Home > Brandenburg, Discourse > A Case Study in Hypocritic Discourse: Sharper Iron

A Case Study in Hypocritic Discourse: Sharper Iron

November 15, 2006

The sign said “Fine Food,” but the best they had was two-day-old donuts.  That’s fine, you know, if someone is starving, but beyond that it more than strains credulity.  The masthead said “Sharper Iron,” but more accurate would be “Sharper Spatula,” or something like that.  Something might get sharpened, but put away anything that might inflict damage either direction.

Whatever anyone might say, I haven’t been banned at the online forum called Sharper Iron.  I lost posting privileges, and don’t try to look for what I’ve written; the little word “guest” is written under my name.  My introduction to Sharper Iron was a review of a book that slandered me in its footnotes.  I came on defending myself and was treated rudely.  That was also my welcome to online forums.  I had never been in one.  Now I know that by conversing in them, someone can learn about the nature, content, and tone of discourse between professing believers on often controversial issues in these types of forums.  You won’t find my initial conversation in that forum’s archives, as it was lost in something like a hard-drive or server crash.  In that first conversation, I was harshly and personally confronted by a woman I had never met.  Sharper Iron has a very limited view of male headship.  If you are a man, do not plan to answer a pushy woman in kind.  The bossy woman is a protected species at Sharper Iron.

One of their three rules is:  “How do I get in trouble on Sharper Iron?  By being shrill, attacking people or their motives, coming across harsh and reactionary, and acting like you have arrived.”  You can get banned for breaking their rules.  The truth is that you will not normally get banned for breaking their rules, but you will for breaking the rules if you take positions unpopular with the owner, Jason Janz.   You schmooze or you lose.  In the post that actually sent me into Sharper Iron oblivion, I critized the inflammatory, rule-busting article they displayed on their front page.

Here was that post:

Good old Doug Kutilek…..


Dr. Bauder in a very recent thread writes:
Somebody else mentioned the King James issue. We should be able to discuss that issue charitably. Problems arise when one group (and it is almost always the same group) makes their view a test of orthodoxy or moral integrity.


And then Doug Kutilek writes:
At any rate, accepting what these men (such as D. A. Waite, David Cloud, and a host of like-minded lemmings) affirm in principle, let us examine how it plays out in practice.


Definitions for “lemmings”:The reputation of lemmings as mindless creatures who will unhesitatingly run off a cliff, heedless of the danger. A member of a crowd with no originality or voice of his own. One who speaks or repeats only what he has been told.

This would be the equivalent of my saying: At any rate, accepting what these men (such as Bruce Metzger, Benjamin Warfield, and a host of mind-numbed robots) affirm in principle in the evolutionary principles of textual criticism.

I’ve got to get to a school orientation, but I will be back to answer the question. I have a very definite one, but must leave because of traffic.

Pretty offensive, huh?  By the way, I was never let on actually to answer the article they published by Doug Kutilek.  However, SI allowed a whole thread to open that discussed what “would have been my answer”—that without giving me an opportunity to respond.  The guy who opened the thread is a young man once a member of our church who took a left turn completely out of what even SI calls Fundamentalism.  What would you call those kinds of ethics?

Now consider some examples of men who not only can still post on Sharper Iron, but were not confronted for their shrillness, personal attacks, etc.

Let’s start with the owner himself, Jason Janz.  Janz promised me in my first week at SI that I could post a rebuttal to the review of the book that slandered me.  He wasn’t telling the truth about that.  His answer when I asked:  “Nope.  C’ya.”  The general guideline for SI posting is “Walk in the Spirit.”  This is the Janz example of respecting an older pastor.  And that despite what his friend Joel Tetrau, definitely no fan of mine, wrote generally about me in one post:

Kent Brandenburg has often done that – but he comes at it with Scripture in hand, and a careful thought-out reason to when and where he disagrees.

Here are a few sample Janz comments:

Name calling:

Someone get Tetreau on the line – we’ve got a new one! The AAA Fundamentalist.   Post #22.

That was written to a young man attempting to get a grasp on what he saw was amazing worldliness among SI members.  This was Janz’ first attempt to “help.”  Here’s another of the same kind:

Believe me, I didn’t say you were a nutcase…yet.  Post #26.

I noticed that with Jason, this was some of his best argumentation.  I like the way someone else described it to me:  “Jason is the neighbor kid whose family owns the inground pool.  Not everyone likes him.  They just want to use his pool.”

Here are some undisturbed, unmoderated comments of other ongoing SI members:

Every town has its village idiot, I guess.  Post #4.

You’re right in that I doubt such a school like West Coast (or Ambassador, maybe especially Ambassador) is aiming to produce scholars or men who are capable of addressing issues like Calvinism in a Christian, scholarly, manner. I don’t know how typical this is currently, but I’m familiar with men from both institutions who have pitiful training in actual theology (i.e man’s opinion), and that is a big contributor to their ignorance about Calvinism and their inability to characterize it fairly. If they get stuff with the calibre of Comfort’s sermon on “The Fruits of Calvinism”, well, that explains a lot.  Post #73.

Stay safely within the clear teachings of the Bible, and you will have plenty to talk about and deal with without straying into pants on women, the KJV issue, and the rest of the extrabibilical hogwash that gets lumped into IFB churches today.  Post #54.

Oops my wife is waking me up. She has her slacks on and is ready for the evening service. Better get my shorts and thongs on and get ready to go. Oops, forgot I am preaching tonight. Need to take off my thongs and put on my socks and running shoes. We have a formal service!  Post #27.

Here is one of several that were directed at my friend, Dr. Thomas Strouse, in his absence, in response to one of his articles they posted with the expressed purpose of ridiculing it.

Thank you to yet another crack pot who I will be glad to not associate myself with in 20 years when he decides that he’s not really a Fundamentalist afterall and starts his own movement cause he’s so incredibly separated from the rest of Fundamentalism by his own hobby horse teachings.  Post #92.

Many, many personal attacks were written just like this.  If it were not for a seminary professor, who disagrees a whole lot with Strouse, stepping in to stop the ad hominem attacks, they would have gotten even worse.

The Young Fundamentalist (35 and younger) complains about the abrasive and mean-spirited tone of the older preachers, but you have read a sampling of what they themselves find acceptable.  Sharper Iron, which claims to represent the Young Fundamentalist, is a case study in hypocritical discourse.

Categories: Brandenburg, Discourse
  1. November 15, 2006 at 8:15 am

    Ugly. So much for a fair exchange of ideas. Hammer on!

  2. November 15, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    What may be even more hypocritical is the never-ending “kiss-ups” that frequent the place. I had to laugh yesterday reading this comment, posted by Tom Pryde (and I apologize that I don’t know how to produce links here)…

    Joel, my friend…upon reviewing my cutting up this morning, it appears that I may have taken the fun too far and offended one of my dearest friends. If that is the case, I would like to offer my apology and ask your forgiveness.
    Pastor Thomas Pryde
    Berean Baptist Church
    Fremont, CA 94536

    And why were we genuflecting here? What was the horrible thing we said, that caused us to fear that we may have offended one of our dearest friends? It was this, from #116…

    Originally Posted by Mike Mann
    …there liberal position.

    As we have seen, this should probably read “their,” but it is ok. We have come to accept that type “A’s” also rely heavily upon their spell check devices, in order to maintain an outward conformity to an arbitrary cultural imposition of correct spelling.

    [Did I say that right, Oh feerless leeder? (Joel)]

    Cracks me up. All that because he teased his Maha about spelling troubles. This is Pryde at his best. He, being Mr. Inconsistent, must strive for a pretense of consistency. Virtually any disagreement was met with protests that you are being “nasty”. “Nasty”, according to Pryde, must mean “disagrees or thinks about disagreeing with Joel”. “Joel” being the guy who called Bobby Mitchell a dog.

    There are more examples than we have time for. Joel railed against us… we are losing in the blog world. Here’s the quote:

    “A Note to Type A’s: You are losing this battle. Let me explain how. First, you are losing the battle on the Internet. Type B’s are utilizing this great tool of communication while some of you are still debating whether the computer is really a tool of the devil.”

    And I say to that, we are glad that you type B’s are spending so much time on the internet. It keeps you out of everything else. This is good.

  3. November 15, 2006 at 5:25 pm

    If you lose in the blog world, well, um, that means that you’ll lose all the people who click in for Sunday morning, and, um…..other stuff too, very important, but I can’t think of it.

