tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post885657626374201045..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Maybe We Need A DocumentaryBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30535722321781839992012-04-29T14:49:30.774-06:002012-04-29T14:49:30.774-06:00JRB, I trust you to double-check my work here
htt...JRB, I trust you to double-check my work here<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/david-barton-spins-jefferson-lies-on.html<br /><br />in the comments section. As you know---or so I maintain---I'm only interested in the truth in this BS, not the grenade toss.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40248421193582063592012-04-29T14:20:01.581-06:002012-04-29T14:20:01.581-06:00You're a litigant, not a judge.
Big promotion...<i>You're a litigant, not a judge.</i><br /><br />Big promotion. Big raise too.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52888582945589192682012-04-29T12:37:29.769-06:002012-04-29T12:37:29.769-06:00This ruling does not preclude the petitioner or ot...<i>This ruling does not preclude the petitioner or other complainants from resubmitting/submitting additional substantive materials at a later date....moment.<br /><br />Adjourned. </i><br /><br />You're a litigant, not a judge. Excused.<br /><br /><br /><i> While I admit my conclusion isn't purely objective, I think it clear that Barton intended the implications, which Chris's has inferred.</i><br /><br />Recuse.<br /><br />If anybody actually does the damn research on this get back to me. Anybody who accepts his critics' paraphrases of Barton as fair and accurate is an idiot.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91516359100495250632012-04-29T10:21:06.590-06:002012-04-29T10:21:06.590-06:00.
So, start a fund raising project. You can get up....<br />So, start a fund raising project. You can get up to $8,000.00 without the need of a license.<br />.<br />I'll be happy to make a donation within my budget. Nothing to do but to do it.<br />.<br />The iron is hot.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35055085755177484992012-04-29T10:17:55.908-06:002012-04-29T10:17:55.908-06:00.
So, start a fund raising project. You can get up....<br />So, start a fund raising project. You can get up to %8,000.00 without the need of a license.<br />.<br />I'll be happy to make a donation within my budget. Nothing to do but to do it.<br />.<br />The iron is hot.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73011092542418406712012-04-29T09:02:02.525-06:002012-04-29T09:02:02.525-06:00Tom, you appear to be objecting to a pedantic lite...Tom, you appear to be objecting to a pedantic literal reading of Chris' words don't qualify as fully truthful.<br /><br />However, I didn't read Chris' objections as having a literal context, and think the spirit of her objection is spot on.<br /><br />I'm no fan of elevated political rhetoric, and I'd prefer if Chris' expression was more respectful, but I have no problem with its accuracy. While I admit my conclusion isn't purely objective, I think it clear that Barton intended the implications, which Chris's has inferred.<br /><br />Re: "not a change of subject", do you refer to me objecting to your objection (change of subject?) of Chris's objection of Barton ?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80357658010714855142012-04-29T08:04:10.573-06:002012-04-29T08:04:10.573-06:00"David Barton's lie that more than half t...<i>"David Barton's lie that more than half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers"</i><br /><br />As to the matter of formal objection and with the new specified evidence produced:<br /><br />The term "lie", as it's used here, clearly refers to Chris' characterization of an alleged deception. It does not imply or explicitly state a quote. She then puts this characterization in context by providing a video of Barton himself and her analysis of what she feels is the deception. The only thing approaching a "quote" is when she reproduces Barton's words by presenting his video/audio words. Quite clearly she does not, herself, make an "error" or misuse Barton's words in a manner that is consistent with a quote.<br /><br />This court can think of other potential objections that would be worth discussing:<br /><br />1) Is the use of "lie" appropriate?<br /><br />2) Is the use of “lie” helpful or harmful, and in what contexts?<br /><br />3) Does she make a fair representation of her argument?<br /><br />4) How valid is the charge of lying/deceit by implication?<br /><br />And so on.<br /><br />This court, although somewhat sympathetic, also finds unconvincing the "the medium of video sucks" argument as bearing on the charge of misquotation or as bearing on a condemnation of the medium in all contexts. Clearly, Mr. Throckmorton (and others present) has used the same medium and methodology in a manner meeting with the petitioner’s approval.<br /><br />It is the opinion of this court that the formal objection, as written, contains no substantial merit appears arbitrary and is therefore formally overruled. It is also the opinion of this court that a reasonable, or sane, reader/viewer of the evidence presented could, upon applying a modest critical evaluation, come to their own conclusion(s) to the merits of Rodda's argument and that a reasonable, or sane, reader/viewer, upon reflecting on the definition of quote/misquote, would not come to the same conclusion as summarized in the objection. <br /><br />This ruling does not preclude the petitioner or other complainants from resubmitting/submitting additional substantive materials at a later date....moment.<br /><br />Adjourned. <br /><br />Also, a documentary sounds like a good idea. Also too, even though I disagree with Tom’s characterization of Chris’ work, I share his concern for concision as well as accuracy. I appreciate being part of the discussion, as always, and have no more to say on this particular matter. Peace out, yall. Rebooting.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40924570388030117702012-04-29T06:23:43.208-06:002012-04-29T06:23:43.208-06:00.
