Curtis and Alison SPAMMING with old posts
Gardiner
1. Curtis & Alison have proved beyond any doubt that they can both cut and paste
huge sections from messages they posted several months ago. Alison has
demonstrated an propensity to duplicate these even now.
2. They rarely acknowledge the fact that what they are posting is really just an
old cut and paste, and in doing so hoodwink unsuspecting visitors into thinking
that they really have put forth a lot of effort in responding to a dialogue
which is currently taking place.
3. Although anyone of us could do the same thing, the fact is that it is
dishonest, and it demonstrates disregard for the reason people come to
newsgroups--to DIALOGUE. We need to recognize this for what it is....SPAM.
4. We have to ask wonder if they think that this tactic somehow makes them seem
like they are posting "more stuff." We have to wonder whether they realize that
this speaks to their scholarship, and to their immaturity.
5. We have to wonder if they don't realize that this tactic smacks of an entire
lack of regard for the interactive nature of a newsgroup discussion.
6. We have to wonder whether they realize that old posts can be referred to by
URL rather than by cut and paste.
7. We have to wonder whether they realize that any one of us can go back and
grab a big chunk of text that we have posted in the past, and post it here two
or three times; but that the tactic is really stupid.
Therefore, I'd like to issue this warning to anyone who is reading these posts.
Some people are actually here and now, and taking the time and effort to respond
to posts. OTHERS, however, are SPAMMING old digital archives; so before you go
thanking one of these guys for their seemingly in-depth responses, you might
want to ask them the "born-on" date of their post.
PS The discussion about the proper names for fallacies is not of much interest
to colonial history.
buc...@exis.net
What is being done is that certain claims of Gardiner are being
systematically exposed as being, at the least, greatly overstated to being
downright false, and this is in turn upsetting Gardiner.
If anyone happened to follow along Gardiner's arguments since last March,
one would find Gardiner making certain claims over and over again, even
after those claims had been shown to be false or highly over stated.
For example, beginning with one of his very first replies to another on
line he claimed that Madison was highly religious, an "orthodox Christian"
a member of the Episcopalian Church, etc, He has continued to make those
claims in several different ways since last March (1999)
He has been asked on numerous times to supply documentation of his
assertions, and time after time evidence by a number of scholars has been
provided showing his assertions were (1) not true or (2) so little can be
found out about Madison's personal religious beliefs, etc that it would be
impossible for him to establish his claims as being factual.
Other such claims regarding Madison and others have been made over and over
by Gardiner
What is taking place now is that a systematic exposure of many of
Gardiner's claims has been undertaken.
Using information that has previously ben given to Gardiner, and which he
has ignored and NEW INFORMATION that has NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY posted
certain of is claims are being stripped of the biases and tunnel visions he
applied to them. What is known to be true rather then what he wants to be
true and more importantly wants us to think is true is being established
once again.
One can determine the potential threat to Gardiner's theories and claims by
the fact that he felt the need to compose this post.
Also don't forget, the post that follows comes from a man who frequently
re-posted examples of the insults he claims he has had to endure from
others, insults that forced him to be rude and crude in his posting.
Hmmmm using past posts when he does it is ok, seems like, but not if others
do it showing how many of his claims are overblown.
>:|A quick couple of concerns:
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
Rick Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> What is being done is that certain claims of Gardiner are being
> systematically exposed as being, at the least, greatly overstated to being
> downright false, and this is in turn upsetting Gardiner.
>
> If anyone happened to follow along Gardiner's arguments since last March,
> one would find Gardiner making certain claims over and over again, even
> after those claims had been shown to be false or highly over stated.
>
> For example, beginning with one of his very first replies to another on
> line he claimed that Madison was highly religious,
Yes. So much so that he entertained becoming a Christian clergyman, according
to Ketchum. Do you deny it?
> an "orthodox Christian"
> a member of the Episcopalian Church, etc,
Yes. He was a member of the Episcopalian church, partook of its many oaths and
rituals. All you and your cronies can say, and you rely on this, is that
Madison was only "humoring" everyone and "hoodwinking" us.
If you don't think he was doing that, then the only conclusion you can come to
is that he was sincere.
> He has continued to make those
> claims in several different ways since last March (1999)
Yes. And you have shown nothing to controvert it. Did Madison want to separate
church and state? Absolutely. Does that say anything at all about his
orthodoxy? Only so much as it said about Owens, or Williams, or Lockes.
You can show us a million letters where Madison condemns the corruptions of
the institutional church, and that amounts to nothing with regard to whether
he was a Christian. Luther was far more antagonistic to the institutional
church (as was Jesus) than Madison ever was.
> He has been asked on numerous times to supply documentation of his
> assertions, and time after time evidence by a number of scholars has been
> provided showing his assertions were (1) not true or (2) so little can be
> found out about Madison's personal religious beliefs, etc that it would be
> impossible for him to establish his claims as being factual.
There is plenty of data. You just dismiss it as a hoodwink. Look at his drafts
for fast days. Look at the church rituals he both led and participated in.
Look at his lecture notes on Acts. Look at his refusal to agree with Jefferson
in criticizing the Trinity, etc.
> Other such claims regarding Madison and others have been made over and over
> by Gardiner
> What is taking place now is that a systematic exposure of many of
> Gardiner's claims has been undertaken.
You mean a duplication of the same old tired stuff you posted months ago that
amounted to nothing. It's weakness hasn't changed.
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> What is being done is that certain claims of Gardiner are being
>:|> systematically exposed as being, at the least, greatly overstated to being
>:|> downright false, and this is in turn upsetting Gardiner.
>:|>
>:|> If anyone happened to follow along Gardiner's arguments since last March,
>:|> one would find Gardiner making certain claims over and over again, even
>:|> after those claims had been shown to be false or highly over stated.
>:|>
>:|> For example, beginning with one of his very first replies to another on
>:|> line he claimed that Madison was highly religious,
>:|
>:|Yes. So much so that he entertained becoming a Christian clergyman, according
>:|to Ketchum. Do you deny it?
>:|
If you bothered reading **Gardiner meet Mr. Madison** you would find that
answer to your question already posted there, in fact it was posted there
Dec. 30, 1999.
>:|> an "orthodox Christian"
>:|> a member of the Episcopalian Church, etc,
>:|
>:|Yes. He was a member of the Episcopalian church, partook of its many oaths and
>:|rituals. All you and your cronies can say, and you rely on this, is that
>:|Madison was only "humoring" everyone and "hoodwinking" us.
He never joined the Episcopalian church
If you bothered reading **Gardiner meet Mr. Madison** you would find this
information there. That you are not, apparently, reading that thread is
good. Leaves you unaware how badly your past claims are being *trashed* or
at least put in proper context, light, etc.
Others do read such things, even when you feel you are so *smart* that no
one can teach you anything or show you anything.
>:|
>:|If you don't think he was doing that, then the only conclusion you can come to
>:|is that he was sincere.
irrelevant to this discussion.
>:|
>:|> He has continued to make those
>:|> claims in several different ways since last March (1999)
>:|
>:|Yes. And you have shown nothing to controvert it.
It is being done very systematically in *Gardiner meet Mr. Madison*
Do understand, your agreement that your claims are being trashed or
reframed into proper contexts, etc, is not required.
That thread doesn't exist for you, it exists for the lurkers/readers who
might want to see a balanced presentation and what men who have spent most
or at least much of their adult life studying such things professionally.
Opinions and facts presented from someone other then the *self proclaimed
expert on everything* who happens to have a biased opinion and agenda (at
the very least to promote a simplified biased book) .
>:|Did Madison want to separate
>:|church and state? Absolutely.
Kewl, that is progress. Sometimes it is very difficult to know exactly what
your position on anything is.
First you seem to want to claim he got all such ideas from Luther, Calvin,
Witherspoon, then you try and trash him based on his issuance of four
proclamations during the war of 1812.
You stand up and claim every religious right kook who shows up here, and
there have been some kooks. You claim no affiliation with them, yet you
have a co-author who is very much affiliated with such, you have men who
are known leaders of the *religious right* endorse your book. You claim to
only have an interest in the 1600 to 1787 time frame, basically, yet more
and more you are venturing out making the same kinds of arguments that the
religious right types try to make.
>:|Does that say anything at all about his
>:|orthodoxy?
Why is it so important to you to try and claim him as one of yours?
You really do seem to be obsessed with trying to do this.
Readers, for those who want to know what the accepted view concerning
Madison and any religion Madison may or may not have, you will find such
information in the tread titled *Gardiner meet Mr. Madison.
You can look at what Gardiner's [position is regarding this issue, and you
can read what others have to say about it. Other's far more qualified then
Gardiner to give such information.
>:|
>:|You can show us a million letters where Madison condemns the corruptions of
>:|the institutional church, and that amounts to nothing with regard to whether
>:|he was a Christian.
That is only one part of what is being shown in the tread *Gardiner meet
Mr. Madison*
>:|> He has been asked on numerous times to supply documentation of his
>:|> assertions, and time after time evidence by a number of scholars has been
>:|> provided showing his assertions were (1) not true or (2) so little can be
>:|> found out about Madison's personal religious beliefs, etc that it would be
>:|> impossible for him to establish his claims as being factual.
>:|
>:|There is plenty of data. You just dismiss it as a hoodwink.
What I and others dismiss is your speculations, your frustrated preaching
and sermons, you attempts to project your theories onto history.
In short I let the man and others who have spent the better part of their
adult lifetimes professionally studying the man speak.
>:|Look at his drafts
>:|for fast days.
You talking about his four proclamations? What about them?
Make your case. BTW, do remember he was dealing with drafts that were
presented to him by Congress. How much did he alter them? In what manner
did he alter them?
What do you think they say about his personal religious beliefs?
>:|Look at the church rituals he both led and participated in.
By all means inform us of these.
>:|Look at his lecture notes on Acts.
What about them?
What do they prove?
What will you find in *Gardiner meet Mr. Madison* about them?
>:| Look at his refusal to agree with Jefferson
>:|in criticizing the Trinity, etc.
LOL, this means what?
>:|
>:|> Other such claims regarding Madison and others have been made over and over
>:|> by Gardiner
>:|
>:|> What is taking place now is that a systematic exposure of many of
>:|> Gardiner's claims has been undertaken.
>:|
>:|You mean a duplication of the same old tired stuff you posted months ago that
>:|amounted to nothing. It's weakness hasn't changed.
>:|
The fact that you took so much time and effort to begin this thread says a
lot.
You create a thread telling others they should boycott what Mike and I am
currently posting. People don't normally do something like that unless they
are bothered by what is being posted.
Next, there is more *new* material being posted then there is so called old
material.
Then, it is contradicting your claims and offering evidence to support the
contradiction by experts in the field.
Let the lurker/readers make up their own minds.
I will add this post to that thread as well.
Ketcham says he did not study to become a minister, look it up in the
thread *Gardiner meet Mr. Madison.*
buc...@exis.net
Rick Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> What is being done is that certain claims of Gardiner are being
> >:|> systematically exposed as being, at the least, greatly overstated to being
> >:|> downright false, and this is in turn upsetting Gardiner.
> >:|>
> >:|> If anyone happened to follow along Gardiner's arguments since last March,
> >:|> one would find Gardiner making certain claims over and over again, even
> >:|> after those claims had been shown to be false or highly over stated.
> >:|>
> >:|> For example, beginning with one of his very first replies to another on
> >:|> line he claimed that Madison was highly religious,
> >:|
> >:|Yes. So much so that he entertained becoming a Christian clergyman, according
> >:|to Ketchum. Do you deny it?
