Re: The CRSQ Responds!
- Rudy follows up on GospelAdvocatingForum with:
"But Robert, you wrote on another list that you were sent a letter, with
a note requesting your signature. You signed, and it was sent.
Now, I am no legal scholar, but I know two things:
1. Don't sign anything without reading it first
2. When I do sign, I am legally responsible...
So, are you saying you did something stupid?"
I do a lot of stupid things, but signing that letter was not one of
There is a whole story about how that letter came to published with my
name on it. Only part of it has been revealed so far.
Rudy, I think you are missing the point.
I don't have a problem with that letter being published as if by me and
under the circumstances present at the time; I did agree with the
sentiments, but it is nothing like what I would have written and I was
not looking for anything I wrote to be published. I was asking the CRSQ
to do something about the article's misrepresentations. Eugene Chaffin,
Ph.D., editor at the time, was indicating he would do nothing other than
publish that letter. That letter was better than nothing.
The problem is that we have preacher of sorts (Bert Thompson, Ph.D.)
going around telling folks that that letter was my "feeble attempt".
I don't really care if he thinks it was a "feeble attempt".
The point is, since Bert has thought to go around making claims about
the letter, I think the facts ought to be known and I think Bert needs
to admit what he now knows is the truth of the matter.
That is, that I did not request, propose, write or otherwise initiate
that letter Bert calls a "feeble attempt".
There is a lot more that Bert and the CRSQ folks would do well to
reveal, but, things being what they are, those secrets may never be
popularly known to us.