  4. November 15, 2006 at 7:01 pm

    You guys go to it. Yes, I’m huddled up trying rid myself of this albatros called a dissertation. When I’m finished, I may sound like that great rhetorician who said something like …free at last….

  5. November 15, 2006 at 11:27 pm

    Pastor Brandenburg you stated “In that first conversation, I was harshly and personally confronted by a woman I had never met. Sharper Iron has a very limited view of male headship. If you are a man, do not plan to answer a pushy woman in kind. The bossy woman is a protected species at Sharper Iron.”

    Was I one of them there bossy pushy women? (Be honest, I am a big girl I can handle it)

    Also I have been banned by many forums, mainly because I give as good as I get and most men have a problem with their pride being hurt. They don’t want to hear what the Bible states on specfic subjects, they just want to be politically correct. They try to paint themselves as one of us crazy IFBX people, but the fact is, they are compromisers. And when it is pointed out they pout and ban
    people. I am actually surprized that I haven”t been banned from SI. But then again, I am trying to play nice, even thouh it is extremely hard for me.

    What is seen on these types of forums are often people want to justify their sin, so they can have it there way and feel good about it.

  6. November 16, 2006 at 12:20 am

    Cathy, it wasn’t you. I found out in hindsight, it was Tom Pryde’s sister coming to his rescue.

  7. Anvil
    November 17, 2006 at 3:26 pm

    For the record, there has been a LOT of disagreement with Pastor Tetreau on his “Three Lines in the Sand” series, to the point where he even asked that the final part be pulled because of the division it was causing. I don’t know that anyone has been banned over it.

    To be sure, the final enforcement of the rules at SI is up to the site owner and moderators, and as a result, will never be completely fair. You certainly have rules on this site as well. I don’t know that it’s well-defined what the “Three Strikes” are that could cause a poster to be gone, but it will be up to the administrators of jackhammr.org to determine, similar to what is done on SI. Your sandbox, your rules. This is SOP for anyone hosting an internet site. Clearly some do get away with some amount of namecalling on SI, but I personally don’t think that anyone should regularly use that method of “argumentation,” and were I the moderator, none of it would stand, from any side, pastors or laymen.

    Also, you should know that not everyone at SI thought what happened to Pastor Brandenburg and Pastor Mitchell was necessary. Although those men were certainly in disagreement with a large number of even the type-A members (some of whom are quoted above, without including all the context, though to your credit, you do have links to the original posts), some of us enjoyed sparring with them to sharpen our iron, even as we disagreed with them. I certainly went round with Pastor Brandenburg a few times, and I enjoyed the workout. Frankly, SI is the poorer for not having men like them present, even if they don’t represent all of fundamentalism.

    One final thought. The internet is here to stay. The days when laymen didn’t have much access to the greater workings of what is happening in the “religious” world (because of lack of contacts, unlike pastors) except for what the pastor decided to share with us are gone. Previously, our ability to rightly judge what is said from the pulpit was limited by our lack of seminary education, lack of access to large libraries of religious works, and lack of a “multitude of counselors,” all things that can help us with wisdom beyond one man’s (no matter how godly) perspective. Besides, the pastor’s time is limited, and he just cannot help with every single area we might want to study and understand. You can feel free to ignore the internet, but it will be where the common man gets more and more of his information (it is much more of an equalizer than even Mr. Colt’s invention), and if you do ignore it, that won’t mean it will go away. Our ability to seek to be Berean in our thinking has increased at least a hundred-fold.

    SI is not by any stretch of the imagination a perfect place or even a completely accurate representation of all that is fundamentalism. However, I am the richer for having the ability to interact with the people there, and for that, I’m thankful it exists.

  8. November 17, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    I think that the biggest problem for Joel T. is that his Three Lines business was hyped for so long that the grand opening could never live up to the expectation. When the curtain was finally raised, it truly was a silly production that has resulted in the entire theatre breaking out in a melee. Popcorn, soda, cotton candy, seat cushions, shoes, and cellphones are flying as the boo’s and hisses resound. Poor Joel has last been seen tearing down Broadway with the paparazzi in hot pursuit and the headlines of tomorrow morning’s entertainment section sure to be shouting “THREE LINES??? SHOULD BE THREE STRIKES!”