> >:|
>
> If you bothered reading **Gardiner meet Mr. Madison** you would find that
> answer to your question already posted there, in fact it was posted there
> Dec. 30, 1999.
Anything you post over 1 MB, I tend to discard. If I want to build a webpage,
I'll go to the webpage. I don't consider newsgroups to be the appropriate
place for you to build your webpage. Newsgroups are for discussion, not for
the mass posting of web-page data.
Anyone can do that. I have generally refrained. Readers will note, however,
that when I have posted extensive material, you have turned a blind eye to it
too. That's why I'm not spending much time with you any more.
>
> >:|> an "orthodox Christian"
> >:|> a member of the Episcopalian Church, etc,
> >:|
> >:|Yes. He was a member of the Episcopalian church, partook of its many oaths and
> >:|rituals. All you and your cronies can say, and you rely on this, is that
> >:|Madison was only "humoring" everyone and "hoodwinking" us.
>
> He never joined the Episcopalian church
According to Dr. Miles Bradford he did. See A WORTHY COMPANY.
> If you bothered reading **Gardiner meet Mr. Madison** you would find this
> information there. That you are not, apparently, reading that thread is
> good.
Yes. Very good.
> Others do read such things, even when you feel you are so *smart* that no
> one can teach you anything or show you anything.
It would be one thing for you to "show me something," it is quite another for
you to dump the contents of your hard drive in this newsgroup and say "there
it is."
That is why Mr. Childress has opted to ignore you. You're too impersonal.
> >:|If you don't think he was doing that, then the only conclusion you can come to
> >:|is that he was sincere.
>
> irrelevant to this discussion.
It's the most relevant part of the discussion.
> >:|> He has continued to make those
> >:|> claims in several different ways since last March (1999)
> >:|
> >:|Yes. And you have shown nothing to controvert it.
>
> It is being done very systematically in *Gardiner meet Mr. Madison*
Systematically? LOL! It's random, and it's called spamming.
> Do understand, your agreement that your claims are being trashed or
> reframed into proper contexts, etc, is not required.
Do you understand that no one attempts to look through your haystack of
material for that one needle you claim to be the refutation of the fact that
Madison was some sort of Jeffersonian Christian.
> That thread doesn't exist for you, it exists for the lurkers/readers who
> might want to see a balanced presentation and what men who have spent most
> or at least much of their adult life studying such things professionally.
> Opinions and facts presented from someone other then the *self proclaimed
> expert on everything* who happens to have a biased opinion and agenda (at
> the very least to promote a simplified biased book) .
That thread is for someone who has a heck of a lot more time on their hands
than working people. For the same group of people who would have bothered to
read "the original gardiner, from the beginning."
> >:|Did Madison want to separate
> >:|church and state? Absolutely.
>
> Kewl, that is progress.
Progress! ROTFLMAO. You definitely have not read my book.
> Sometimes it is very difficult to know exactly what
> your position on anything is.
You know the website: http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/nbh.html
I've also posted the preface to my book.
http://x30.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=566375388&CONTEXT=946762666.441450525&hitnum=7
That's my position spelled out pretty clearly.
> First you seem to want to claim he got all such ideas from Luther, Calvin,
> Witherspoon,
You never really dealt with my extensive argument in that regard. No surprise.
http://x42.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=560828356&CONTEXT=946762967.1787887674&hitnum=0
The conduit was Locke and the Baptists, but these were mediators of earlier
positions such as that of Luther, Owen, and Calvin.
> then you try and trash him based on his issuance of four
> proclamations during the war of 1812.
Trash him? Apparently Madison's view of separation of church and state didn't
mean what you think it means. Read the last paragraph of the Detached
Memoranda. There is a very important concept delineated there by Madison which
you refuse to understand: the idea of "voluntary consent."
> You stand up and claim every religious right kook who shows up here, and
> there have been some kooks.
Do you mean guys like Mike Nash who come in here defending your position,
calling himself the president of F*CKFEST, and SADISTIC, and Cunnilingus
Lovers In Texas? Or do you mean Curtis' "big brothers" who, for whatever
reason, are out to defend the reprehensible mandates of Deuteronomy 7:2 and
Deuteronomy 20:16-17, passim?
Perhaps you didn't notice, but I certainly don't "claim" those kooks.
> You claim no affiliation with them, yet you
> have a co-author who is very much affiliated with such,
Amos is more closely affiliated with Americans United for Sep of Church and
State. Ask him. I'm sure he'd be glad to talk with you.
> you have men who
> are known leaders of the *religious right* endorse your book.
How many Atheist groups have championed your work? What does that say about
who you are?
> You claim to
> only have an interest in the 1600 to 1787 time frame, basically, yet more
> and more you are venturing out making the same kinds of arguments that the
> religious right types try to make.
I'm not real interested in the battle over prayer in schools, vouchers, and
all those pet projects of yours. However, when someone addresses those
subjects in a conversation with me, I'm courteous enough to answer their inquiry.
I'd rather talk about Colonial Political theory.
> >:|Does that say anything at all about his
> >:|orthodoxy?
>
> Why is it so important to you to try and claim him as one of yours?
> You really do seem to be obsessed with trying to do this.
I'm not so interested in claiming him as "one of mine" (whatever that's
supposed to mean), as much as I am certain that he is not "one of yours," a
Voltairian skeptic, or someone antagonistic to the important role religion
plays in the social life of human beings.
Madison was definitely not of that disposition.
> >:|You can show us a million letters where Madison condemns the corruptions of
> >:|the institutional church, and that amounts to nothing with regard to whether
> >:|he was a Christian.
>
> That is only one part of what is being shown in the tread *Gardiner meet
> Mr. Madison*
In addition to a boatload of irrelevant material, right?
> >:|> He has been asked on numerous times to supply documentation of his
> >:|> assertions, and time after time evidence by a number of scholars has been
> >:|> provided showing his assertions were (1) not true or (2) so little can be
> >:|> found out about Madison's personal religious beliefs, etc that it would be
> >:|> impossible for him to establish his claims as being factual.
> >:|
> >:|There is plenty of data. You just dismiss it as a hoodwink.
>
> What I and others dismiss is your speculations, your frustrated preaching
> and sermons, you attempts to project your theories onto history.
I'm not the speculator. It is your data that says such things as "Madison
abided by the Book of Common Prayer." Well, if you read the book, you find
that it was an orthodox tract. (http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/intro/contents.html)
So, you and your ilk SPECULATE and say, "yeah, well, it was all a political,
shrewd, hoodwink to make his neighbors and mom happy."
That's projection.
> In short I let the man and others who have spent the better part of their
> adult lifetimes professionally studying the man speak.
>
> >:|Look at his drafts
> >:|for fast days.
>
> You talking about his four proclamations? What about them?
They reflect his religious beliefs, dummy. (Unless, of course, you accept the
"political hoodwink" speculation)
> Make your case. BTW, do remember he was dealing with drafts that were
> presented to him by Congress. How much did he alter them? In what manner
> did he alter them?
He was the final "issuer" of the proclamations. The sentiments are HIS (unless
of course you accept a bunch of "well, he was insincere," speculation)
> What do you think they say about his personal religious beliefs?
I don't think Madison was a man of integrity: not the kind of person who would
sign his name to a document which he thought was entirely a religious hoodwink.
> >:|Look at the church rituals he both led and participated in.
>
> By all means inform us of these.
You already did inform us of some in your monumental thread.
> >:|Look at his lecture notes on Acts.
>
> What about them?
They testify to his belief in "the divinity of Christ," and the fact that he
believed in miracles and the resurrection.
> What will you find in *Gardiner meet Mr. Madison* about them?
Nothing.
> >:| Look at his refusal to agree with Jefferson
> >:|in criticizing the Trinity, etc.
>
> LOL, this means what?
He wasn't a unitarian or a deist.
> >:|> Other such claims regarding Madison and others have been made over and over
> >:|> by Gardiner
> >:|
> >:|> What is taking place now is that a systematic exposure of many of
> >:|> Gardiner's claims has been undertaken.
> >:|
> >:|You mean a duplication of the same old tired stuff you posted months ago that
> >:|amounted to nothing. It's weakness hasn't changed.
> >:|
>
> The fact that you took so much time and effort to begin this thread says a
> lot.
>
> You create a thread telling others they should boycott what Mike and I am
> currently posting. People don't normally do something like that unless they
> are bothered by what is being posted.
Hey. Post away. Who's reading?
My classes start back up again on Monday. I will definitely have to limit my
time posting as there is too much for me to do at school.
I'll read any posts that are of manageable length. Anything that would require
a half-hour response is more than I have the time for at this juncture.
Kenneth Childress
>Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
>>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
[...]
>First you seem to want to claim he got all such ideas from Luther, Calvin,
>Witherspoon, then you try and trash him based on his issuance of four
>proclamations during the war of 1812.
Well, inconsistencies do stand out. Madison has exhibited such
inconsistencies no matter how much you want to dismiss them. Makes one
think your "saint" of church/state separation maybe isn't all you'd like
to believe he was.
>You stand up and claim every religious right kook who shows up here, and
>there have been some kooks. You claim no affiliation with them, yet you
>have a co-author who is very much affiliated with such, you have men who
>are known leaders of the *religious right* endorse your book. You claim to
>only have an interest in the 1600 to 1787 time frame, basically, yet more
>and more you are venturing out making the same kinds of arguments that the
>religious right types try to make.
For one who flings about claims of bias and non-objectivity against
those who disagree with you, while claiming to be objective himself,
these statement show your true colors. Fact the fact, Mr. Allison, you
are every bit as biased as you claim those who disagree with you. Just
what is the "religious right" anyway? You like to throw that term
around without definition, as well as every other religious bigot in
this country, just as you do with "separation of church and state".
Your dishonesty and disingenuousness is really disgusting, plus your
hypocrisy really shines with statements such as these.
[...]
--
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <3872117d...@news.exis.net>, <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>:|>Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|
>:|[...]
>:|
>:|>First you seem to want to claim he got all such ideas from Luther, Calvin,
>:|>Witherspoon, then you try and trash him based on his issuance of four
>:|>proclamations during the war of 1812.
>:|
>:|Well, inconsistencies do stand out. Madison has exhibited such
>:|inconsistencies no matter how much you want to dismiss them. Makes one
>:|think your "saint" of church/state separation maybe isn't all you'd like
>:|to believe he was.
These inconsistencies are?
How should they be weighed over a period of 85 years that he lived?
How should they be weighed over a period of 60 years that he actually
engaged in church state matters?
What, if anything did those inconsistencies mean?
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|Yes. He was a member of the Episcopalian church, partook of its many oaths and
>:|> >:|rituals. All you and your cronies can say, and you rely on this, is that
>:|> >:|Madison was only "humoring" everyone and "hoodwinking" us.
>:|>
>:|> He never joined the Episcopalian church
>:|
>:|According to Dr. Miles Bradford he did. See A WORTHY COMPANY.
>:|
According to Ralph Ketcham he didn't.
You can find this particular bit of information in
Gardiner meet Mr. Madison
was posted on 12/31/99 at 5:41 AM
The particular post has 56 lines to it.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison and Religion A New Hypothesis, by
Ralph L. Ketcham. James Madison on Religious Liberty, Edited, with
introductions and interpretations by Robert S. Alley. Prometheus Books,
Buffalo N.Y. (1985) pp 184)