Bloody noses and all...
.
Game over.
.
Reboot.
.....<br />Bloody noses and all...<br />.<br />Game over.<br />.<br />Reboot.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53972711422664922322012-04-28T20:09:27.083-06:002012-04-28T20:09:27.083-06:00I answered your question above, Ben and I'd ap...I answered your question above, Ben and I'd appreciate an acknowledgement, not a change of subject. Chris misquoted Barton. My objection is formal.<br /><br />If you're not just skimming this mess, the whole bit on the gasp in the theater and the Godless Constitution is nothing but nonspecifics. Barton blahblahblah. I had to guess the book, and we still don't know what was in the gasp! passage.<br /><br />This is the problem with Barton's critics. When they supply the specifics and quote him directly, they may be trusted. Otherwise, as with Barton himself, caveat emptor.<br /><br />This is all formal objection, Ben. I trust you know what that means.<br /><br />I do not read Barton, I don't quote Barton. If he is to be hanged, it must be for the right reasons.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33293110392783681362012-04-28T19:56:10.334-06:002012-04-28T19:56:10.334-06:00Tom,
I think you're on the wrong side of this...Tom,<br /><br />I think you're on the wrong side of this one.<br /><br />Chris has qualified her position in great detail. Barton has *not* corrected those who understood his remarks in the manner Chris claims he intended. Meaning, I think, that Chris is way ahead of Barton in terms of honesty.<br /><br />Regarding Chris' assertion of Barton's dishonesty, I think the evidence is presently in Chris' favor. In the event that Barton makes an attempt to correct the improper inference of his words, I'll be happy to change my position. Until then, he is (at best) willfully allowing a lie to stand.<br /><br />Personally, I still find Barton to have admirable intentions/goals. Goals that I share. Specifically, I understand him to want greater affluence and influence for America and its citizens. While we differ greatly on our world views, my objection is on (what I see as) a profound difference on the ethical flexibility of reaching those goals.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50108371727162124132012-04-28T19:25:01.676-06:002012-04-28T19:25:01.676-06:00Migod, Ben, this is getting absurd.
In this video...Migod, Ben, this is getting absurd.<br /><br /><i>In this video<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/debunking-beck-university_b_665816.html<br /><br />The words appear on the screen<br /><br />"Beck University <br />Faith 102<br /><br />David Barton's lie that more than half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers"<br /><br />Lie? I hear him claim they "trained for the ministry."</i><br /><br />And for the record, I'm not defending what Barton said. My objection is <i>formal</i>.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15047354388562961572012-04-28T19:07:56.060-06:002012-04-28T19:07:56.060-06:00Re: "You misquoted Barton."
I've be...Re: "You misquoted Barton."<br /><br />I've been following along, but never saw a quote of the asserted "misquote".<br /><br />Can we have something *objective* to look over?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26368338809043634062012-04-28T17:17:38.101-06:002012-04-28T17:17:38.101-06:00And you were factually incorrect when you misquote...And you were factually incorrect when you misquoted Barton, Chris, which is exactly the point here. Now you understand.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32583079902632920902012-04-28T17:07:56.359-06:002012-04-28T17:07:56.359-06:00Huh? You were "showing why he said that"...Huh? You were "showing why he said that" by posting a factually incorrect statement from a source who obviously had no idea what he was talking about? That's priceless!<br /><br />Well, the dog I was dog sitting just got picked up so I can get back to the work I have to do, so, although this has all been quite amusing, I must bow out now. I stand by everything I said in my video, which anyone who is wondering what the hell Tom has his knickers in such a twist over can go watch for themselves.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55250536815063006402012-04-28T16:27:50.733-06:002012-04-28T16:27:50.733-06:00I was showing why he said that. You misquoted Bar...I was showing why he said that. You misquoted Barton. <br /><br />My objection is formal. Do you know what that means? It means you misquoted him, not whether he was right or wrong.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31101964175494757532012-04-28T16:04:43.270-06:002012-04-28T16:04:43.270-06:00Wow, Tom, that was some piece of primary source re...Wow, Tom, that was some piece of primary source research you just did there … LOL<br /><br />Yep, the "official University of Pennsylvania website" does say what Tom quotes -- in an essay on the site by this guy -- http://www.westegg.com/ -- seriously, everbody PLEASE click on that link. That's who wrote the essay that Tom is getting his statement from that "The four colleges then in existence in the English colonies -- Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, and Princeton -- were all schools for educating the clergy, rather than preparing their students for lives of business and public service." Clearly an indisputable source compared to the mission of Yale, as stated in its 1701 charter, which was: “wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences [and] through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment <b>both</b> in Church <b>and Civil State.”</b>Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46317776643415411062012-04-28T15:22:53.550-06:002012-04-28T15:22:53.550-06:00In this video