    Of course, those in the same union that he belongs to are lining up to explain that the rest of us just don’t understand the whole scheme. It is like John Kerry and his “nuances.” We don’t have the special glasses and the Joseph-Smith-style peep-stone to really see the deeper meaning and grasp the life-changing truths. “Really, it is profound and inspirational. You just didn’t get the point because you aren’t one of the blessed B’s or . . .”

    Truly, it is funny to watch Sharper Iron (or maybe it should be Sharper Playdough) in a tizzy over such foolishness. The funniest statement that related to Three Lines had to be one I read today in which a poster was exhorting fundamentalists to not take themselves so seriously. He then declared “The men who maintain this website are doing a great service to the cause of fundamentalism.” Huh?

    Good grief, Lucy! If that website is doing “a great service” for fundamentalism, then I would hate to see what the enemies of “the movement” have in mind!

    I’m sure they mean well, but those men are truly maintaining a website that daily produces undeniable proof of the mess that fundamentalism is! It is time for Dorothy and the gang to take off the green glasses and face the reality. They can’t even agree on what fundamentalism is! They can’t come to grips with what the “TRUE” fundamentals are. Watching their attempts at coming up with the answer to that one is like observing Bill Clinton explain the meaning of “is.”

    Does anyone else see the insanity of all of this?

    Isn’t it great to just be a member of one of the Lord’s churches?

  9. November 17, 2006 at 4:54 pm

    Regarding Kent’s article. Here is another example of the hypocrisy at SI. Found in this thread ( http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=4007&page=2&pp=7 ) in which Sam H. kindly calls for a better wrtiting style among fundy’s is the following statement by mebrock: “Right. How in the world is this thread edifying? Do you really think your comments are helpful to Joel? Perhaps you think your comments are helpful to others? If you truly have concerns about style, then take it up with Jason. Airing these so-called “concerns” publicly is rude and arrogant.”

    Apparently arrogance is still in the eye of the beholder at SI and the women still get a free pass!

  10. November 17, 2006 at 7:43 pm

    Here is another blatant ad hominen attack on a type A Fundamentalist Dr Ian Paisley by John Brown that went unpunished on the same pasge you mentioned on SI:

    “It is no wonder Paul is a respecter of Ian Paisley. He seems to have the same bullishness and demeanor.

    Yes, there are many in Christianity who believe the original fundamentals of the faith and would not necessarily align themselves with Greenville, Detroit, etc. Heck, I think Biola is still a good school and would wish for my kids to attend the fundamental university in Lynchburg. :>)”

  11. November 17, 2006 at 7:54 pm

    Is it OK to guess? See, I’ve read Greg Linscott enough to know his syntax. I could read the tell-tale signs. “Frankly,” “the better,” “the richer,” etc. Nice touch though, Greg, with being an “Anvil” like you are. You will be the anvil to our jackhammer. I guess iron might get sharpened somewhere in there. You can come back again, Anvil. Be well.

  12. Greg Linscott
    November 17, 2006 at 9:02 pm


    Not me. Sorry! Don’t know who it is.

  13. November 17, 2006 at 9:18 pm

    Greg, I think that Kent knew it wasn’t you, but he tricked you into admitting that you are lurking! :0) Whoever Anvil is, he must be pretty tough to take the kind of pounding that Anvils take.

  14. Greg Linscott
    November 17, 2006 at 9:49 pm


    I lurk everywhere. You guys know that.

  15. November 17, 2006 at 10:00 pm

    Wow, I missed it with Greg!!! It has to be someone with whom I’ve gone back and forth. My next guess is Dave Barnhart (sp?). It has to be someone who appears on Sharper Iron that would call me Pastor Brandenburg.

  16. November 17, 2006 at 10:04 pm

    Oh man. I don’t think so. I just reread the Anvil, and I guess JL Gleason. 🙂 C’mon Bobby. You’ve got to guess. No disrespect to Dave, but somebody put some time in to write something very well. That’s a well written three paragraphs.

  17. November 17, 2006 at 10:05 pm

    5 paragraphs.:)

  18. J (Not L) Gleason
    November 18, 2006 at 3:24 am

    Not me. I only called you Pastor Brandenburg at the beginning, we were first name basis by the end. 🙂

    Thanks for quoting me above, I feel famous. It was one of my least profitable comments, and not consistent with my usual comments, as you know. (That’s a mild objection to pulling that one out to quote, by the way. I realize with some people I have to be more explicit in my objections. :))

    Never been here before, hope you guys are enjoying yourselves and doing some things that are more profitable than griping about SI. I think I’ll wander off elsewhere lest I get banned for being too nice. 🙂

    By the way, Kent, my middle initial is not L. Wonder what you had in mind when supplying it? “Loquacious?” “Light Touch?” “Ludicrous?” “Laughable?” “Level-Headed?” “Lovable?” The possibilities would appear to be endless….

  19. November 18, 2006 at 8:38 am

    Hey JGleason,

    Did you google your name and get here? I quoted you above? I guess I did. Of course, my point here is not that any or some or all of the comments above offended me. My point was that it is hypocritical to take a particular road that is only applied to a select group of people. I realize some people think, as Joel quotes Dr. Singleton, that “no one is consistent,” but I believe people can be consistent. Young fundy types like Jason also talk a unique brand of judgment that is all talk, no action.

    Welcome and come back. This is the first time we have actually Jack Hammered anyone (it is about time for us) or anything. These kinds of pieces are the kind that SI has on their forum all the time, so we must be kind of soft, actually. No, this month is on discourse and so we took the opportunity to smack SI as an example. I probably have one more coming on them before we move on.

    I think the L was a faux pax, not quite Tetreau-like.

  20. J (Not L) Gleason
    November 18, 2006 at 8:56 am

    “Did you google your name and get here? I quoted you above? I guess I did.”

    I followed a link from SI. No, you didn’t quote me by name, but I recognize my own stupid remarks when someone quotes them back to me.

    I understood your point. I actually believe in being consistent (in separation and other matters). Doesn’t mean I always succeed in that, but I try.

  21. November 19, 2006 at 9:39 am

    I noticed that Dave Barnhart started a thread on this article. You will notice, those reading, that we are doing a month on discourse. Most of what is on here are not these kinds of “hit” pieces. I don’t see anything in here that is offensive in tone. I was simply quoting back what other people said and did. It was accepted by the management. If it is offensive tone, then look at yourself in the mirror. I can find much more and probably worse if I put the time in and from the usual suspects. What I was showing, again, was the politics of SI. It isn’t the tone that really concerns them, even though they harp on it when they disagree with someone else. It has become a technique—“I don’t agree with you, so I don’t like your tone.” Dave, if you are reading, I don’t hold you responsible at SI.

    By the way, I don’t think I can be typed by Joel’s taxonomy. I could explain why, but I don’t care. I just want to be Scriptural. That does automatically make me a type A.

  22. Dave Barnhart
    November 19, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    I didn’t mean any offense by what I said about type-A, and if I caused any offense, please forgive me. It does seem to me that most of the major participants on this site would be closest to that designation, but I understand your point about not fitting exactly. I don’t fit exactly either, and like you, I’m just seeking to be scriptural, even though we would disagree on some points.

    I’ve been following this site since right as it began, and I didn’t know if many (or any) other SI participants knew of this site or the current discussions. Since I found it interesting, I put a pointer on SI. I would use a disclaimer when pointing Christians to SI as well, as I certainly don’t agree with everything said there either. In previous days, I wouldn’t have had to even use a disclaimer, but today they are a practical necessity.

  23. November 19, 2006 at 5:30 pm

    I don’t mind being a type A, but I don’t think his types really suffice to represent people. I think we are as little Hyles as anyone on SI. Anyone who knows me knows that. I’ve never been a Sword of the Lord type. I’m an expository preacher. We practice discipleship. We have two pastors and I don’t call the other one an assistant, just Pastor. Some might even call us Lordship salvation, and I don’t care. We are not easy-prayerism. However, yes, we believe in a presuppositional apologetic that leads to a belief in perfect preservation of Scripture. We are local church only. We believe the Bible teaches designed distinctions in dress, well, like everyone did for most of church history. We teach betrothal view of life’s partner. I got all of these from exegesis. I also believe they are historic theology.

  24. Anvil
    November 20, 2006 at 7:50 am

    I chose the moniker anvil for several reasons.

    First, I’m not in a position of spiritual authority over men, so I’m not the one usually doing the pounding. Besides my personality is one that would not really pound anyway, so I thought choosing one of the types of “hammer” as a representation would not be very accurate.

