Re: [XTalk] Re: the dread Jesus-mythers
- In a message dated 1/3/2003 6:52:32 AM Central Standard Time,
> Hello Manu and Everyone,
> I have a copy of the 298 posts that Ed Tyler had
> Yahoo delete from the JesusMysteries archive.
> I can open up a new discussion list and post them
> and Earl Doherty's if enough folks are interested.
> There are also 298 log entries at JesusMysteries that
> I can post to the new list that reveal the activity of the
> Yahoo staff member who deleted Ed's posts per his
> order. They look like this:
> 5/30/2001 10:19 pm kraigl@... Deleted message #521
> 5/30/2001 10:19 pm kraigl@... Deleted message #233
> 5/30/2001 10:19 pm kraigl@... Deleted message #145
> I can also provide the private email exchanges between
> Ed Tyler and the JesusMysteries moderators which reveal
> exactly what happened.
> I think that what I've proposed is preferable to Ed airing his
> grievances, e.g., to the Infidels forum in August 2001 and
> now again at Crosstalk.
> Let me know.
> Best regards,
> Clarice O'Callaghan
> JesusMysteries Moderator
As everyone on this list already knows, it was not my "airing grievances" but
Kelly Wellington's misrepresentations that brought this on. I am of course
by no means the only person toward whom Earl Doherty has resorted to insult,
as you well know if you have been reading the Infidels' list. I don't belong
to that list myself, but forwarded a couple of messages when asked; I did,
however, read his exchanges with others.
I would welcome the posting of the completed exchanges between Earl and me,
as long as you also post the various and sundry rants from Earl that were
deleted. This will only serve to make the point I made to Kelly: That my
posts to your list, while in disagreement with Doherty, were all of a nature
that would have been acceptable on any academic forum, while Doherty's were,
to be charitable, "something else." So you may certainly post them provided
they are from completed threads; this will be the vast majority of the posts.
As before, I do not think it appropriate to make public threads that were
not completed at the time you "silenced" me at Earl's command.
You may also publish my private correspondence to the JM moderators provided
1. Publish it all--that means you publish the messages in which I emphasize
that I did not intend for you to delete *all* my posts. There were at least
two in which I used the phrase "I don't intend to gut your archives" or words
to that effect. And be sure to include the messages from you in which you
refused to let me decide for myself which ongoing posts would be deleted, as
your refusal to do so when I was pressed for time before a trip was the only
reason I forwarded the matter to Yahoo in the first place. I got a response
from Yahoo to the effect that I was right and they'd take care of it; that's
the last thing and only I heard from them.
2. Publish the private messages from Earl Doherty in which he threatens to
leave the list if you don't shut me up, as well as the ones from you in which
you acknowledge that your silencing action against me was to prevent my
response to Doherty's rant rather than for anything I had posted. Post those
private messages from me in which I volunteer to have my posts moderated, and
those from Earl in which he refuses to accept moderation.
Those messages are stored on a computer at home, if you don't have them.
I'll be there after the 8th of January.
At any rate, you may publish my posts if and only if you publish the whole
thing--Earl's included. You'll need his permission for that and I'll bet the
proverbial silk pajama that he won't give it.
I apologize to the forum for addressing this matter on list, but I want my
agreement and conditions to be a matter of public record. As long as my posts
and private messages are put in their proper context--which includes *all* of
Earl Doherty's assorted rants, raves, and threats--I have no objection
whatever. But you must provide that context if you are to post them.
Nice seeing you again, Clarice.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]