Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Saint Eve's Stone-Wall of Silence

As I expected, IWWB elder Steve Crook (Saint Eve…) could not finish what he started when he made comment on the post about Vinson revising his Revelation commentary. 

His excuse was that I did not immediately publish his second reply, which came as I was typing up my extensive rebuttal to his comment. I asked Steve, in personal email correspondence to properly respond to my rebuttal, but as expected, Steve likes to set his own rules and standards, and if others don't adhere to them immediately, and in the manner in which he demands, he throws up the stonewall of silence and declares the matter "done." 

Here are Steve's own words about the matter:
Firstly, you haven't posted my response to your response, so there is simply nothing more for me to respond to. As has been shown to be the pattern with you, you pick and choose what you will and simply distort information as you determine to do so. So be it, but I will have no part in that seeing as you call that "honest discussion".
For the sake of transparency, here is what I asked Steve Crook to specifically address when (and if) he replied properly to my rebuttal. In my opinion, Steve refused to engage with me because he was caught out and wasn't able to address anything. His only real option is to tuck tail and run, and take cover behind his stonewall of silence.

  • Where are the "outright lies" on the blog you accuse me of? Please let me know so I can remove them.

I asked Steve this because this phrase was used in the opening line. As yet, I have received no clarification on what the outright lies are so, I cannot review this information and if need be, remove them.

  • You claim Mike "publicly repented" of the original Revelation commentary. But how is it that Mike said in 2011 and then again in 2012 that "sin no longer has dominion" over him? This catch-phrase was littered throughout the original Revelation commentary, as I point out (Chap. 11 and 12 for example). So it appears that Mike did not truly repent. Please respond to this.

This is the true "turd in the punchbowl" as it regards Mike's claimed "repentance." As yet, I have received no explanation about these matters.

  • You say I "take things out of context" when as demonstrated, this is the entire premise of IWWB's teachings. To take a biblical phrase written in one language at a particular point in time, in many cases by an unknown or anonymous author, and then you try and line it up with another written hundreds of years later, in a different language by another unknown author. Is this not the very definition of "out of context?"

As I said to Steve, If I do "take you out of context" then what would be the problem with that, seeing as it is practiced by IWWB? Steve claims to have "the truth" so again, I fail to see a problem with this. But all the same, Steve has failed to respond to this.

  • You accuse me of smearing someone's name when as demonstrated, Mike and his elders routinely do this on bible-studies. I have the emails where Mike calls people who have left "hangers on" and I have also posted YouTube video of Mike referring to his sons as rebellious, vessels of dishonour and other such derogatory terms. I have been the victim of character assassination via IWWB, as have many others. Please respond to this.

This is well documented. I have caught Vinson doing this time and time again. In an email conversation, when asked about using ad-hominem attacks, his basic reply was "so be it," and he then said he felt he was calling a spade a spade. 

  • I admit to using an alias but on that note, how can you explain Mike advising this alias to ditch the marriage in favour of following the doctrines of Mike Vinson? Ouch Steven! Can you possibly wriggle your way out of this? Please at least make an attempt.

Dr. Cartwright was an alias I invented, to see whether Mike would go so far as advising adherence to his doctrines over a person's marriage. As expected, Vinson waxed on about the need to be "hated of all men" and if that meant seeing the marriage dissipate in favour of staying true to IWWB's doctrines, then so be it. 

Steve can't hope to reply to this because there is simply no way out of such a hole.

  • You did, in your second reply, make comment about the secretive nature of some posts, as to how they are password protected. I respect that. However, you then made what I feel are false statements about the mailing list. Many people have been disappeared from that list like a fart in the wind because they asked questions. Please address this clearly in your rebuttal!

So out of the 6 points, in Steve's second reply (which came as I was responding in-depth to his first comment), he merely touched on half of point 6, and totally ignored the rest.

I did not publish Steve's second reply because I wanted him, in the spirit of honest debate, to take the time to reply honestly and exhaustively to my rebuttal. That he chose not to do this, speaks volumes about Steve as a "truth seeker." 

The methodology of Steve as an IWWB elder is to immediately publish a second reply that touches on all of half of one point, and when it is not published as per his demand, he then throws up the stonewall of silence.

I closed my email to Steve Crook by stating: 
Again Steven, I look forward to your exhaustive rebuttal which, be assured, will be posted in full without editing.
As yet, Steve has ignored all further correspondence. I emailed him again, telling him that if he was ever in town, I would be happy to catch up and that my door is always open for dialogue. Here are my words:
If you at least had the intellectual honesty to admit mistakes and openly dialogue with your critics, then I would have no case here. But your refusal to admit mistakes, to move the goal posts every which way and to hide behind silence only incriminates you Steve! Anyway mate, I am always happy to engage with you, the door is open anytime.
Again, Steve refused to reply! That to me, says it all. 

No comments:

Post a Comment