Leigh Patrick Sullivan's blog
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves
1) S. Jetchick (2009-July-29)
2) P. L. Sullivan (2009-July-29)
3) S. Jetchick (2009-July-30)
4) P. L. Sullivan (2009-July-30)
5) S. Jetchick (2009-July-31)
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Jetchick
Sent: 29 juillet 2009 12:14
To: leighpatrick (add the "at" sign here) themoderateseparatist.com
Subject: Correspondence with Leigh Patrick Sullivan
Good day Sir,
Being a friend of Bill Whatcott, I carefully read your blog post about him
called "Send out the clowns".
I try to always start with things I agree with, when I criticize an
author. Here are some of the many things I agree with in your blog post:
1) Hey! You give your e-mail, so we can write back to you! That's
great! I still think anonymity is for terrorists.
2) You say in your post: "Anytime a fresh political movement begins
to gain momentum and begins to enjoy a higher level of credibility
in the critical eye of the media, not to mention the public, there
grows a danger of attracting the more controversial members of society."
I couldn't agree more.
3) Your general intent, i.e. to protect the Party you love by kicking
out the bad members who destroy it from within, is a perfectly
laudable intent. That is a general rule of Sociology: any given human
group which doesn't actively kick out its internal enemies is doomed.
(Of course, we might disagree on who exactly are the "internal
enemies", but we do agree on the necessity of kicking such people out).
4) Etc., etc.
Now, a few things I disagree with.
Your accusations against Mr. Bill Whatcott seem to be here:
1) "Making it more difficult is hearing of a leadership candidate who,
not so long ago, became involved in a street-scuffle with gays
at a Calgary Pride parade."
2) "[...] local religious activist Bill Whatcott (famous for such
classy moves as distributing flyers showing aborted fetus's,
anti-gay propaganda, and other various examples of bastardizing
the Word of God into hate-speech for his own purposes) [...]"
About the scuffle: I was not there, and the only source of information
I have is the hyperlink you provide. That article seems to indicate
that it was one of the sodomites who was arrested ("a marcher swung
his fist at a protester's head [...] police stepped in and arrested
parade participant Tyson McCann Cormack"). From the article, the only
thing Bill seems to have done is peacefully held a sign saying:
"No Pride In Sodomy". Also, no mention is made of Bill Whatcott in
that article (although that's exactly the kind of sign he would hold
in exactly that kind of parade, so that doesn't bother me! But it
is a rather weak source of information.)
Should people hold signs saying: "No Pride In Sodomy" during a march
of sodomites who claim their behavior is praiseworthy? Setting aside
the question of freedom of speech, we would need to determine the
nature and moral value of sodomy in order to answer that question. I'm
quite willing to have an e-mail debate with you (or any member of the
"Wildrose Alliance") on that topic.
About the flyers: Claiming that Bill Whatcott "bastardizes the Word
of God into hate-speech" is a big claim. The public accusation that
someone is promoting hate is very serious, since Canada considers
such behavior a crime. So if you accuse Bill Whatcott of being a criminal,
you need to back up your accusations with facts (otherwise you yourself
would be guilty of a wrongdoing).
But you don't provide facts, even though all of Bill's flyers are on
the Internet, free for all who care to view them. When I disagree
with someone, I quote them (like I do for you), and I give hyperlinks
to their own personal web site (like I do for you).
If showing the picture of the result of an abortion is a crime, then
please provide the hyperlink to the relevant paragraph in Canada's
criminal code. If giving verifiable medical facts about the physical
consequences of sodomy is a crime, please also provide hyperlinks.
And if, as you seem to indicate, the Word of God approves of sodomy,
please provide hyperlinks too (there are plenty of Bibles on the
Internet).
In my opinion, healthy democracies are not built on vague accusations
supported by lack of precise quotes and direct hyperlinks.
Don't forget my offer for an e-mail debate on abortion (or sodomy,
or any other such topic).
Cheers!
