You may recall that yesterday I noted the kind words of one Doug C. from Houston:
Second, Tim Staples told me that White got his clocked cleaned by a friend of his in a debate on Peter being the rock. After the debate, White admitted that he had to uphold his anticatholic position or he has no ministry.
White is a master spin doctor and a very prideful man. A very good friend of mine (she’s excatholic) was actually friends with him. She attended one of his debates in California and she approached him a few days later, asking why he was so arrogant and rude during the debate, and why he kept changing the subject. He told her not to speak to him again.
Now, these are not kind words (let alone that they are unfounded rumor and simply dishonest). So I invited Doug C. to call in on The Dividing Line to substantiate his rumor-mongering. Well, just a little while ago, johnMark, who seems to spend a large portion of his life surfing the net for interesting things, pointed me to a letter from Doug C. to myself. I don’t know about anyone else, but if I didn’t see the name attached to the following letter, I would have a hard time thinking the same person wrote it. What a difference having your obviously unguarded words posted on a well-read blog makes!
Hello Mr. White,
I would have posted this on your board, but I was banned from there a couple of years ago. Being that you or someone in contact with you browses this site, I will address this here. I’m sure if one post of mine buried in a three page thread can be called to your attention, this will also be called to your attention.
It was pointed out to me today that you addressed me on your website, challenging me to call your radio show. I received this information too late to call for your Tuesday show, and my work schedule will not allow me to call on Thusrday.
I’m wondering about something. If my post on this board was brought to your attention, why couldn’t you have responded to me here? You could have pm’d me or responded on the thread. Why would you assume I would be reading your posts on your site? I haven’t been to your site in over a year, and I would have never known of your challenge had someone here not pointed it out to me. If you notice, there are no more posts from me on that thread. I posted once on the thread here and left it at that.
Had it not been pointed out to me today, I would have never known of your challenge. Were you planning a quick way to dismiss me as a hit and run attacker, knowing that I probably would not see that post on your site? Why would you assume that I would read your website?
My apologies for not calling your show. I would however like to converse with you publicly. We can discuss what you have addressed, and also would you consider a conversation on John 6? My time restraints (mainly job) are going to limit me to conversation on the internet. I know you’ve done this in the past, and I’m hoping you will accept my invitation to do so, since you want to address this publicly.
I would be willing to debate you on John 6 on your board, or here (with Steve Ray’s appoval), or elsewhere. My only request would be that you and I would be the only ones able to respond to each other’s posts.
Again my apologies for not being able to call your show. I would however like to publically discuss this with you, along with John 6 if its okay with you.
You are welcome to post this on your site if you wish, under the condition that this entire letter is posted with no partial quoting.
Well, Doug, I appreciate your response, but I must confess, I am a bit confused. Let me break this down a bit.
1) We don’t have a “board,” so you haven’t been banned from it. I don’t know what you are referring to. Perhaps you mean our chat channel?
2) We do the Dividing Line twice weekly. If you can’t call in Thursday evening, there’s always next Tuesday morning.
3) I do not post on web boards, especially Roman Catholic ones, and especially the one you are on. I’m sorry, but when you see the regular posting of lies going unchallenged, you don’t get the feeling that you would have half a chance to do anything of any positive nature. I am a very busy person, with a hectic travel and debate schedule, a tremendous number of speaking engagements to prepare for, articles to write, books to work on, and teaching to do, aside from the normal duties of an elder, a husband, and a father. Further, I do not any longer recall my log in on the board you have written on, so I would not know how to use any of its features to contact you.
4) You posted falsehoods about me. I assumed you were familiar with my blog (then again, given that what you posted was nothing but a flame, I don’t know why I assumed that—you went on rumors before, so it would actually be more logical that you were going on rumors now as well). In any case, it was obvious a number of folks on the board you had posted on were in fact reading my blog, so I figured you’d find out about my challenge one way or the other.
5) I am uncertain what kind of contribution could be made to the exegesis of John 6—but you didn’t mention John 6 in what you wrote. Why would you want to discuss the passage with someone who is evidently dishonest (your first allegation), and is “a master spin doctor and a very prideful man”?
Now, Doug, why is it that your letter to me today is of a complete different character than the post to which I was responding? Why do you all of a sudden want to discuss John 6, even debate it, when your original posting was nothing but dirt? Would Tim Staples, for example, verify that he told you I got my “clock cleaned” in a debate on Peter being the rock? The only debate I can think of that would fit your description was the Boston College debate against Sungenis and Butler, and if you think I got my clock cleaned in that debate, can you tell me why during the intermission Father Tacelli was standing in the hallway very forcefully telling Sungenis that Butler could not handle “that kind of information,” and why, toward the end of the debate, Mr. Butler is seen to be red-faced, literally spitting as he yelled toward myself and Mr. Zins? Have you ever even watched the debate? Next, was it Tim Staples who told you, “White admitted that he had to uphold his anticatholic position or he has no ministry”? Such is such an utterly absurd statement it is beneath contempt, to be honest, but I sure would like to know who lied to you. Was it Mr. Staples, or someone else? If I contacted him at Catholic Answers, what would he tell me?
Next, Doug, who is this “friend” to which you refer? How can I contact this person? How could a person approach me days after a debate in Southern California when I live in Phoenix? No one has ever come up to me days after a debate in Southern California to ask me what you related. Never. It just didn’t happen. So, how about a name? Something we can look at? I’m sure you can back up what you said, right? If you’d like you can provide this information…by calling 877-753-3341 next Tuesday. 🙂