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

What would it take to satisfy you, Robert

Expand Messages
  • dmathew1 <dmathew1@yahoo.com>
    Hello Robert, Exactly what would Bert Thompson have to do to satisfy your interests in the Maury matter? What would he have to say and how would he have to
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 18, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Robert,

      Exactly what would Bert Thompson have to do to satisfy your interests
      in the Maury matter? What would he have to say and how would he have
      to say it in order to allow you to conclude this controversy?

      Sincerely,

      David Mathews
    • rlbaty50 <rlbaty@webtv.net>
      ... wrote: Exactly what would Bert Thompson have to do to satisfy your interests in the Maury matter? What would he have to say and how would
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 19, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "dmathew1 <dmathew1@y...>"
        <dmathew1@y...> wrote:

        "Exactly what would Bert Thompson have to do to satisfy your
        interests in the Maury matter? What would he have to say and how
        would he have to say it in order to allow you to conclude this
        controversy?"

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

        My comments:

        Methinks the query suggests an excessive concern about some perceived
        personal conflict between Bert and myself. I have my own "what
        would" curiosity.

        Given David's "fearless, words mean so little" philosophy, "what
        would it take" to get him to call (toll-free) Apologetics Press today
        and clearly document his contact and inquire about an official
        statement regarding:

        1. Bert's source for his Maury statue claim.
        2. What it is going to take to get Bert to acknowledge that I didnt'
        write that letter he called my "feeble attempt".

        He probably doesn't need to talk to Bert directly; anybody on staff
        is probably going to familiar with these matters. It might be Brad,
        Kyle, Eric or David Miller; maybe even a secretary. He just needs to
        make clear he is making an inquiry "for the record" concerning public
        issues that Bert has spoken out on.

        From an historical perspective concerning the Maury matters and the
        larger YEC influence among the churches of Christ, Bert's personal
        interest in me is of little consequence. My personal interest in him
        is, as well, of little consequence.

        However, if David is all that serious about "what it would take" to
        do something touchy-feely regarding personal relationships, he is
        welcome to document his inquiry with Bert as to that as well. He can
        ask Bert what Bert thinks he might negotiate with me concerning a
        settlement of any perceived personal conflicts involved in these
        matters. He might also ask him to join this list for purposes of
        discussing and negotiating how Bert might go about cleaning up some
        of the mess he has made regarding my involvement in these matters.

        Who knows, Bert and I just might spend a few years working together
        to get that book into print. Then again, like the "Darwin Legend",
        the historical notes regarding these matters may have to await a new
        generation of more diligent "truth-seekers" who are more fearless
        than our David Mathews and more competent than myself.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • mathewmaury <sqi7o0hh02@sneakemail.com>
        ... Robert Baty s response immediately above shows that his conflict with Thompson is just the latest skirmish of his war against supposed YEC influence . I
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 19, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > --- dmathew1 wrote:
          > "Exactly what would Bert Thompson have to do to satisfy your
          > interests in the Maury matter? What would he have to say and
          > how would he have to say it in order to allow you to
          > conclude this controversy?"

          > --- rlbaty50 wrote:
          > From an historical perspective concerning the Maury matters
          > and the larger YEC influence among the churches of Christ,
          > Bert's personal interest in me is of little consequence. My
          > personal interest in him is, as well, of little consequence.

          Robert Baty's response immediately above shows that his conflict
          with Thompson is just the latest skirmish of his war
          against supposed 'YEC influence'.

          I looked at the correspondence record found at
          http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/BatyThompson.html
          Baty began antagonizing Thompson over ten years ago about
          matters totally unrelated to Maury and the CRSQ letter.
          The battle lines continually shift from Colin Patterson
          quotes to Merson Davies quotes to an A.C.L.U. lawsuit to
          amino acid sequences to Matthew Fontaine Maury and the paths
          of the sea to the Maury statue to the authorship of Baty's
          letter to CRSQ.

          Baty surrounds Thompson and demands his terms for surrender.
          If I were Thompson, my only response to Baty would be the
          same as General McAuliffe's answer to the Germans
          surrounding Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge: 'NUTS'

          The controversy will never conclude in this life. Conclusion
          is not the goal. Harry and Pester is the name of this game.

          Thompson is the target because he embodies Baty's supposed
          'YEC influence'. As long as Thompson continues his work, he
          will be the quarry. How does Thompson win? If he replies in
          kind, he is seen as churlish and petty. So Thompson's only
          recourse is to ignore pusillanimous attacks.
        • rlbaty50 <rlbaty@webtv.net>
          The would-be defender of the misconceptions of Matthew Fontaine Maury writes, in part: I looked at the correspondence record found at:
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 19, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            The would-be defender of the misconceptions of Matthew Fontaine Maury
            writes, in part:

            "I looked at the correspondence record found at:

            http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/BatyThompson.html

            Baty began antagonizing Thompson over ten years ago about
            matters totally unrelated to Maury and the CRSQ letter.
            The battle lines continually shift from Colin Patterson
            quotes to Merson Davies quotes to an A.C.L.U. lawsuit to
            amino acid sequences to Matthew Fontaine Maury and the paths
            of the sea to the Maury statue to the authorship of Baty's
            letter to CRSQ."

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

            My comments:

            And some of my critics have complained I am not diverse enough in my
            interests. Glad the mysterious would-be Maury defender has noted my
            diversity. David Mathews, take note.

            Now, if we could just get David Mathews to open up a bit and give us
            his nominations as to who the mystery poster really is (supposed to
            be a regular from the Creationism list), or get the mystery poster
            himself to identify himself, wouldn't that be nice.

            Yes, "What would it take. . ." to get the mystery poster to show a
            little openness and honesty that still seems to be so foreign to Bert
            Thompson, Ph.D. It might set a good example for Bert and he just
            might open up yet and let us know:

            1. Where he got his Maury statue claim.
            2. When he is going to publicly acknowledge that I did not write the
            letter he called my "feeble attempt".

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.