It's a slow week. Sorry.

Because Phil Perkins is claiming I "don't want to debate", and there's no sense posting to his meta as he will pick and choose what he will allow to show up there, here's all the e-mails he and I have traded on this subject since he emerged from silence. The point, for those who need a point here and can't receive this in the humorous light it comes wrapped in, is to avoid any misunderstandings regarding what Phil & I have discussed so far -- becuase I think Phil has misunderstood it pretty significantly, and it would behoove his wifre, his elders, or his parole officer to talk to him about his interpretation of the facts.

---

---

Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:40 PM
FROM: Phil Perkins
To: Frank Turk
Cc: Jim Largent


Frank, How are you? Sorry for the delay. Very busy. We ought to get that debate going. I accept your terms last stated. My thesis is three-part. 1. Frank Turk was wrong to defend so-called gender neutral translations. 2. Frank Turk knew better when he did so. 3. Frank Turk's deception about the issue was probably because he and others don't wish to practice the doctrine of biblical separation as given in the New Testament. I might tweak that a bit, but that's pretty much the sense. We ought to get started next week or the week following. I think it ought to be open ended, ending only when one fails to respond. Once that happens the last to write gets one more response. I'll post soon. Sincerely, Phil Perkins.

---

Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:02 PM
FROM: Frank Turk
To: Phil Perkins
Cc: Frank Turk , Jim Largent


Pick one thesis. Three is too many.


Sent from my iPod

---

Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:53 PM
FROM: Frank Turk
To: Phil Perkins
Cc: Jim Largent


Also, open-ended is not a debate: it's a feud. I have no intention of spending the rest of my life responding to you in order to prevent you from having the last word so that you can't declare yourself the victor.


My offer to you was to have an exchange in D-blog format up to 10 questions -- even if you sent up your own blog and got your own moderator to referee. You can even have the opening statement and the last word.


One thesis, 10 questions each, 10 answers each. Word limits to answers and questions. That's a debate rather than mere bickering.


-- Grace and Peace to you,


~Frank

---

Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:24 AM
FROM: Phil Perkins
To: Frank Turk


Frank, Okay, here's my thesis: Frank Turk wrongly defended the practice of so-called gender-neutral translation while knowing better, probably becaue he doens't want to practice biblical holiness. The offer you mentioned wasn't your last one. I can produce quotes. Again if you want out, just be honest and say that. I'll announce that if it's the case. It's been a long time. Phil Perkins.

---

Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:56 AM
FROM: Frank Turk
To: Phil Perkins


Jim:


No open-ended exchanges. Q&A format, word limits -- you can choose the # of questions and the word limits. That's how I always engage with people, and for you to ask for an open-ended exchange demonstrates only two things: [1] you think having the last word makes you right, and [2] you think wanting structure in the exchange is cowardice. My opinion is that you can have the first and last word, and the reader can decide from a structured exchange that follows a clear method of give and take who has the better grasp of the facts and the stronger conclusion.


As for any "announcements" you want to make, publish this e-mail chain as the substance of what we're talking about. Of all the people on the internet today, Phil, who are even semi-reputable, you have picked the one person who is well known for taking all comers in structured debate.


I welcome debating your factually-challenged thesis with your choice of moderator and your choice of debate forum; I will publish every word of the exchange at my Debate Blog so someone other than your wife and your parole officer will read it. You deserve every minute of your grab for attention, and I plan on giving it to you when we have resolved these preliminaries.


Not if: when. It's not any kind of debate if there's no structure for the readers to follow.