Stefan Jetchick
Note: Mr. Sullivan sent me two e-mails in succession, about 4 minutes apart. The second one included the first, so I'm just posting his second one here.
------------------------------------------------------------------- From: L&S Sullivan [lss (add "at" sign here) shaw.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:56 AM To: 'L&S Sullivan' Subject: RE: Correspondence with Leigh Patrick Sullivan One correction: I did use the term 'hate-speech' in a descriptive form. I have since edited the original posting, removing the term. - Leigh. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From: L&S Sullivan [lss (add "at" sign here) shaw.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:52 AM To: 'Stefan Jetchick' Subject: RE: Correspondence with Leigh Patrick Sullivan Stefan, It is against my better judgment that I reply to your email, but do so in order to correct some mistakes and misinterpretations that are contained in your message. Allow me to quote directly, with responses following: About the scuffle: I was not there, and the only source of information I have is the hyperlink you provide. That article seems to indicate that it was one of the sodomites who was arrested ("a marcher swung his fist at a protester's head [...] police stepped in and arrested parade participant Tyson McCann Cormack"). From the article, the only thing Bill seems to have done is peacefully held a sign saying: "No Pride In Sodomy". Also, no mention is made of Bill Whatcott in that article (although that's exactly the kind of sign he would hold in exactly that kind of parade, so that doesn't bother me! But it is a rather weak source of information.) - My article never indicated that Bill Whatcott was involved in the scuffle or even attended the 2006 Calgary Gay Pride Parade. The subject is Wildrose Alliance candidate Jeff Willerton. My point was that while he has just as much right to free speech as the gays in the parade, his method - and often that of Bill Whatcott - of direct confrontation obviously raised the chances of something happening. As I stated in my article, please don't insult my intelligence. Should people hold signs saying: "No Pride In Sodomy" during a march of sodomites who claim their behavior is praiseworthy? Setting aside the question of freedom of speech, we would need to determine the nature and moral value of sodomy in order to answer that question. I'm quite willing to have an e-mail debate with you (or any member of the "Wildrose Alliance") on that topic. - …which would be a pointless debate considering I believe homosexuality to be genetically/environmentally generated as opposed to the 'it's a choice' view I am safely assuming you hold. I'm a social moderate who believes in the separation of church and state, while I assume you do not. The debate you are looking for – or trying to bait me into, to be more accurate – is for when party policy is being created. About the flyers: Claiming that Bill Whatcott "bastardizes the Word of God into hate-speech" is a big claim. The public accusation that someone is promoting hate is very serious, since Canada considers such behavior a crime. So if you accuse Bill Whatcott of being a criminal, you need to back up your accusations with facts (otherwise you yourself would be guilty of a wrongdoing). - nowhere did I use or even suggest the word 'hate', nowhere did I allude to Bill Whatcott as a 'criminal' or suggest that he engaged in criminal activity. I have written previous articles in defense of Mr. Whatcott's right to free speech in the past, and will probably do so again in the future. However, I am insulted by your obvious accusations of illegal activity on my part, the only possible motive being an attempted smear of my character. But you don't provide facts, even though all of Bill's flyers are on the Internet, free for all who care to view them. When I disagree with someone, I quote them (like I do for you), and I give hyperlinks to their own personal web site (like I do for you). - no one has promoted Bill Whatcott more than Bill Whatcott. If you need examples of his work, I have no doubt he'd be happy to devote hours and hours in conversation on the subject. If showing the picture of the result of an abortion is a crime, then please provide the hyperlink to the relevant paragraph in Canada's criminal code. If giving verifiable medical facts about the physical consequences of sodomy is a crime, please also provide hyperlinks. And if, as you seem to indicate, the Word of God approves of sodomy, please provide hyperlinks too (there are plenty of Bibles on the Internet). - so ridiculous I just don't know where to begin. In my opinion, healthy democracies are not built on vague accusations supported by lack of precise quotes and direct hyperlinks. Don't forget my offer for an e-mail debate on abortion (or sodomy, or any other such topic). Cheers! Stefan Jetchick - I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your exuberance in the desire to defend Bill Whatcott and what you saw as an attack on your religious beliefs and freedoms is to blame for your misinterpretation of facts and incorrect assumptions regarding my article. However, what I fail to understand is how you could have missed the main issue of the piece to the extent that you have become, in my opinion, the best evidence in support of my theory. Regards, Leigh Patrick Sullivan The Moderate Separatist