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris...<i>In this video<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/debunking-beck-university_b_665816.html<br /><br />The words appear on the screen<br /><br />"Beck University <br />Faith 102<br /><br />David Barton's lie that more than half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers"<br /><br />Lie? I hear him claim they "trained for the ministry." The official University of Pennsylvania website says that prior to 1751,<br /><br />"The four colleges then in existence in the English colonies -- Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, and Princeton -- were all schools for educating the clergy, rather than preparing their students for lives of business and public service. <br /><br />Did David Barton claim they were ministers, or just that they "trained for the ministry"? Did I miss anything?<br /><br />I don't want to start a war with Chris Rodda. She has always been treated with respect at American Creation when she's stopped by to comment here.<br /><br />But am I missing something here? By Chris Rodda's own use of the word, people who are in error are "liars." If the University of Pennsylvania is in error here, then they are "liars" too.<br /><br />And if Chris Rodda is in error here, then...</i><br /><br />The bell tolls for thee, ma'am. The game was up long ago.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32873306949241698082012-04-28T15:11:00.210-06:002012-04-28T15:11:00.210-06:00One of the definitions of "lie" from the...One of the definitions of "lie" from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:<br /><br />"something that misleads or deceives"<br /><br />Barton has clearly misled his audience. They have been deceived by his rhetorical trick, as evidenced by the website examples I posted of how his words are construed and paraphrased by others.<br /><br />Game over.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56204938874525730602012-04-28T14:12:41.019-06:002012-04-28T14:12:41.019-06:00I know what "paraphrase" means, JRB. In...I know what "paraphrase" means, JRB. In Barton's case, more than half the criticisms I see are based on paraphrases, and that's the problem. <br /><br />Surely you know what a "formal" objection is, to the method, not the content of the piece in question.<br /><br />My objections here are formal. Quote the man directly and stuff the [needless to say uncharitable] paraphrases.<br /><br />He shoots himself in the foot often enough on his own that uncharitable paraphrasing is a cheap and unnecessary trick.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6549094135471712782012-04-28T14:08:43.164-06:002012-04-28T14:08:43.164-06:00Chris, we did this in 2011 and again on March 24 o...Chris, we did this in 2011 and again on March 24 of 2012, and you keep pretending we didn't. You've had 3 bites at the apple. Enough.<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/03/it-begins.html<br /><br /><br /><br />Tom Van Dyke said...<br />Mr. Rodda, there's no way to double-check your work unless you quote David Barton directly.<br /><br />Who watches the Watchers? Are you never in error?<br /><br />I have no desire to start up with you. Your quibbles on Barton's phrasings aren't of great importance to me in the larger scheme of things.<br /><br />But obliging myself to sit through one of your videos last September, I believe you misrepresented what he said.<br /><br />If so, this doesn't make you a bad person or a "liar"; however, it would be better to quote him directly in black and white instead of the amorphousness of videos, where double-checking you is just as hard as double-checking him.<br /><br />If you are indeed in error here, Chris, I'm not going to stalk you all over the internet and attack your credibility. I write about your work only when we are subjected to it here at American Creation.<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2011/09/rodda-and-barton-on-black-robe-regiment.html?showComment=1315365<br /><br />September 6, 2011<br />Links/footnotes appear at the original<br />__________________<br /><br />Everybody:<br /><br />I hope you'll help out here. I hate sitting through videos of any kind, agree or disagree. They waste my time, because I read faster and life is too short.<br /><br />In this video<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/debunking-beck-university_b_665816.html<br /><br />The words appear on the screen<br /><br /><i>Beck University <br />Faith 102<br /><br />David Barton's lie that more than half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers</i><br /><br />Lie? I hear him claim they "trained for the ministry." The official University of Pennsylvania website says that prior to 1751,<br /><br />"The four colleges then in existence in the English colonies -- Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, and Princeton -- were all schools for educating the clergy, rather than preparing their students for lives of business and public service. <br /><br />Did David Barton claim they were ministers, or just that they "trained for the ministry"? Did I miss anything?<br /><br />I don't want to start a war with Chris Rodda. She has always been treated with respect at American Creation when she's stopped by to comment here.<br /><br />But am I missing something here? By Chris Rodda's own use of the word, people who are in error are "liars." If the University of Pennsylvania is in error here, then they are "liars" too.<br /><br />And if Chris Rodda is in error here, then...<br /><br />My question is only: Do we have a direct quote from David Barton saying more than half the signers of the Declaration were "ministers"?<br /><br />Because looking at the prosecution's [Chris'] video, all I hear is "trained for the ministry" being mutated into "ministers," something I can't find David Barton saying.<br /><br />Yeah, I'm offended by the words "Liars for Jesus," but right now, I just want to stick to the allegation made in Jon's original post.<br /><br />Since we're "history detectives," surely we can get to the bottom of what was said in the 21st century with video evidence.<br /><br />I don't want to call anybody a liar. I prefer to think when people are in error, they're simply mistaken, perhaps reading or hearing what they want to see or hear. <br /><br />But after wasting my time looking at the video in question--I don't give a shit about Barton or his critics--I'm seeing one thing typed on the screen but another thing coming from Barton's mouth.<br /><br />Let me---and us @ American Creation---know what you see & hear. Mebbe I'm in error.<br />March 24, 2012 6:15 PMTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47201123611501893002012-04-28T14:07:17.843-06:002012-04-28T14:07:17.843-06:00Tom,
The links that Chris provides is to illustr...Tom,<br /> <br />The links that Chris provides is to illustrate the effects of Barton's rhetorical trickery. The people at the sites aren't even quoting Barton, they are paraphrasing him. He sets them up and they draw an erroneous conclusion and then run with it for all its worth, propagating a false narrative. <br /><br />As I've said before, this is nothing more that coercion of conscience through deceit. His audience, by accepting Barton’s evidence and arguments in good faith, are unwittingly incorporated into a false narrative. They are not given a choice unless they do additional work which I’m sure Barton et. al. are betting won’t happen. I think that this is everybody’s point.<br /><br />Your charge of of a single alleged episode of misquoting on Chris' part, or two if you count her characterization of something else Barton said having something to do with Deuteronomy, remains unsupported. You apparently don't have a clear conception of what it means to quote vs. to paraphrase.<br /><br />Until I read your last couple of comments I was about to hit send on what I felt was a lifeline of sorts – a different direction of discussion, but after reading “your work here stinks” directed at Chris and the cute implication of insanity directed at....well, I guess at everyone else disagreeing with you, I wasn’t feeling so charitable.<br /><br />Quite frankly, I don't take the "sane" comment as much more than a little frustrated-hyperbole and have often nearly gotten there myself. (and probably have gotten there at other blogs - certainly at the pub after a pint).<br /><br />One last thing, since we've gotten the Good Day signal, actually reading Kramnick and Moore’s <i>The Godless Constitution</i> before discussing it wouldn't hurt.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3502815123893053742012-04-28T13:49:25.646-06:002012-04-28T13:49:25.646-06:00And Tom, you didn't say what my alleged misquo...And Tom, you didn't say what my alleged misquote was last year either, so saying that we "covered all this last year" isn't going to work.<br /><br />It's a simple question: What did I misquote? Just post the quote from me that you are claiming is a misquote.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50214339083352648722012-04-28T13:41:09.882-06:002012-04-28T13:41:09.882-06:00LOL, Tom ... Warren Throckmorton has linked to my ...LOL, Tom ... Warren Throckmorton has linked to my videos and has often used my research! I'm glad he does this because people (like you) who just don't like me but are willing to listen to him are hearing from him many of the exact same things that I've said, and even sometimes being directed by him to one of my videos!<br /><br />It's people like Throckmorton who we need more of, and he's someone we definitely need to appear in a documentary if we can find the resources to do one.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23002963455017654582012-04-28T13:15:53.390-06:002012-04-28T13:15:53.390-06:00We covered all this last year. And I see you were...We covered all this last year. And I see you were here for it, JRB. This disingenuousness has wasted enough of this blog's time, pretending that this thread didn't already happen.<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/12/rodda-on-beck-u.html<br /><br />I don't give a damn about Barton and a give even less of a damn about these little videos. If you want to see how a sane person goes about correcting David Barton, see Warren Throckmorton, with whom I have zero problem because he plays it straight.<br /><br />Good day.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17943572834088925122012-04-28T12:59:41.358-06:002012-04-28T12:59:41.358-06:00As jimmiraybob has already asked, where did I misq...As jimmiraybob has already asked, where did I misquote Barton? What is the quote that you are saying is a misquote? I went back and watched my video, and like jimmiraybob, can't find anything where I even directly quoted Barton. I showed a video clip of Barton himself saying what he says. If I didn't quote him, how on earth could I have misquoted him?Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.com