Re: DISCUSSION/Douglas Stambler

[Bill London <london@moscow.com>]

I agree that there is no reason to engage in a debate with Stambler.
And I am really sorry that Doug Wilson (like our police chief, judge,
and former prosecutor in posts over the last few years) had to read and
endure written attacks that sure seem libelous, as well as mean-spirited,
on the V2020 list.
BL

Douglas wrote:

 Dear visionaries,

As you know, I believe that discussion of a vision for our community should contain debate about foundational issues. Some, as evidenced by Mike Curley's last post, find it unfair to have to delete so much, while others think that the debate (within boundaries that we work out) should continue. I am in that number, and do think our exchanges have had a modest fruitfulness -- even apart from convincing anyone. Equally obvious, I hope, is my belief that vigorous exchanges need not be uncivilized.

There are different ways to disrupt this, and Douglas Stambler's recent flame-throwing activities would be an example of one. In our community, we have had dealings with Mr. Stambler before this recent outburst, and the point here is simply to say that his various claims are not the issue at all. As we have seen before this, and as has been evident on this forum, Douglas Stambler clearly has serious personal problems. I want to encourage everyone to simply ignore his posts, and not engage him about anything. To do anything else will simply encourage him to continue in behavior that is obviously not helping him at all.

I am an apologist for the Christian faith, as well as a controversialist, when I believe the circumstances warrant. But I am also a pastor, and it is evident to me that Douglas Stambler desperately needs wise pastoral care and counsel. He is unlikely to seek it, but in the meantime, he ought not to be debated at all. I hope that many of you can look past our standing disagreements to agree with me in at least this.

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson