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

Todd Deaver v. Robert Baty; the secret exchange!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Jay Guin set up the GraceConversation blog with great expectations for dealing with the great divide between the conservative/legalists and
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 14, 2009
      Jay Guin set up the "GraceConversation" blog with great expectations for dealing with the great divide between the "conservative/legalists" and "liberal/progressives".

      He is joined there with Todd Deaver for the "liberal/progressives" in opposition to Phil Sanders and Greg Tidwell.

      From the beginning I was a vocal opponent to the way they were allowing the discussion to get out of hand and misdirected, with the aid of numerous "liberal/progressive" posters.

      Matt Clifton has recently posted some notes regarding his experience on the GraceConversation blog at:


      The GraceConversation blog has now changed its course. Moderation is now being practiced; including, in my case, the deletion of some of my previously posted messages which the owners/operators didn't like. I may, in fact, be the only one to suffer such an action.

      The politics is quite understandable, especially in light of Matt Clifton's opinions as to what has transpired on the GraceCentered list and the exalted position that Todd Deaver appears to hold amongst the "liberal/progressives".

      There is no practical way for me to determine just how extensive the effort has been to destroy the historical record of the GraceConversation blog.

      This message is being posted in order to try and preserve some of the historical record of what transpired regarding my exchange with Todd Deaver regarding the evolution of the GraceConversation blog.

      Following is my reconstruction of the exchange, based on the personal notices of posted messages to the blog and what presently exists on the blog Any errors are unintentional; the effort has been quite frustrating.

      You will be able to go to the blog to verify which of the following messages have been removed from the blog and which remain.




      All comments:


      Todd Deaver Says:
      April 13, 2009 at 3:23 PM


      I’m just not into superfluous posts.

      Jay and I correspond with each other re: who will reply to what, and, given his experience and knowledge, he may well be writing more often than me.

      This isn’t a competition, and there’s no requirement that all four authors have equal time. What is important is that each side have the opportunity to present its case. At this juncture, with Phil and Greg in the “affirmative,” I think Jay has set out the problem very effecively and explained what we need now from the “conservative” side.

      I don’t know that there’s anything else that needs to be said from our side until we get their response.

      Robert Baty Says:
      April 13, 2009 at 3:30 PM

      With all the indicated behind-the-scences tactical scheming going on, why not just elect a representative from each side to deal with the details.

      Otherwise, perhaps Todd’s implicit suggestions will, while mine did not, get those with all the rabbits to keep their traps closed.

      I don’t agree with his conclusion that they have resolved what is needed, but that is for them to work out with the representative opposition.

      Will they?

      Robert Baty

      Robert Baty says:
      April 13, 2009 at 4:10 PM

      On Respect of Persons!

      This could be interesting.

      I suggest the "progressive" gallery should "shut up" and they keep on talking.

      Todd suggests the "progressive" gallery should "shut up"...will they?

      Of course, should either side's gallery engage in open, honest, good faith discussions of fundamental substance, like I tried with Wayne McDaniel, then maybe "we" could tread cautiously in adding to the purpose promoted for this list.

      Robert Baty

      Todd Deaver Says:
      April 13, 2009 at 5:11 PM

      Actually, Robert, I was talking about Jay and me, not those making comments. I’m not advising that either side get quiet. I hope to see more input from conservatives, as Jay requested, in response to the question he raised. I would like to remind us all that it’s critical that we maintain a kind, respectful tone in all we say. Let’s not give anyone an excuse, by our intemperate words, to write this discussion off as counterproductive.

      Thanks for your participation.

      Robert Baty says:
      April 13, 2009 at 5:19 PM


      You are welcome.

      Your side, however, includes almost everyone posting here. I understand, though, why you would now want to offer a different "interpretation".

      If you don't want to be explicit in telling the "progressives" to "shut up", perhaps they will at least take your alternative counsel.

      Who knows, maybe Wayne McDaniel will be the first to demonstrate a little of what you are proposing, answer my simple question, answer his own question, and then allow me to address his question to me.

      Robert Baty

      Bondservant Says:
      April 13, 2009 at 5:39 PM


      I don’t think Todd is telling anyone to be quiet at all but is asking for more input from others and has asked everyone to be kind and respectful as they dialogue with each other.

      Author: Robert Baty
      April 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM

      It's all about the "interpretation", huh!

      Robert Baty


      My further comments:

      In order to get an additional perspective on what is going on, one may browse the blog generally and compare some of the most critical of "liberal/progressive" commentaries, which remain posted, to my deleted comments.

      I suspect there will be little interest in such things, but feel it is important to make note of these developments and try to preserve a part of the historical record that the "liberal/progressive" folks thought should be eradicated.

      Robert Baty

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