Is it a debate? I have been familiar with Lynettes postings in varied places for some time. I knew what it would be like and what about on the very first post she made. That post gave a linked to an anti-US-Constitution-Article-V video to which the comment was, “to correct errors”. But instead, it introduced them. Refuting the very first statements in the video, I rejected it. But Lynettes reply was what about all the other points? I expected that. Heres how that sort of thing goes. A video may be long, longer that a statement or two. And as I recall this one was just under an hour. So to “debate” (Ill get to that in a bit) that as she wants, I and all the others here would have to spend an entire hour to listen to it. Then, since we probably did not take notes the first time, spend another hour listening to it again, perhaps with stops and starts while taking notes. That would be more than an hour. Now we each have over two hours spent. Next, we would have to research the answers to each of the varied points, composing a detailed answer to each. All told we might have five or more hours at least spent on answering this video posted by Lynette. How much time did Lynette spend? At most, perhaps five minutes. Probably more like 30 seconds. But Lynette wants us to “debate” her (really, the video). Then to up the ante, Lynette merely posts another video, with the same implied. Another 30 seconds spent by Lynette; requiring another extensive amount of time for the “debate”. Fact: Lynette has access to a lot of videos, and articles that can be posted, in a mere minute or so. But this all started with Dee Kaye posting just five statements, with no references. Just a “scary” five statements. And that required a fair of time to rebuke. And now, upping the ante once more, Lynette, who has time and lots of it spent on the internet posting the same sort of things all over many Facebook groups, Tea Party groups, 9/12 groups, and more. I cant even say how many as I imagine there are more than I know about....yes that Lynette calls in Robert Brown, full time John Birch Society employee to “debate” and reinforce the exchanges. > “Lynette Indiana: Jerry, you asked about the JBS so I went to the JBS for your answers. I’m just a volunteer grassroots activists if you didn’t know. I hope this information cleared some things up.” August 4 at 4:10pm No. Really I did not ask the JBS, I asked Lynette. I asked her intentions, motives, and the like. >”August 11 at 11:29pm · Like Robert Brown Jerry, nice ad hominem attack. When you are ready to actually debate, let me know. Ive supplied plenty of substance above. I challenge you to refute” Well, no it was not an ad hominum attack, but a statement of the time line of events. But lets pay attention to the verbiage here. Brown says “When you are ready to actually debate, let me know. Ive supplied plenty of substance above. I challenge you to refute” So Brown challenges me to “debate”. I am in his opinion, required to respond and “debate” him, a full time JBS employee, in concert with Lynette, a full time JBS activist. Otherwise I suppose, he will claim I lose. Me? I am a guy with a full time job, I do my own work after hours regardless of what it is almost without exception, and I find a little time to spend working to help fix the various problems of the country. Like most of the Tea Party people. We have lives, full lives. We are not full time employees of some activist organization, let alone JBS. I contend, this is not a “debate” at all. It is more like a Blitz; more like Shock and Awe. All this over one sentence in the Constitution that the full time JBS activists and employees dont like; they do not like all the Constitution ratified over 227 years ago by all thirteen states. So I said it is not a “debate”. That is correct, as a debate is defined as: de·bate, noun 1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports. 2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.>dictionary.reference/browse/debate and further the type of debate not held in the legislature is type 2, a real debate. The real types of debates, which are basically defined to make the discussion fair for both sides, are listed here: Debate Formats >csun.edu/~dgw61315/debformats.html Now, Robert Brown wants a debate. But what is going on here in this forum is far from a debate as I mentioned. There is not way that those of us who spend a full life outside this forum can or will find the exchance a fair debate considering the debating rules above. But there is (or should I say, was) a solution. A debate has already been held. And we showed a good section of it in one of our meetings. The full debate was not shown as it is too long for a meetings time available. And the link to the full video was posted on the GCTP website. And also, for anyone not having good internet access to view the video, DVDs were handed out. What is in the video? Here it is again. Michael Farris Debates Leaders of John Birch Society in Oklahoma https://youtube/watch?v=5HBVzS9c8ZQ Robert Brown doesnt need to Blitz the GCTP for his “debate”. He can just play the video at the link. Note also, in the video a JBS debater challenged COS to post the “entire” video. And they did. All of it, without cutting or adding comments in the middle. And Dr Farris said near the end that until two days before the debate, he thought the President of JBS was to be the debater, and has the email trail to prove it. But he was a no show. I find that more than curious.
Posted on: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 03:14:13 +0000