    Second, I expected to take some pounding on this site, especially if I start participating more, since I don’t hold all the same positions as men like Pastor Brandenburg and Pastor Mitchell. Indeed, I expected my first post to take a bit of pounding since I was defending SI, which is clearly not a popular thing to do here.

    Third, anvils can be moved, but they are not easily moved. An argument must be scriptural to persuade me, and it must also be convincing. If the proponent is espousing a position that is unusual, or is one that fundamentalists do not generally hold or have not traditionally held, it is held to an even higher standard of proof. If solid, fundamental men that I respect disagree, then I am extremely careful before changing my mind on that issue.

    Regarding the form of address, “respect for the office” was drilled into me during my upbringing. I call the youth/assistant pastor at our church “Pastor” as well, and he is 14 years younger than I am. If a man in a position of authority becomes very good friends with me and asks me to use his first name, I will do so. Using last name only is reserved for *very* good friends or those over whom I am in authority, otherwise I consider it disrespectful. And I certainly don’t need to use “Mr.” with men who are about the same age or younger. That leaves “Pastor” when speaking to pastors, at least until I am requested to be on a first name basis.

    I have been following this site for some time, so I am aware that beating up on SI is not all you do. I look forward to the rest of the month on discourse. Even though SI seems to have been the target of most of the entries, the article “Discourse: An Irony” had some thought-provoking material nevertheless.

  25. November 20, 2006 at 9:26 am

    So, Anvil, are you surprised that we aren’t pounding you?!

    But it was a good explanation! And welcome!

  26. October 9, 2007 at 6:35 am

    I agree with the Bible on love.

    1. Love is of God. 1Jo 4:7 ¶ Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

    2. How do we know that we love God’s children? 1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

    There is the answer. We KNOW that we love God’s children when we love God and keep his commandments. His commandments include “earnestly contend for the faith.” They include keeping all of the doctrines by preaching them and preserving, or defending them. John, the wrtiter of the aforementioned passages, was very loving and, in love, he strongly and severely rebuked error in 1,2, and 3 John, as well as Revelation.

    One more passage for your consideration. Php 1:9 ¶ And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;

    So, love is to be abounding in knowledge (the truth of the Word of God) and judgment (discernment, judging between right and wrong). So, it is loving to judge based on Biblical knowledge.

    So, what do you think about love?

  27. October 9, 2007 at 7:02 am

    Bobby, your last comment was a reply to a spam message that did not get blocked. I have since deleted it, but appreciated your response to the unknown “Russian” commentor, so I have left your comment, but thought there should be an explanation for it.

    The spammer asked, “What do you think about love?”

  28. Bobby Mitchell
    October 9, 2007 at 8:40 am

    Great, so I’m responding to a Russian Spambot.

    Next, I’ll have somone on knocking on my door and asking, “Do you now, or have you ever, had conversations with Russian Spambots?”

    I’m in trouble now.

    Well, at least the spambot has a Biblical statement on love to consider

  29. October 9, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    We can neither confirm nor deny.

  30. April 22, 2008 at 5:49 pm

    Well, I should have read this blog before trying to post at SharperIron.

    I proposed, what I knew would be a controversial subject concerning hermeneutics of typology. I stated up front that I knew it would be controversial, but that they had not seen what I was going to present and that I would like a discussion on the merits of the method rather than knee jerk reactions.

    Many posts were ridicule and accusations. Anyone with legitimate conversation usually approached me privately. One insinuated I was a pervert for talking about Tamar, another denied you could make shadows with your fingers that looked like bunnies. They did the account lock/guest thing on me. So I appealed to Jason. He reinstated my account, but the first posted that demonstrated the method after that I was immediately banned, and the threads removed. However I have copies of their nonsense.

    I have yet to have a rational conversation that I have been seeking for more than a year. Is there anyone here willing to put another set of eyes to a hermeneutic that finds double entendre? I know it is strange.

    I know we can’t prove intent, but we can show plausible meaning, and such a density of them that intent is hard to deny. But I need others to look at it without burning me at the stake.

    I expect you will come fully skeptical of the claim. I just ask that you reserve judgment until you understand it and that if you do discount it after, that you give me a reasoned argument for it.


    Bob Jones

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: