at the debate and prove that I lied. Since you got that yellow strip down your back, that won't be possible.

        ---------------------------
        ---------------------------



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • rlbaty50
        (This, with slight editing changes, is a duplicate in case the original submission was not delivered.-RLBaty) Jerry McDonald s reply to this thread subject
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 15 8:53 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          (This, with slight editing changes, is a duplicate in case the
          original submission was not delivered.-RLBaty)

          Jerry McDonald's reply to this thread subject follows my name below.

          Jerry McDonald appears content to continue making false and misleading
          claims about me and the Colorado situation rather than simply admit,
          explain and correct the most simple of undeniable errors in his
          previous public claims.

          My original post to this thread contained sufficient factual
          documentation and my direct testimony to indicate that Jerry
          McDonald's statements were, as claimed, false.

          Any doubts about that can easily be resolved by interested parties by
          considering other available documentation and direct testimony of
          witnesses.

          By way of summary and to address Jerry McDonald's latest false report
          below, I make the following observations:

          1.

          Jerry McDonald claims that I kept my mouth shut until August of 2007.

          This is false!

          Jerry McDonald failed to directly address his false claim that I kept
          my mouth shut until August of 2007.

          My documented discussions of the topic prior to August 2007 provide
          ungetoverable evidence that I did NOT keep my mouth shut until August
          of 2007.

          I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two
          false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

          2.

          Jerry McDonald claims that I started in on the preacher in August of
          2007.

          This is false!

          Jerry McDonald now falsely claims that I "went after" the preacher in
          August of 2007, taking up another of his word games to evade his
          responsibilities in this matter.

          Jerry McDonald's present claim is also false!

          As the record clearly shows, I simply sent out a standard invitation
          to take part in a discussion to approximately 60 e-mail addresses.

          I received no replies and did not pursue the matter.

          I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two
          false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

          3.

          Given Jerry McDonald's indicated standard of judgment, if he made
          false statements about me and knows they are false, he is lying.

          Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Jerry McDonald is lying
          about these matters.

          I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two
          false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

          4.

          Jerry McDonald claims I used this as an excuse to back out of the
          Colorado debate he was clamoring for with me.

          This is false!

          A review of the negotiations for the debate in this list's archives
          will demonstrate the error of Jerry McDonald's claim. Jerry McDonald
          is the one who backed out of the Colorado debate.

          Jerry McDonald refused to negotiate in good faith for the debate on
          even the simplest of uncontroversial matters.

          As to this issue, it was most reasonable for me to ask Jerry McDonald
          to bring forth his own witness to help him resolve the issue and his
          problem. Jerry McDonald would not, could not, for his witness would
          easily be shown to have direct testimony against Jerry McDonald
          showing that Jerry McDonald's claims were, as I have shown, false.

          I did NOT keep my mouth shut until August of 2007 and did NOT start in
          on the preacher in August 2007 as Jerry McDonald has falsely and
          publicly claimed.

          I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two
          false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

          5.

          Why Jerry McDonald continues to refuse his responsibility to admit,
          explain and correct his false claims about me as to these two easily
          verified and undeniable matters of fact may be beyond my comprehension.

          Matthew 7:1,2 & James 3:1

          I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two
          false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

          6.

          There may be a difference of opinion as to the best way to expose
          Jerry McDonald's lies as to the two matters of fact addressed in this
          subject thread.

          I think I've done it the best I could, and it has been clearly shown
          that Jerry McDonald's two factual claims are clearly and undeniably
          false.

          I did NOT keep my mouth shut until August of 2007.

          I did NOT start in on the preacher in August of 2007.

          I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two
          false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

          If, as Jerry McDonald opines, the best way for me to have exposed him
          as to these two factual errors would have been to engage the subject
          in the oral, Fort Collins debate, Jerry McDonald's cancellation of the
          debate negotiations and the debate when this subject was brought up is
          an indication that Jerry McDonald knew he was "found out" regarding
          his false claims and that Jerry McDonald wanted nothing to do with
          this subject being an issue in the debate.

          In other words, according to Jerry McDonald, I tried to do it
          the "best way", but Jerry McDonald is the one who ran off from the
          opportunity; for obvious reasons related to not wanting to be found,
          as the evidence would clearly show, to be a liar.

          Jerry McDonald had/has no credible documentation or witness testimony
          to justify his claims that I kept my mouth shut until August of 2007
          or that I started in on the preacher in August of 2007. How Jerry
          McDonald came up with such claims in the first place has not even been
          demonstrated.

          The credible documentation and witness testimony establish beyond any
          doubt that Jerry McDonald's two factual claims are false.

          I again ask Jerry McDonald to admit, explain and correct the two
          false, factual claims addressed in this subject thread.

          Jerry McDonald, will you now admit, explain and correct these two
          false, factual claims regarding me and the Colorado situation?

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty


          --------Jerry McDonald's Reply----------

          To: Robert Baty
          From: Jerry McDonald
          Subject: I made no false statements about you
          Date: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:41 PM

          Robert, I made no false statements about you and you know it.

          If you say that I did you are lying about it.

          Everything I said was right on the money.

          When I said that you didn't go after Marty until August of 07 you
          didn't..

          That did not mean that you did not have any discussions with him about
          it.

          You did not start in on your tirades until August of 07 and you know
          it.

          You have used this as an excuse to get out of the oral debate that you
          were afraid you were going to have to show up for.

          Why you will continue bringing up these lies is beyond me, but I guess
          that is what an atheist does best; lie.

          In Christ Jesus
          Jerry D. McDonald

          P.S. If I had really told lies about you, the best way you could have
          exposed me to was get me in front of people at the debate and prove
          that I lied. Since you got that yellow strip down your back, that
          won't be possible.

          ---------------------------
          ---------------------------
        • J427750108
          If you listen to his final sermon, it kind of sounds like he hints at what happened. Mark Goldsmith
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 15, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            If you listen to his final sermon, it kind of sounds like he hints at what happened.

            Mark Goldsmith



            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
            >
            > I, Robert Baty, believe that more than sufficient time has elapsed to allow Jerry McDonald to determine the facts, admit his errors, explain his errors, and correct his errors.
            >
            > Jerry McDonald, having failed to do so, has prompted me to write this message in order to more clearly establish the facts of the historical record which Jerry McDonald has effectively denied with his false reports about me and the Colorado situation.
            >
            > The responsibility remains with Jerry McDonald to admit his errors, explain his errors, and correct his errors in these most simple of historical facts.
            >
            > The factual errors addressed in this message are not intended to be all-inclusive as to Jerry McDonald's false reports about me, but represent two substantive factual errors that can be easily determined with reference to readily available documentation and direct testimony from witnesses.
            >
            > Following is a link to the public claims of Jerry McDonald regarding these matters and excerpts from the link:
            >
            > --------------------------------------
            >
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/27588
            >
            > From: Jerry McDonald
            > To: CFTF list
            > Date: November 7, 2007
            >
            > (excerpts)
            >
            > (Robert Baty) had only been there (Bellvue, CO) about a year.
            >
            > Back in August (Robert Baty) started in on the preacher there...
            >
            > Up until August, Robert kept his mouth shut.
            >
            > (Robert Baty) did start in on the preacher there in August.
            >
            > Robert (Baty) kept his mouth shut until August.
            >
            > In Christ Jesus
            > Jerry McDonald
            >
            > http://www.challenge2.org
            > http://www.biblical-criticism.com
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > My further comments:
            >
            > I, Robert Baty, propose that it is false that:
            >
            > > 1. I "kept my mouth shut" until
            > > August of 2007,
            >
            > and I, Robert Baty, propose that it is false that:
            >
            > > 2. I "started in on the preacher"
            > > in August of 2007.
            >
            > In support of my claim regarding #1 above, I provide the following e-mail which I received from the preacher, in response to an e-mail from me regarding my "Goliath of GRAS", many months before August of 2007:
            >
            > --------------------------------------
            >
            > To: rlbaty@...
            > From: Marty Trujillo
            > Date: December 7, 2006
            >
            > Subject: Re: The fundamental issue!
            >
            > (excerpts)
            >
            > Dear Robert,
            >
            > Robert I know you have spent much time, thought and prayer on this and I appreciate that.
            >
            > Let us consider together.
            >
            > I will work on the arguments you put forth as time deems.
            >
            > I will solicit my father in law who is a scientist who teaches biology in a private school.
            >
            > Thanks for your time brother.
            >
            > Because of Christ,
            > Marty Trujillo
            >
            > ----------------------------------
            > ----------------------------------
            >
            > My further comments:
            >
            > The above conversation continued for some time before being terminated without resolving our differences.
            >
            > As the above record, and more complete unpublished record, shows, I did not keep my mouth shut until August 2007 as has been falsely claimed by Jerry McDonald.
            >
            > While that should be sufficient to document the falsity of Jerry McDonald's public claims about such matters, it appears appropriate to address the August 2007 claim in further detail.
            >
            > Something did happen in August 2007.
            >
            > I happened to wind up on a number of e-mail lists in consequence of my Colorado church membership. One such list maintained by a church member included about 60 addresses, many, if not most, of which were not members of the church.
            >
            > In August of 2007, I sent out to that list my standard invitation to discuss my "Goliath of GRAS". A copy of that invitation follows my name below.
            >
            > There was no response and I subsequently deleted the message from my e-mail account.
            >
            > Weeks and weeks went by!
            >
            > I was subsequently advised that there was one or more persons who were offended at having received the invitation, though no person was named and no person came to me to personally claim any offense at having received the invitation.
            >
            > At the time, I had no copy of what the fuss was all about and had only a vague recollection of what might have been included in the subject e-mail of August 2007.
            >
            > After a long delay and a number of requests, I was finally provided with a copy of the subject e-mail.
            >
            > Immediately upon receipt thereof, I sent a follow-up e-mail to the same e-mail list addresses wherein I apologized to any who may have been offended at having received the invitation.
            >
            > No one came forward to admit to having been offended at having received my invitation or to accept my apology.
            >
            > There are, of course, many other issues related to these matters, but they are not necessary or appropriate subjects of this presentation.
            >
            > The material reflected in this presentation, when properly considered and in light of the direct testimony of relevant witnesses, is sufficient to sustain the proposition that Jerry McDonald's claims, noted above, are false and that my oft repeated request that he admit, explain and correct his false reports about the matters is most reasonable.
            >
            > Jerry McDonald, will you now admit, explain and correct your false reports regarding these most simple, historical facts?
            >
            > Sincerely,
            > Robert Baty
            >
            > # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
            >
            > The August 2007 e-mail:
            >
            > From: Robert Baty
            > To: Approximately 60 addresses
            > Date: August 10, 2007
            >
            > Subject: Testing a fundamental position!
            >
            > I thought I would take the opportunity to invite any who might be interested to consider the outstanding invitation contained in the message following.
            >
            > It is preferred that responses to this message be addressed not to me personally but sent to the discussion list by addressing your response to the following e-mail address:
            >
            > Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > The website and public archives of the above referenced discussion list can be found at:
            >
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty
            >
            > Here's the message/invitation:
            >
            > I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science" movement.. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.
            >
            > I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" argument for any who may want to "come out" in response to its call and take up the public discussion as to the argument's validity, soundness and the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the evidence of age.
            >
            > The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".
            >
            > Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth, creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:
            >
            > -------------------------------
            >
            > http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991
            >
            > THE YOUNG EARTH
            >
            > (excerpts)
            >
            > "(T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and
            > the evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history
            >
            > > in other words,
            > > the age of the Earth.
            >
            > While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist, it is the death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.
            >
            > A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.
            >
            > Much of the controversy today between creationists and evolutionists revolves around the age of the Earth.
            >
            > A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that there is no compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the gulf separating the biblical and
            > evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just too large
            >
            > (W)e must "query if vast time is indeed available."
            >
            > That is our purpose here.
            >
            > There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time is not available, and that the Earth is relatively young, not extremely old.
            >
            > That evidence needs to be examined and considered...
            >
            > There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age of only a few thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates."
            >
            > (end excerpt)
            >
            > ------------------------------
            >
            > It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe that the Bible teaches that "nothing is more than a few thousand
            > years old".
            >
            > The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental "young-earth,
            > creation-science" position on that point is whether or not the real world evidence really does support that interpretation or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world
            > evidence.
            >
            > I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science" (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
            > evidence.
            >
            > Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":
            >
            > Major premise:
            >
            > > If God's word (the text) says
            > > everything began over a period
            > > of six days, is interpreted by
            > > some to mean it was six 24-hour
            > > days occurring a few thousand
            > > years ago, and there is empirical
            > > evidence that some thing is
            > > actually much older than a few
            > > thousand years, then the
            > > interpretation of the text by
            > > some is wrong.
            >
            > Minor premise:
            >
            > > God's word (the text) says
            > > everything began over a period
            > > of six days, is interpreted by
            > > some to mean it was six 24-hour
            > > days occurring a few thousand
            > > years ago, and there is empirical
            > > evidence that some thing is
            > > actually much older than a few
            > > thousand years.
            >
            > Conclusion:
            >
            > > The interpretation of the text
            > > by some is wrong.
            >
            > You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity of the argument, or simply accept it for what it is...a simple, logically valid statement of the real world falsification test for the fundamental real world claim commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science" movement.
            >
            > It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the above argument, in the context of the popular "young-earth, creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".
            >
            > In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
            > propositions:
            >
            > Proposition #1:
            >
            > > The empirical evidence shows
            > > that the Earth has been in
            > > existence longer than one
            > > hundred thousand (100,000)
            > > years.
            >
            > > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
            > > Deny: ???
            >
            > Proposition #2:
            >
            > > The empirical evidence shows
            > > that the Universe has been in
            > > existence longer than one
            > > hundred thousand (100,000)
            > > years.
            >
            > > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
            > > Deny: ???
            >
            > Proposition #3:
            >
            > > The empirical evidence shows
            > > that the Earth is less than one
            > > hundred thousand (100,000)
            > > years old
            >
            > > Affirm: ???
            > > Deny: Todd S Greene
            >
            > Proposition #4:
            >
            > > The empirical evidence shows
            > > that the Universe is less than
            > > one hundred thousand
            > > (100,000) years old.
            >
            > > Affirm: ???
            > > Deny: Todd S. Greene
            >
            > To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.
            >
            > The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage in the
            > discussion.
            >
            > Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position popularized by Dr. Fox and summarized as follows:
            >
            > > I've got my interpretation
            > > of the text regarding the
            > > real world and that trumps
            > > any real world evidence
            > > to the contrary.
            >
            > Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth, creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies "young-earth, creation-science".
            >
            > That is a good thing to know.
            >
            > Sincerely,
            > Robert Baty
            >
            > --------------------------
            > --------------------------
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • Robert
            ... Another cryptic note from Mark, but I think I found what he had reference to. Dated February 27, 2011 on the Pine Lane site is a sermon (audio) from Terry
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 15, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "J427750108" <goldsmithmark@...> wrote:

              > If you listen to his final sermon,
              > it kind of sounds like he hints at
              > what happened.

              Another cryptic note from Mark, but I think I found what he had reference to.

              Dated February 27, 2011 on the Pine Lane site is a sermon (audio) from Terry entitled "my final word of encouragement".

              You can find that sermon at:

              http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com/?PageID=3134&IsNav=true

              I haven't listened to all of it yet, so I'm not sure what "hint" Mark might have reference to.

              If you are interested, you might check it out and see if you see the "hint".

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty
            • Robert
              ... It may be accessible by the public. It may be posted on the Pine Lane website. It may not be being treated as a private matter. Maybe Pi s suggestions are
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 15, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:

                > Might I suggest if this information is so
                > "public," it would be accessible by the
                > public? The fact it isn't posted on the
                > Pine Lane website indicates this is being
                > treated as a private matter (as many
                > employment decisions are).

                It may be accessible by the public.

                It may be posted on the Pine Lane website.

                It may not be being treated as a private matter.

                Maybe Pi's suggestions are an example of that "argument from incredulity" some have talked about recently.

                IF I haven't accessed the information, THEN it can't be publicly accessible.

                IF I haven't found it on the Pine Lane website, THEN it isn't there.

                IF I don't know, THEN it's being treated as a private matter.

                But I do get Pi's point. I just don't happen to share the opinion that it's a secret; we just haven't had anyone post the information here yet.

                As I have proposed repeatedly:

                > maybe we'll find out,
                > maybe we won't.

                I am quite unaware of most "public" information!

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "J427750108" <goldsmithmark@...> wrote:

                > If you listen to his final sermon,
                > it kind of sounds like he hints at
                > what happened.

                Another cryptic note from Mark, but I think I found what he had reference to.

                Dated February 27, 2011 on the Pine Lane site is a sermon (audio) from Terry
                entitled "my final word of encouragement".

                You can find that sermon at:

                http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com/?PageID=3134&IsNav=true

                I haven't listened to all of it yet, so I'm not sure what "hint" Mark might have
                reference to.

                If you are interested, you might check it out and see if you see the "hint".

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty
              • Jerry McDonald
                The only error that I will admit to is the same error that I admitted to back in 2007, and that is the error of when you started in with your Goliath of GRAS
                Message 7 of 8 , Jun 15, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  The only error that I will admit to is the same error that I admitted to back in 2007, and that is the error of when you started in with your Goliath of GRAS with brother Trujillo. I do believe that I admitted that error back then. However, you still teach false doctrine and you still bother preachers about it. I was going by what I understood brother Trujillo to say. When I questioned him further he set me straight on the matter. I am not going to go back through four years of emails to see if I corrected the error or not, so let me apologize now. If that is what bothers you. You are still a heretic, an enemy of the cross and getting deeper into atheism as every day goes by. You don't give a hoot either way, you are just like the Goldsmiths, you want to have someone to argue with, and it doesn't make any difference to you who it is or what it is about. You would argue with a stump.

                  In Christ Jesus
                  Jerry D. McDonald
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "J427750108" <goldsmithmark@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > If you listen to his final sermon, it kind of sounds like he hints at what happened.
                  >
                  > Mark Goldsmith
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I, Robert Baty, believe that more than sufficient time has elapsed to allow Jerry McDonald to determine the facts, admit his errors, explain his errors, and correct his errors.
                  > >
                  > > Jerry McDonald, having failed to do so, has prompted me to write this message in order to more clearly establish the facts of the historical record which Jerry McDonald has effectively denied with his false reports about me and the Colorado situation.
                  > >
                  > > The responsibility remains with Jerry McDonald to admit his errors, explain his errors, and correct his errors in these most simple of historical facts.
                  > >
                  > > The factual errors addressed in this message are not intended to be all-inclusive as to Jerry McDonald's false reports about me, but represent two substantive factual errors that can be easily determined with reference to readily available documentation and direct testimony from witnesses.
                  > >
                  > > Following is a link to the public claims of Jerry McDonald regarding these matters and excerpts from the link:
                  > >
                  > > --------------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/27588
                  > >
                  > > From: Jerry McDonald
                  > > To: CFTF list
                  > > Date: November 7, 2007
                  > >
                  > > (excerpts)
                  > >
                  > > (Robert Baty) had only been there (Bellvue, CO) about a year.
                  > >
                  > > Back in August (Robert Baty) started in on the preacher there...
                  > >
                  > > Up until August, Robert kept his mouth shut.
                  > >
                  > > (Robert Baty) did start in on the preacher there in August.
                  > >
                  > > Robert (Baty) kept his mouth shut until August.
                  > >
                  > > In Christ Jesus
                  > > Jerry McDonald
                  > >
                  > > http://www.challenge2.org
                  > > http://www.biblical-criticism.com
                  > >
                  > > ------------------------------------
                  > > ------------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > My further comments:
                  > >
                  > > I, Robert Baty, propose that it is false that:
                  > >
                  > > > 1. I "kept my mouth shut" until
                  > > > August of 2007,
                  > >
                  > > and I, Robert Baty, propose that it is false that:
                  > >
                  > > > 2. I "started in on the preacher"
                  > > > in August of 2007.
                  > >
                  > > In support of my claim regarding #1 above, I provide the following e-mail which I received from the preacher, in response to an e-mail from me regarding my "Goliath of GRAS", many months before August of 2007:
                  > >
                  > > --------------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > To: rlbaty@
                  > > From: Marty Trujillo
                  > > Date: December 7, 2006
                  > >
                  > > Subject: Re: The fundamental issue!
                  > >
                  > > (excerpts)
                  > >
                  > > Dear Robert,
                  > >
                  > > Robert I know you have spent much time, thought and prayer on this and I appreciate that.
                  > >
                  > > Let us consider together.
                  > >
                  > > I will work on the arguments you put forth as time deems.
                  > >
                  > > I will solicit my father in law who is a scientist who teaches biology in a private school.
                  > >
                  > > Thanks for your time brother.
                  > >
                  > > Because of Christ,
                  > > Marty Trujillo
                  > >
                  > > ----------------------------------
                  > > ----------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > My further comments:
                  > >
                  > > The above conversation continued for some time before being terminated without resolving our differences.
                  > >
                  > > As the above record, and more complete unpublished record, shows, I did not keep my mouth shut until August 2007 as has been falsely claimed by Jerry McDonald.
                  > >
                  > > While that should be sufficient to document the falsity of Jerry McDonald's public claims about such matters, it appears appropriate to address the August 2007 claim in further detail.
                  > >
                  > > Something did happen in August 2007.
                  > >
                  > > I happened to wind up on a number of e-mail lists in consequence of my Colorado church membership. One such list maintained by a church member included about 60 addresses, many, if not most, of which were not members of the church.
                  > >
                  > > In August of 2007, I sent out to that list my standard invitation to discuss my "Goliath of GRAS". A copy of that invitation follows my name below.
                  > >
                  > > There was no response and I subsequently deleted the message from my e-mail account.
                  > >
                  > > Weeks and weeks went by!
                  > >
                  > > I was subsequently advised that there was one or more persons who were offended at having received the invitation, though no person was named and no person came to me to personally claim any offense at having received the invitation.
                  > >
                  > > At the time, I had no copy of what the fuss was all about and had only a vague recollection of what might have been included in the subject e-mail of August 2007.
                  > >
                  > > After a long delay and a number of requests, I was finally provided with a copy of the subject e-mail.
                  > >
                  > > Immediately upon receipt thereof, I sent a follow-up e-mail to the same e-mail list addresses wherein I apologized to any who may have been offended at having received the invitation.
                  > >
                  > > No one came forward to admit to having been offended at having received my invitation or to accept my apology.
                  > >
                  > > There are, of course, many other issues related to these matters, but they are not necessary or appropriate subjects of this presentation.
                  > >
                  > > The material reflected in this presentation, when properly considered and in light of the direct testimony of relevant witnesses, is sufficient to sustain the proposition that Jerry McDonald's claims, noted above, are false and that my oft repeated request that he admit, explain and correct his false reports about the matters is most reasonable.
                  > >
                  > > Jerry McDonald, will you now admit, explain and correct your false reports regarding these most simple, historical facts?
                  > >
                  > > Sincerely,
                  > > Robert Baty
                  > >
                  > > # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
                  > >
                  > > The August 2007 e-mail:
                  > >
                  > > From: Robert Baty
                  > > To: Approximately 60 addresses
                  > > Date: August 10, 2007
                  > >
                  > > Subject: Testing a fundamental position!
                  > >
                  > > I thought I would take the opportunity to invite any who might be interested to consider the outstanding invitation contained in the message following.
                  > >
                  > > It is preferred that responses to this message be addressed not to me personally but sent to the discussion list by addressing your response to the following e-mail address:
                  > >
                  > > Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                  > >
                  > > The website and public archives of the above referenced discussion list can be found at:
                  > >
                  > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty
                  > >
                  > > Here's the message/invitation:
                  > >
                  > > I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science" movement.. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.
                  > >
                  > > I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" argument for any who may want to "come out" in response to its call and take up the public discussion as to the argument's validity, soundness and the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the evidence of age.
                  > >
                  > > The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".
                  > >
                  > > Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth, creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:
                  > >
                  > > -------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991
                  > >
                  > > THE YOUNG EARTH
                  > >
                  > > (excerpts)
                  > >
                  > > "(T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and
                  > > the evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history
                  > >
                  > > > in other words,
                  > > > the age of the Earth.
                  > >
                  > > While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist, it is the death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.
                  > >
                  > > A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.
                  > >
                  > > Much of the controversy today between creationists and evolutionists revolves around the age of the Earth.
                  > >
                  > > A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that there is no compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the gulf separating the biblical and
                  > > evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just too large
                  > >
                  > > (W)e must "query if vast time is indeed available."
                  > >
                  > > That is our purpose here.
                  > >
                  > > There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time is not available, and that the Earth is relatively young, not extremely old.
                  > >
                  > > That evidence needs to be examined and considered...
                  > >
                  > > There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age of only a few thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates."
                  > >
                  > > (end excerpt)
                  > >
                  > > ------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe that the Bible teaches that "nothing is more than a few thousand
                  > > years old".
                  > >
                  > > The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental "young-earth,
                  > > creation-science" position on that point is whether or not the real world evidence really does support that interpretation or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world
                  > > evidence.
                  > >
                  > > I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science" (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
                  > > evidence.
                  > >
                  > > Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":
                  > >
                  > > Major premise:
                  > >
                  > > > If God's word (the text) says
                  > > > everything began over a period
                  > > > of six days, is interpreted by
                  > > > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                  > > > days occurring a few thousand
                  > > > years ago, and there is empirical
                  > > > evidence that some thing is
                  > > > actually much older than a few
                  > > > thousand years, then the
                  > > > interpretation of the text by
                  > > > some is wrong.
                  > >
                  > > Minor premise:
                  > >
                  > > > God's word (the text) says
                  > > > everything began over a period
                  > > > of six days, is interpreted by
                  > > > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                  > > > days occurring a few thousand
                  > > > years ago, and there is empirical
                  > > > evidence that some thing is
                  > > > actually much older than a few
                  > > > thousand years.
                  > >
                  > > Conclusion:
                  > >
                  > > > The interpretation of the text
                  > > > by some is wrong.
                  > >
                  > > You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity of the argument, or simply accept it for what it is...a simple, logically valid statement of the real world falsification test for the fundamental real world claim commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science" movement.
                  > >
                  > > It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the above argument, in the context of the popular "young-earth, creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".
                  > >
                  > > In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
                  > > propositions:
                  > >
                  > > Proposition #1:
                  > >
                  > > > The empirical evidence shows
                  > > > that the Earth has been in
                  > > > existence longer than one
                  > > > hundred thousand (100,000)
                  > > > years.
                  > >
                  > > > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                  > > > Deny: ???
                  > >
                  > > Proposition #2:
                  > >
                  > > > The empirical evidence shows
                  > > > that the Universe has been in
                  > > > existence longer than one
                  > > > hundred thousand (100,000)
                  > > > years.
                  > >
                  > > > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                  > > > Deny: ???
                  > >
                  > > Proposition #3:
                  > >
                  > > > The empirical evidence shows
                  > > > that the Earth is less than one
                  > > > hundred thousand (100,000)
                  > > > years old
                  > >
                  > > > Affirm: ???
                  > > > Deny: Todd S Greene
                  > >
                  > > Proposition #4:
                  > >
                  > > > The empirical evidence shows
                  > > > that the Universe is less than
                  > > > one hundred thousand
                  > > > (100,000) years old.
                  > >
                  > > > Affirm: ???
                  > > > Deny: Todd S. Greene
                  > >
                  > > To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.
                  > >
                  > > The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage in the
                  > > discussion.
                  > >
                  > > Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position popularized by Dr. Fox and summarized as follows:
                  > >
                  > > > I've got my interpretation
                  > > > of the text regarding the
                  > > > real world and that trumps
                  > > > any real world evidence
                  > > > to the contrary.
                  > >
                  > > Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth, creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies "young-earth, creation-science".
                  > >
                  > > That is a good thing to know.
                  > >
                  > > Sincerely,
                  > > Robert Baty
                  > >
                  > > --------------------------
                  > > --------------------------
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  >
                • PIASAN@aol.com
                  From: Robert ... Robert: It may be accessible by the public. Pi: It may. I can only go by the evidence available. There is no evidence the information is
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jun 15, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    From: Robert


                    Pi (previously):
                    > Might I suggest if this information is so
                    > "public," it would be accessible by the
                    > public? The fact it isn't posted on the
                    > Pine Lane website indicates this is being
                    > treated as a private matter (as many
                    > employment decisions are).

                    Robert:
                    It may be accessible by the public.

                    Pi:
                    It may. I can only go by the evidence available. There is no evidence the information is accessible to the public. If it were being handled as a public matter, there are certain places I would think are most likely to provide public access. Included in those are the Pine Lane website; the CoCBanned list; and/or any list or blog in which Terry may participate, etc.



                    #######
                    Robert:
                    It may be posted on the Pine Lane website.

                    Pi:
                    It may. There is no evidence it is.


                    #######
                    Robert:
                    It may not be being treated as a private matter.

                    Pi:
                    It may not. However, there is no evidence it is being handled as a public matter. This is a personnel issue. From my experience as a manager, public discussions of personnel actions are not likely to be initiated by the employer for legal (liability) reasons.



                    #####
                    Robert:
                    Maybe Pi's suggestions are an example of that "argument from incredulity" some
                    have talked about recently.

                    IF I haven't accessed the information, THEN it can't be publicly accessible.

                    IF I haven't found it on the Pine Lane web site, THEN it isn't there.

                    IF I don't know, THEN it's being treated as a private matter.


                    Pi:
                    Oh bull shirt, Robert.

                    Maybe my suggestions are based on years of experience as a manager during which I've made a number of personnel decisions from hiring to termination. I've had subordinates say all kinds of things about how or why I was making a decision while I was not at liberty to discuss the matter. The only defense I was able to offer amounted to: "When that person came to the department you didn't want to train her and told me she would lie about what you had told her in training. I expect you to give me the same 'benefit of the doubt' I gave you."


                    ######
                    Robert:
                    But I do get Pi's point. I just don't happen to share the opinion that it's a
                    secret; we just haven't had anyone post the information here yet.

                    Pi:
                    I don't have the opinion it's a secret. My opinion is it is a personal matter that Terry doesn't want to discuss for whatever reasons. That is his option and I have no reason to do anything but respect his (apparent) wishes.

                    If Terry doesn't want his departure discussed, it would be a serious breach of privacy for the Pine Lane authorities to do so.


                    ######
                    Robert:
                    As I have proposed repeatedly:

                    > maybe we'll find out,
                    > maybe we won't.

                    Pi:
                    Well, I guess that covers all the bases.

                    Here's my take on the matter based on what we know:
                    Terry made some kind of statement in late February that may have hinted at his departure. It was some time after that he actually left. Based on my experience, if his departure were for a negative reason it would (most likely) have come with little or no warning. Terry's statement indicates he may have been planning his departure.

                    My (tentative) conclusion is that Terry left willingly for his own reason(s). Also, for his own reasons he chooses not to discuss that departure in a public forum. There is no evidence of any negative issue involved.


                    ######
                    Robert:
                    I am quite unaware of most "public" information!

                    Pi:
                    So am I. So what?




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.