-----Original Message----- From: Stefan Jetchick Sent: 30 juillet 2009 19:38 To: L&S Sullivan Subject: RE: Correspondence with Leigh Patrick Sullivan Good day Mr. Sullivan, >> I did use the term 'hate-speech' in a descriptive form. I have since >> edited the original posting, removing the term. I checked your post when I received your e-mail, and yes, you have removed the expression "hate-speech" and replaced it with: "[...] and other various examples of bastardizing the Word of God into garbage for his own purposes [...]" >> It is against my better judgment that I reply to your email English is not my mother tongue, so I probably don't understand your expression correctly. In French, your statement would sound something like: «I reply to your e-mail because I lack common sense». I guess that's not what you really mean, but I don't understand why answering a polite and factual e-mail requires a reduction in judgement. >> to correct some mistakes and misinterpretations that are >> contained in your message. Great! Thank you! I love to fix my errors! And I pay for that service too! >> - My article never indicated that Bill Whatcott was involved in the >> scuffle or even attended the 2006 Calgary Gay Pride Parade. DUH! Sorry, my mistake! I owe you money! >> The subject is Wildrose Alliance candidate Jeff Willerton. Honestly, I did read your article carefully, but since I know nothing about the Wildrose Alliance leadership race, and since only Bill Whatcott's name is mentioned in your article, I missed that. If I may suggest a clarification: "Here are two examples of clowns we should kick out. Example one: Jeff Willerton [insert accusations here]. Example two: Bill Whatcott [insert accusations here]." Of course that's not elegant English! But it would be clearer for people like me who don't live in Alberta and ignore the local political scene. >> he has just as much right to free speech as the gays in >> the parade Great! So we agree on that! >> his method - and often that of Bill Whatcott - of direct >> confrontation obviously raised the chances of something happening. Actually, I at least partially agree with you here. If you read my correspondence with Mr. Whatcott, you'll see I have reservations about his methods too. On the other hand, and from what I know (since I've never seen Mr. Whatcott in action), he is peaceful and polite, and makes good points. One of my favorites is when he was accused of distributing pornography. All he had done was show a picture of sodomites doing something in the full glare of public view, and under the nose of the police, during a sodomite parade (and he had censored that image with the face of a pro-sodomite politician)! He correctly (in my opinion) told the police that if his already-censored flyer was pornographic, then the police should arrest the sodomites who were doing that uncensored stuff in public! ;-) >> As I stated in my article, please don't insult my intelligence. Far from me to insult anybody! Just look at the e-mails I'm writing you! I take the time to carefully read everything you write, and I try to answer intelligently, and when I make a mistake, I say: "I'm sorry"! >> - ...which would be a pointless debate considering I believe >> homosexuality to be genetically/environmentally generated as opposed >> to the 'it's a choice' view I am safely assuming you hold. You're unsafely assuming, as usual. If you agreed to the debate I'm offering, you would find out! >> I'm a >> social moderate who believes in the separation of church and state, >> while I assume you do not. You're unsafely assuming, as usual. If you agreed to the debate I'm offering, you would find out! >> The debate you are looking for – or trying >> to bait me into "Bait you into"? You post a serious accusation against a friend, then retract it in a hurry without apologizing, then you assume all kinds of errors about my position, and I'm the one who is "baiting" you? Hum... >> - nowhere did I use or even suggest the word 'hate' Well, since you admitted in your second e-mail that you did use that word... >> nowhere did I >> allude to Bill Whatcott as a 'criminal' or suggest that he engaged in >> criminal activity. Well, since you admitted in your second e-mail that you did use that word... and since hate speech is a crime in Canada... >> I have written previous articles in defense of Mr. >> Whatcott's right to free speech in the past, and will probably do so >> again in the future. Great! Thanks! I hope someday to have the honor of defending your rights, so you will see I have nothing against you personally. >> I am insulted by your obvious >> accusations of illegal activity on my part Well, since you admitted in your second e-mail that you did use that word... >> - no one has promoted Bill Whatcott more than Bill Whatcott. If you >> need examples of his work, I have no doubt he'd be happy to devote >> hours and hours in conversation on the subject. I'm afraid you are missing the point entirely. I didn't ask you to give Bill Whatcott more publicity. I asked you to respect one of the basic tenets of good journalism. No matter how famous the person against whom I argue, I always give hyperlinks to their web site, preferably to the actual text they wrote and that I'm criticizing. I don't ask my readers to believe me. I offer my opinions, and give easy access to my sources so they can verify by themselves what I claim. >> - so ridiculous I just don't know where to begin. This is the weakest part of your reply. Faced with your absence of strong arguments, you try a rhetorical sleigh of hand. I don't know what the official name of that manoeuvre is, but it boils down to: "I'm right, because I refuse to offer facts and logic supporting my position". Go re-read that paragraph. I ask three very specific, simple and relevant questions: 1) If showing the picture of the result of an abortion is a crime, then please provide the hyperlink to the relevant paragraph in Canada's criminal code. 2) If giving verifiable medical facts about the physical consequences of sodomy is a crime, please also provide hyperlinks. 3) And if, as you seem to indicate, the Word of God approves of sodomy, please provide hyperlinks too (there are plenty of Bibles on the Internet). Why are these three questions "ridiculous"? They strike at the very heart of this whole debate, and you run away while throwing smoke grenades to try to hide the fact you're not answering the questions! When someone asks a question which I consider ridiculous, I explain why I consider it ridiculous, and then I answer the question just the same! Why can't you do that? >> your misinterpretation of facts and incorrect assumptions regarding my >> article. I was mislead once, and by your own sloppy writing style! Even then, my only mistake was to assume you were talking about one person instead of two. All my arguments in defense of Jeff Willerton and Bill Whatcott still stand intact. And you have not even tried to address them! >> you have >> become, in my opinion, the best evidence in support of my theory. My theory is that people like you are afraid of answering specific, simple and relevant questions. Cheers! Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: L&S Sullivan Sent: 30 juillet 2009 19:57 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: Re: Correspondence with Leigh Patrick Sullivan As I have already stated, I am not interested in engaging in a debate with you over issues such as Gay rights, abortion, Bill Whatcott, etc. My article is opinion which you are, of course, free to disagree with. Best regards, Leigh Patrick Sullivan The Moderate Separatist
The Moderate Separatist, or The Extremist Clown?
(Source)
-----Original Message----- From: Stefan Jetchick Sent: 31 juillet 2009 09:33 To: L&S Sullivan Subject: Conclusion of correspondence with Leigh Patrick Sullivan Good day Sir, >> As I have already stated, I am not interested in engaging in a debate >> with you over issues such as Gay rights, abortion OK, so I guess this will be the end of our e-mail exchange. Allow me to summarize it: - The Moderate Separatist claims Bill Whatcott has opinions which are so evil that he should be thrown out of a political party. - When asked to explain what exactly is wrong with Mr Whatcott's opinions, The Moderate Separatist refuses and runs away. - When a bystander calls everybody's attention to this strange behavior, The Moderate Separatist tells this bystander that his article "is opinion which you are, of course, free to disagree with". - OK, so how come a bystander (who has the same opinions as Bill Whatcott) is free to disagree, but Bill Whatcott deserves expulsion? Hum... Perhaps you should change the name of your blog from "The Moderate Separatist" to: The Extremist Clown :-) Stefan
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves
