What is EVC Forum's policy on satire and is allowed and to what extent?

I have a question and it is, "What is EVC forum's policy on satire and is it allowed and to what extent?"I pointed out in the case of ConsequentAtheist and Brian the moderator in the Bible Accuracy section forum that they were not really reading the essay I wrote and pointed this out demonstrably.I also used satire in other points I wished to make. I did try to use non satical methods before using satire. I will discuss this more but here is the satire I used and I would like some input to see if people think it is fair and if not why not. Please address the points I make after giving the satirical post which is directly below:TO: All and BRIAN
I believe this post will greatly clarify Brian and the editing and teacher role he so desperately wishes to cling to but sadly has not shown himself a master of.Brian wrote:"Ken, substance is made up of minutae, if your minutae is poor then the substance will be poor. Publishers and assessors concentrate on minutae to see if it provides substance.""The sort of things I am pointing out are essentially the same things that most teachers/tutors would point out."Brian also wrote:"I found it useful, mostly because you kept getting the man's name wrong! His name was Pelig Nye, not 'Nye Pelig' or Mr. Pelig or Mr. Peleg, sorry to pick up on minutae again but it does form the substance of an argument, what a great example."Now I want everyone to notice how Brian spelled Pelig Nye in his critique of my essay in post 120 (look at the spelling of Pelig):"And is this the same Peleg Nye, not that it really does your argument any good, but how do you know this is the same guy?"Yet does Brian feel he is the master of minutiae?Here is what Brian writes:"Yes, but I do not think that you are aware that you need help, when it is patently obvious that you do.""You are having some sort of psychotic episode here Ken, this is the worst case of denial I have seen."Now how does Brian spell minutiae when addressing my spelling of Pelig? How does Brian continually spell minutiae in this string?"sorry to pick up on minutae again but it does form the substance of an argument, what a great example."For those of you who want to know the correct spelling of minutiae:http://www.dictionary.comNow if I were to write a story for children on Brian's recent behavior I would want to title it:"Brian and irrelevant minutiae - his one trick pony"But I regret I could not give the story for children this title because Brian has not mastered the one trick he attempts to use. I am getting the feeling that Brian sees himself as teacher of the great unwashed masses who are in desperate need of his editorializing regarding minutiae and yet ironically he does not realize he needs a shower himself!As I stated before, Brian cannot deal with the evidence I presented directly so he atttempts to use the logical fallacy of style over substance that he has not even mastered himself. I would say to Brian that if you truly want to be a freethinker you have to stop using logical fallacies.Now I would like to say are the websites I used and my personal post to the internet free of typos, juxtapositions, spelling errors, and even factual errors? No, they are not. I do believe, however, that Brian is not only being illogical but he is being hypocritical as well."ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF MY SATIREI also used satire to demonstrate that I believe Brian was not being candid. Here is what Brian said below:"Ken, this is one benefit of using a decent quality library as opposed to poor quality websites, you can examine the actual sources yourself and come to your own conclusions. You should question everything you read, do not take anyone’s word for anything, use you core skills to form your own work."Brian later said:"Regarding Bartley, I am at a loss as to why you appear to think that I was correcting you or something. I know that you said that in all likelihood the story was a hoax, I provided the letter from the captain's wife so you could use it to support your suspicion."Here is my satire:"By the way, if you have noticed there does not seem to be a throng of supporters to rush to say your Bartley commentary was valid in regards to my writing. I believe I am not alone in my estimation of its inadaquecy (perhaps you could find a few shills or sign in under a different name and offer a glowing appraisal of your Bartley commentary)."WHY I USED SATIREI demonstrated in four cases where Brian did not read my essay in the portions he was criticizing it (Bartley/shark/belly/Pelig Nye and I was going to show more evidence of this but the string was closed before I had the chance to do that.I also showed that Brian was using the logical fallacy of criticizing style over substance and demonstrated it was hypocritical for him to do this because he erred in the exact same area I did (I entered for a few minutes a name misspelling but I corrected it before Brian corrected me but he spelled it wrong too). I never asked for his editing of trivial points not germain to the central issue like misspellings or juxtapositions in my referenced websites for example. More importantly, and this is a VERY KEY POINT, Brian continued after I asked him to stop in a reasonable manner so I used satire to demonstate this. I did this by the above satire which occurred near the end of the string were he was trying to justify his logical fallacy of criticizing style over substance.I would also like to say that I thought it was unreasonable for Brian to continually pretend as though he was my teacher who needed his instruction because I do not ask for his editorializing and I also think his use of the logical fallacy was being hypocritical.MY QUESTIONSo what is the board's policy regarding satire?[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-27-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-27-2004]

I love satire! Let me know when you write some.--Percy

I say anyone who gets silly in these threads should be pulled out into the street and shot.Making light of serious issues like that... these goof-offs make me sick.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

I'm not too sure what the policy is on satire, but I know what most people's policy is on rudeness and ingratitude. I followed the whole shambles of the thread on Jonah and the whale and I'm relieved that it has been closed. Why? Because Brian did his level best to help you with some spot-on advice about how to write your "research essay" for publication - the rules you NEED to follow if you want to be published, such as providing references for every assertion you make and not flatly contradicting yourself. If you don't do that sort of thing you will NEVER get published in any respectable publication. It doesn't matter if you are right, if you don't demonstrate that you're right no-one will publish you.If you didn't want anyone to comment on your essay, then why on earth did you bother to put it on the forum?? It does have the potential to be interesting, but not as it is written just now. Brian really tried to help you with this, yet all you have done is insult him and accuse him of having ulterior motives!! I haven't got a clue how he managed to remain so patient in the face of such bad manners and downright rudeness.I apologise now to any moderators who may be peeved that I'm off topic, but I just couldn't stand any more of kendemyer's sanctimonious claptrap! He's complaining because someone tried to HELP him!!! Why???

To Trixie:
I appreciate your input but I would say the following to give more context:1. I do not feel as though you are adressing the content in my post that ask if a moderator debate and moderate in the same string at this location:http://EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses. -->EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses.Here are the specific abuses I cited in terms of examples:EXAMPLE 1:....................http://EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses. -->EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses.
....................If an ancient Athenian were here, he would probably bow low before you. (Acts 17:22-23)"3. Brian continued to use the logical fallacy of criticizing style over substance even after I asked him to stop.4. Brian's tone was poor. He said for example that I never read the Book of Jonah in his critique.5. He clearly do not read the essay closely.6. I was asked to provide addtional evidence. I did. I was more preoccupied on providing evidence than I was on editing to make sure there were not juxtapostions and misspellings.7. If I want certain portions of my material published there are spellcheckers and I clearly showed that Brian the spelling Nazi misspelled the word minutiae and he said that minutiae was substantive because he wished to dwell on style over substance. Next, I am not a bad speller. I can spell hard words like minutiae! I won 4rth place in a spelling Bee in 6th grade (and no I do not need a medal or a chest to pin it on). In short, I do not want or need a spelling Nazi to attempt to lord his spelling prowess over me because he does not want to deal with more substantive matters.8. Brian should have asked if I wanted his editorializing. I was a writing tutor for about a couple of years at a university so I could have gotten my material ready for publishing without his help. Again, I was more preoccupied with providing evidence (Josephus, Museum director, science instructor at Seaworld, academic paper, etc). I think substance should have the priority in the initial stages at the very least. Besides I only wish to publish the material that is less widely known and is subject to modern myths (whale gullet size/science instructor at Seaworld/Museum Director) in all likelihood since most of the other information is widely available.9. EVC Forum is not an academic journal and so I do not feel Brian has a right to editiorialize in terms of non content especially since I never asked him to.10. I will say that in forums that were better balanced between skeptics and Christians I got very favorable reviews although I got one here too. It seems as though beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Atheist and Christians of a more liberal theology do not like my essay. Christians of a more conservative theology tend to like it. Regardless it invariably generates a ton of post with or without my input. Ken, this is the second copy of a different post that I have come across. I have asked you not to cut and paste huge replies from one thread to the next. I have taken the liberty of removing the c&p and linking to the whole message on a different post - The Queen[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-27-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-28-2004][This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-28-2004]

But that's the whole point, Ken!!! Substance!!! There was none!!! You didn't back up your assertions with references! That's nothing to do with style and everything to do with substance. To be honest, there was very little substance in your essay for comment! It was one of the most substanceless essays I've seen! You still think that it had substance and that's where you show that you don't know what substance is. Also spelling is very important in demonstrating that you are at least familiar with the field you write about. Would you let a doctor treat you who couldn't manage to spell appendicitis? Anyway, the main "spelling" complaint wasn't about spelling, but about getting the scientific name of the damned shark wrong! All that dempnstrates to a potential editor is that you know nothing about the animal in question, so any conclusions you draw based on the animal are probably unfounded.As for Brian's tone, it was more gracious and generous than you deserved, given your naked hostility and rudeness to him.Anyway, enough already! You've demonstrated a total inability to understand what people post on these boards, so there's no point in me flogging a dead horse.

I believe that satire is allowed as long as it isn’t dragging the thread off topic and that it is not the focus of the thread (unless satire is the topic of course). One of the problems with this is that you were continuously editing your posts between responses. Such as? What does ‘satical’ mean? To all and Brian? Am I not a part of ‘all’ Ken, how can I be separate from ‘all’? You need a comma or two in there Ken! I am not desperate to cling to any teaching role. However, I do enjoy helping people, and there are limited ways in which I can do this, so what skills I have I use to help others, of course you are free to ignore my advise. LOL, I happen to mistype one letter and you somehow manage to think that this vindicates you? Dear God Ken, I mistyped one letter in the guys name, you however, managed to get his name back to front! The guy has a Christian name and a surname, two names Ken and you kept getting them in the wrong order! Where have I claimed to be the master of minutiae? Actually Ken this shows how grossly dishonest you actually are. ‘Minutiae’ really isn’t a word I use, although I do know the meaning of it. Now I used your spelling of minutiae Ken in my casual response to your post!Here is the evidence.In post 140 I quoted your post 139: Now Ken this was copied and pasted into my post directly from your post, notice the spelling of ‘minutae’? Then suddenly your post is edited and ‘minutae’ now has the correct spelling!
I am really not concerned in any way about misspelling ‘minutae’, it was a casual response that used YOUR spelling! Would it get published? Would you mention the gross errors in your essay that you haven’t addressed, huge errors such as:1. You have no idea who discovered Nineveh.2. You thing a completely incorrect designation for great white sharks. Was a one letter misspelling, which was in actuality two entirely different words.3. You have no idea how BC dates work, please don’t tell the children that 759 BC came after 756 BC, they will pick you up on it.4. Remember to include how your title is incorrectly worded, ‘great fish’ is not Hebrew, it is English. You have to either write ‘The Hebrew actually says ‘great fish’ (gadol dag), or ‘The Hebrew actually says ‘gadol dag’ (great fish). The Hebrew cannot ‘say’ great fish because great fish is English.5. You have also got to address the problem of a different word being used for ‘fish’ in Jonah 2:1.6. You have not referenced any source that says the Book of Jonah is mere allegory.7. You have not referenced anyone who has dismissed the Book of Jonah because they were not in possession of specific scientific and historical information.8. You continually mention the intervention of God despite the divine not being an aim of your essay title.9. You cannot prove scientifically or historically that Jonah prayed to God from the belly of the whale.10. You provide contradictory information regarding the size of a sperm whale’s oesophagus. One source claims it could not swallow anything over a foot and a half wide, yet you go on to include an example where it can swallow an object four or five feet square!11. You constantly use websites that have no academic references on them, many of these sites make statements that are clearly incorrect, such as the one that said Nineveh was so enormous that the Bible correctly says it would take a man three days to walk around it, however the Bible does not even say this.12. I didn’t say that you hadn’t addressed the Bartley story, I presented the letter from the captain’s wife so you could use it to support the hoax theory.13. You claimed that Nineveh was the capital of Assyria, it wasn’t. If you then include a source that says Nineveh was not capital, why would you still include the inaccurate information about Nineveh?14. You need to provide evidence for the swing towards monotheism under Adad Nirari III.15. You say the date of the prophecy was the late 750’s BC perhaps 758, but 758 is the early 750’s BC.16. ‘Moral decay’ is a subjective term, you need to stop being so biased. Whose standard was the morality at before it decayed?17. What is the ‘some historical evidence’ for a religious awakening under Ashurdan III?18. Jews viewing Jonah as being historical 700 plus years after he was supposed to have lived is not evidence that Jonah was real.19. Your essay jumps all over the place, you should try running a narrative thread through it.20. You do not appear to know why Jonah was distressed, despite this being explained in the rest of the Book.21. Do sperm whales swallow air into their bellies?22. Which commentators postulate that Jonah was resurrected?23. You do not say why you do not favour the resurrection theory.24. You say God clearly intervened, no historian would claim this degree of certainty in any research paper. Absolute proof is not what an historian would claim, an historical theory is never proven.25. You mention sperm whales vomiting as they die, there is nothing in the text to suggest that the ‘great fish’ was dying. God commanded the fish to vomit Jonah up, there is a reason for using these words, it is to demonstrate God’s authority over His creation.26. You frequently provide examples of dead animals as proof that Jonah lived inside the fish.27. You mention a human skeleton inside a tiger shark, this weakens your essay title’s argument.28. You do not provide evidence that there were sperm whales in the Med Sea c. 3000 years ago.29. You include an example of someone who was not swallowed by a whale.30. You give and ancestral name website with no proof there was any relation between the person on the link and the person in the whale story. (Peleg Nye).31. You provide no evidence for a Phoenician whaling industry.32. You say a shark’s metabolism slows down, yet you do not say whether this would mean a man could live in its stomach.33. You include the tiger shark information twice.34. You give do not name anyone that says Jonah could live inside a shark without air from God.35. You do not say who the people are that say Jonah was swallowed by a rhinodon shark.36. You do not say why certain people at a certain website are the ‘most knowledgeable’.37. You do not say why the great white shark fits the criteria for ‘great fish’ better.38. Why would the depressed state of Assyria contribute to the readiness of the people to listen to Jonah?39. Can you prove that the people Nineveh stopped their sinful ways?40. What Jesus believed has no bearing on the historical accuracy of anything, Jesus believed all sorts of nonsense.41. You say the Book of Jonah resembles history more than it does allegory, yet the Book of Jonah lacks a great deal of basic historical elements. It doesn’t eve say where Jonah was born.42. The style of writing in Jonah matches the same style of other books of the Bible that contain allegory.43. You failed to show scientifically how a plant cold grow quickly enough in one day to provide a shade for a man.44. You failed to show scientifically how a worm could kill a plant.45. Nineveh was not an enormous city that would take three days to walk across.46. The population of Nineveh was not close on half a million people.47. Jonah being classed as a prophet has no bearing on whether his adventure was true or not.48. You say that the Book of Jonah must have been historical because of the detail given in 2 Kings!49. You use the Book of Jonah to support the Book of Jonah.50. You have no external evidence that Jonah existed.51. Which critics argue that the repentance of Nineveh would have been a greater miracle than Jonah’s fishy escapade?52. You fail to support you claim that Assyria was barbaric.53. You do not provide evidence that for the first half of the 8th century Nineveh was troubled by civil unrest.54. You need references for the gods worshipped in Nineveh.55. You have to give examples of people deserting their gods and turning to others.56. You consistently make unsupported statements such as ‘Jonah was an actual person’.57. Nineveh being an actual city does not prove anything at all about Jonah.58. Josephus is only reporting what is written in Jewish books.59. You have not provided any evidence that Christian tradition thought of Jonah as historical.60. You didn’t support the claim that 2 Kings 14:26 is an historical record.61. Jonah does not include the name of any king.62. Archaeology does not dovetail with Jonah.63. You incorrectly stated that Jesus only mentions four prophets, you forgot Moses.64. The number of words in the Book of Jonah has no bearing on its truth.65. You said there is no prophecy in the book, then you mention that there is a prophecy, is there a prophecy or not?66. You did not mention the names of any secular archaeologists of the 19th century. ( I think you will struggle here)67. You didn’t say why you left the word ‘evolutionary’ out of a quote.68. You fail to give a single name of any scholar who said that Nineveh didn’t exist.69. You incorrectly stated that Layard uncovered the library, it was Rassam.Now that is satire!Remember and tell the children this, they know that their teacher wouldn’t make such a fool of himself. I really should have checked your spelling, after all, everything else you have posted has been wrong, well that’s what I get for having a trusting nature. How many ‘T’s’ have you got there in ‘attempt’ Ken?You really haven’t understood the logical fallacy either Ken. The logical fallacy does not apply to ‘supporting’ arguments that are completely incorrect.For example, only one person discovered Nineveh, you have two different people discovering it, so please explain how providing an incorrect name has no bearing on the accuracy of your argument? But Ken my responses are casual remarks, I am NOT trying to disprove a single thing you claimed. I was informing you how grossly inadequate your essay is. It is disjointed, contradictory, poorly referenced, and in places incoherent. I still have no idea what you are on about here, could you please reword this? Pelgig? Is that Nye Pelgig?I actually read your entire essay, what makes you think I didn’t read certain parts of it? I am not criticising your style over your substance, you have no substance. I am criticising your complete lack of academic ability. Sure, your style of writing is very poor, but this isn’t the biggest problem with your work. The biggest problem is your poor research skills, you keep giving contradictory information. You also keep straying off your essay title’s content. Wrong again, I was in the reply screen, how else could I have copied and pasted your spelling mistake? Germain? Is that the same as germane?I also didn’t point out any spelling mistakes, most forum members do not really pick up on spelling mistakes. Where did you ask me to stop Ken? I have no idea what ‘demonstate’ means. Your essay didn’t have, and still doesn’t have, any substance to it. Ken if I was your teacher you would never produce work as
horrendously poor as your Jonah essay. If any of my students produced anything of this quality I would never teach again! Ken you missed the entire point. You mentioned wanting to be published, I pointed out where you had to improve your essay, I honestly thought that you would have appreciated the help. But it is fine that you think that I have an ulterior motive, it does mean that I don’t need to offer my help again. Unfortunately this means that I may have to press you for references to support arguments that you make in any future posts, this could involve a lot of work on your behalf, work that I could have helped you with.Cheers Ken. It has to be funny, so you fail again.Brian.

1. I am not sure if you read my initial post or all the other additional information I provided.2. Whether or not the Book of Jonah is true or untrue is not dependent if one of my websites may have misspelled a latin term for sharks by one letter or possibly one letter and a word. Also, Brian was not aware of the alternate science terms in all likelihood.3. Anyone can say there was no substance. That is easy. I could say that your critique had no substance. Demonstrating it is far better. I will say that in forums that were better balanced between skeptics and Christians I got very favorable reviews although I got one here too. It seems as though beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Atheist and Christians of a more liberal theology do not like my essay. Christians of a more conservative theology tend to like it. Regardless it invariably generates a ton of post with or without my input.I added some material to give your post context. Here it is:To Trixie:
I appreciate your input but I would say the following to give more context:1. I do not feel as though you are adressing the content in my post that ask if a moderator debate and moderate in the same string at this location:http://EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses. -->EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses.2. Not all share your estimation of my post. Here is what one person said:Skeptick
MemberPosts: 176
From: USA
Registered: Feb 2004
Message 25 of 145 02-05-2004 04:01 PM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Awesome series of posts, Ken!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You're doing a fine job on this topic; you go dude. You show no signs of discouragement or loss of control despite the fact that it's virtually impossible to debate these guys on Biblical terms alone. Just like the children of Israel; they saw the pillar of fire, heard God's voice, their shoes/clothes didn't wear out even after 40 years of use, were fed by manna from heaven, and on and on; they were eyewitnesses of the power of God, but yet they still rebelled. The evidence of God was "in their face" but yet they still worshipped "other" gods even though those "gods" showed no evidence of any power or miracle producing ability. Your debating skills and discipline are about the best I've seen on this forum; I'll be keeping up with you!
If an ancient Athenian were here, he would probably bow low before you. (Acts 17:22-23)"3. Brian continued to use the logical fallacy of criticizing style over substance even after I asked him to stop.4. Brian's tone was poor. He said for example that I never read the Book of Jonah in his critique.5. He clearly do not read the essay closely.6. I was asked to provide addtional evidence. I did. I was more preoccupied on providing evidence than I was on editing to make sure there were not juxtapostions and misspellings.7. If I want certain portions of my material published there are spellcheckers and I clearly showed that Brian the spelling Nazi misspelled the word minutiae and he said that minutiae was substantive because he wished to dwell on style over substance. Next, I am not a bad speller. I can spell hard words like minutiae! I won 4rth place in a spelling Bee in 6th grade (and no I do not need a medal or a chest to pin it on). In short, I do not want or need a spelling Nazi to attempt to lord his spelling prowess over me because he does not want to deal with more substantive matters.8. Brian should have asked if I wanted his editorializing. I was a writing tutor for about a couple of years at a university so I could have gotten my material ready for publishing without his help. Again, I was more preoccupied with providing evidence (Josephus, Museum director, science instructor at Seaworld, academic paper, etc). I think substance should have the priority in the initial stages at the very least. Besides I only wish to publish the material that is less widely known and is subject to modern myths (whale gullet size/science instructor at Seaworld/Museum Director) in all likelihood since most of the other information is widely available.9. EVC Forum is not an academic journal and so I do not feel Brian has a right to editiorialize in terms of non content especially since I never asked him to.

You just don't get it, do you? It was BECAUSE you said you wanted to get it published that Brian then offered you advice on improving your chances of getting it published!! He didn't disagree with any of your points, he just tried to help you defend your ideas!!!!!!!! Waaaaauuuuuggggghhhhh!!!

Brian, when I have a moment I will put in a POTM for patience of the month for that post.Why on earth bother though?

Hi Ken,At the bottom of each message is a row of small links, and one of them is labeled "reply". If you use this link then your reply will be annotated with a link to the message you're replying to, and that message will be given a link back to your message. In most cases you want to use the "reply" link of the message you're actually replying to, rather than the large "Post Reply" buttons that appear at the top and bottom of each message page--Percy

To Brian and others:I believe that debate at EVC should not be separate and equal. Separate and equal is invariably unequal. You wish to debate here. I wish to debate in the original string. Why? Because the other post to the internet regarding the science of the Jonah account (my essay discusses much more) is generating 600 hits per month. It has a catchier title than mine (has science in the title). I do not know how many hits my essay is currently getting at EVCForum at the original post.I would appreciate it if someone could respond to my Moderator and conflict of interest post as I think this has relevancy too in terms if Brian is to debate me. Perhaps Brian doesn't. Given Brian's behavior I cannot say I want to debate him unless it is moderated in a fair setting or at least free from censorship. There is no point in having the same thing done twice.I would appreciate specifics in terms of my content in the Moderator and conflict of interest post and not broad paintbrush commentary.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-27-2004]

To Trixie:1. Quality post tend to generate a lot of posts and discussion. Sometimes bad post do also but they do tend to peter out faster. My Jonah string with or without my input generates a very high amount of activity generally if the website has traffic.2. I did not want to dwell on logical fallacies but on more substantive issues. I have received compliments on my string - not just one compliment. Again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Those who call themselves Christians of a more conservative theology tend to like it. Atheist and those who call themselves Christians of a more theologically liberal bent tend to hate it. I do receive some pro and con assessments where both compliments and constructive criticism is offered but the essay seems to be very polarizing. That is exactly why I wished to speak on more substantive issues because evidence matters more than idealogue and people ranting against my essay because they do not like it. Logical fallacies just add more fluff to the conversation.To Brian:You seem to want to debate and raise a lot of objections. That is fine. I have no ill will towards you but I cannot say I am reading your objections. I wish to debate in a fair forum. When I see the Jonah string is reopened I will carefully examine your objections. There is no point to being censored again or be under moderating conditions that is not fair to both parties.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-27-2004]

To Trixie:Here is a postscript because I did not want to ignore you since you seem sincere.I recognize that Brian said he wanted to help me. I also took into context his other statements.I do not feel you appreciate my view in that one cannot take a persons every statement at face value. You have to consider all that they say and do. I do feel I was judicious in evaluating Brian's statements and not getting bent of of shape easily over some slights.I also addresed the issue of whether or not I wanted editorializing on non germaine issues and whether or not I am capable of addressing those non germaine issues. Dwelling on style over substance was continually dwelled on even after I asked it to stop. There is no point in rehashing the same non germaine point when it is not even relevant to bring it up once.Sincerely,Ken

Hi Ned, I was kind of hoping that Ken would re-evaluate the content of his essay and perhaps finally understand why the Book of Jonah was written.It is actually a great book, but to take it literally is to miss the point of the book altogether. Wolff's commentary was spot on when he said the reader of Jonah was not supposed to do arithmetic, he is supposed to be astonished.Ken has this illusion that I was trying to debate him, now that would be a waste of time.Brian.