WHY I REFUSE BILL MORGAN'S INVITATIONS TO DENNY'S

by dwise1@aol.com

If you follow this matter between Bill Morgan and me to any extent, you will encounter the question of Bill Morgan's persistent insistence that the two of us meet in person, eg for dinner at Denny's, and my steadfast refusal to do so. I have posted this page to explain what that is all about and so I don't have to keep explaining it to Bill over and over again.

Here is the situation in a nutshell:
Bill Morgan keeps insisting that we meet in person, say for dinner at Denny's. For several reasons which I have given him and which I repeat below, I keep refusing such a meeting. On the other hand, Bill has never given any compelling reasons why we should meet, despite my requests that he do so. Bill seems to have taken my steadfast refusal personally and has made several false accusations against me regarding my refusal. Bill has refused to substantiate these accusations and has persistently blocked our attempts to resolve the situation he has created with those accusations. I have no idea where his accusations came from and he refuses to tell me.

Of course, I feel that I have been very honest and up-front with several very good reasons for refusing, which I have given to Bill freely and repeatedly and which I offer to you in the reproduced email in the main body of this page. I also feel that in the more than four years that this has been going on, Bill Morgan has yet to offer a single compelling reason for me to accept his invitation. Furthermore, I feel that Bill has been using his invitations dishonestly as a diversionary tactic to prevent discussion of and to avoid the real issues. Currently, the key issue that Bill is trying to block is the resolution of the acrimonious situation he has created with his false and unsubstantiated accusations against me.

NOTIFICATION TO BILL MORGAN:

Since one of the purposes of this page is to keep from having to repeat my explanations over and over again to Bill Morgan, it is appropriate to post a definitive statement here of the conditions that would have to be met before I could agree to join him at Denny's. Everyone else should feel quite free to read these conditions and to comment on them, though I would ask you to read the complete page before sending us your comments. That includes you, Bill M.

Bill Morgan, before I could possibly agree to meet with you at Denny's, the following conditions would have to be met. Based on my observations of and experiences with you during our correspodence, I deem these conditions to be necessary to ensure a successful meeting -- or at least to prevent a disasterous one. I may modify these conditions at any time in order to close up any loopholes that may become apparent.

  1. First and foremost, you would need to devise a totally reliable method of producing a complete and completely accurate written/printed transcript of everything that is said at that meeting with the speakers clearly identified. I.e., we need to be able to look back and see what was actually said and by whom and the record must be complete (ie, every single word spoken or even just muttered under one's breath) and completely accurate (ie, no mistakes).

    I would need to be convinced that the method offered will meet the specification. Bill Morgan will bear the entire expense of implementing the method. Examples of methods that cannot be accepted are: anybody's personal memories, anybody's personal notes, the notes of a minutes-taker, audio or video tape recordings. This condition is absolutely necessary and is not and cannot be subject to negotiation. Period.

  2. The matter of Bill Morgan's false accusations against me will need to have been completely resolved to my personal satisfaction before the meeting can occur. Bill Morgan's standard trick of absolving himself of responsibility by unilaterally declaring the matter resolved is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

  3. If it is Bill Morgan's intention to use the meeting to resolve the matter of his false accusations against me, then condition #2 could be waived if and only if Bill submits a complete and detailed plan for implementing the resolution at that meeting. That plan must include the details of the procedures by which each and every accusation I have listed will be examined, their bases researched and determined, their veracity (or lack thereof) determined, their disposition determined and recorded, and appropriate corrective actions determined, implemented, and duly recorded. That plan must be in accordance with the conditions laid down here and with the requirements for resolution that I will post shortly.

    In order to prevent Bill Morgan from acting arbitrarily and unilaterally, I will have sole authority in determining the acceptability of any plan submitted.

  4. We must agree beforehand what the purposes and goals of the meeting are to be. Then we must set an agenda that will ensure that the meeting meets those purposes and goals and establish guidelines for dealing with violations.

    In order to prevent Bill Morgan from acting arbitrarily and unilaterally to scuttle the proceedings, I will have sole authority in determining whether we have come to an agreement and specifically what that agreement is.

  5. Proper conduct must be maintained throughout the meeting. In particular, Bill Morgan must refrain from such conduct as (but not limited to):
    1. employing his "rabbit trail" tricks
    2. asking his "unaswerable" questions
    3. attempting to proselytize
    4. avoiding answering simple direct questions -- if he objects to a question, then he must explain why he objects to it and ready and willing to discuss and defend his objection
    5. obstructing in any manner our progress towards reaching the goals of the meeting

    The guiding principle here is that nothing may be allowed to interfere with the achievement of the purposes and goals of the meeting. The behavior listed above has been demonstrated repeatedly by Bill Morgan in our correspondence and I have every reason to believe that he will try to use it during a personal meeting.

Any violation of these conditions may result in the immediate termination of the meeting. Again, in order to prevent Bill Morgan from acting arbitrarily and unilaterally to scuttle the proceedings, I will have sole authority in determining whether a violation has occured and whether the meeting needs to be stopped. If Bill Morgan feels that a violation has taken place, then he must bring it to my attention and be ready and willing to substantiate his claim of a violation and to discuss it intelligently. Bill Morgan may not use this as a "rabbit trail" trick.

Bill Morgan, if you object to any of this conditions, then please state your objection clearly and give a cogent explanation of your objection. You must be willing and ready to discuss and to defend your objection and your explanation. Anything less will indicate to us that you are not sincere.

Here are some pertinent facts and points to keep in mind when examining this question:

Now, while Bill Morgan has not given any compelling reasons for a personal meeting, he has given a few weak ones that he is certain to try again:

Bill Morgan complains that he does not like to type and that he likes to talk.
This is just a matter of personal preference. Well, my personal preference is that I don't like to talk on the phone or go out of my way to meet someone in person unless I already know the person well enough to be completely at ease or we have some definite reason or purpose for meeting with which I am completely at ease. I do not know Bill Morgan that well. Besides, what I have been learning about him from his conduct during our correspondence has been making me increasingly uneasy about a personal meeting or any form of verbal communication between us. In particular, his demonstrated penchant for misconstruing everything I say makes me extremely uneasy about any communication between us for which there cannot be a complete and completely accurate record of everything that was said. Nor has an definite reason nor purpose ever been given for us to meet; as usually, Bill Morgan has been very evasive on this point as well.

As I have explained to Bill repeatedly, it would be very difficult for me to meet with him. However, it is very easy for us to email each other and he has already demonstrated the ability to send and receive email. Plus, email automatically generates a complete and completely accurate record with which to settle any disputes over what had actually been said. Therefore, email is quite obviously the better choice.

Bill Morgan needs to present compelling reasons for us to engage in a personal meeting or in verbal communication. Despite my requests since 1996 for him to present those compelling reasons, he has not yet done so.

Bill Morgan says that he wants to have good friendly conversation over good food.
Fine. If that is what he wants, then what's stopping him? I certainly am not. However, if he wants me to join him, then he will not get what he expects.

This isn't going to be any kind of joy-ride. We have some very serious business to take care of, so the conversation will also be very serious. The only reason I would have to meet with Bill would be to take care of this very serious business, so I would have to have secured beforehand his solemn promise to stick to that business. So if Bill tries to avoid that very serious business (as I am quite sure he will try to do), then I would be very displeased that he had broken his promise and the conversation will be anything but friendly.

Bill Morgan says that he wants us to go to Denny's so that he can show us that he "really [is] a great guy" and "a nice guy."
So what? I've always been sure that Bill is a real charmer, but that is not the issue nor has it ever been the issue. Rather, the matter that we need to settle and resolve revolves completely around the hard facts of what had actually been written. Bill's personableness has nothing to do with resolving the problems he has created, unless he intends on using it to dodge responsibility for his actions.

Besides, Bill's conduct in our correspondence has demonstrated that he is not "a nice guy."

Bill Morgan says that he wants us to go to Denny's so that we can "rebond our friendship."
What "friendship"? None ever existed between Bill and me. He would never let it. From the start, he was evasive and adversarial and mocking. His intent was always to attack and destroy my religious beliefs. Despite his professing friendship, Bill has never acted like a friend. A friend does not make false accusations against his friend and then refuse to support those accusations in any manner while obstructing all attempts by his friend to resolve the matter. A friend does not repeatedly take actions to make himself hated and despised, as Bill has done to me.

Bill's actions don't make any sense, unless his talk of friendship is insincere, meant only for show in order to mask his true feelings and intentions. I view his professing friendship for me the same as I would view a used-car salesman doing the same. That salesman doesn't really want to be my friend; all he wants to do is to worm his way into my confidence, have me lower my guard, so that he can sell me a piece of junk. But that salesman is better than Bill Morgan is. All that salesman wants to take from me is my money; Bill Morgan wants to steal my soul.

If Bill is really serious about establishing a friendship, he already knows what he needs to do, because I already told him what it would take:

"If you really want to establish a friendship, then you have to BE a friend. Stop being an adversary. Stop stereotyping me as one of your imaginary sparring partners. Stop evading my questions. Give up your "rabbit trails". Stop playing your idiotic games. You've already destroyed several times over any chance you could ever have of converting me, so stop with your proselytizing tricks. And stop evading discussion by insisting on Denny's. When the time is right, that can happen, but right now, with all the horrible things that you have done, the time is definitely not right. You are only making matters even worse by trying to force it.

"You have to rebuild all those bridges that you have burned, which has to start right here and right now. Before I could possibly trust you in person, I need to be able to trust you online. You can start by providing all the information we need to resolve the matter of your slanderous accusations against me. Provide that information freely and willingly. Honor all requests for clarification and more specific information promptly, freely, willingly, and honestly. Be willing and ready to discuss what we find. Promote the resolution process, do not hinder it.

"Oh, and Bill M, learn to LISTEN! And to READ WHAT IS WRITTEN! And to stop twisting and distorting everything that I say. There's a time and place for the imagination, but you really do need to learn to stick with reality when you are dealing with other people. Especially if you want them to be your friends.

"Show us here, online, consistently, that you can be a friend."
(email from DWise1@aol.com to billyjack1@hotmail.com, Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:20:56 EST)

Bill Morgan's response showed that he had no intention of forming an actual friendship. Therefore, his talk of friendship is nothing but a proselytizer's ruse. Do not be fooled by it.

The following text is two emails in which I have given and explained my reasons for refusing Bill Morgan's invitation. I am posting them here to establish for the record what those reasons are and to demonstrate that his claims about my reasons are totally and utterly false. I am also posting those reasons here so that I can refer Bill to them instead of having to include them in my email responses to him over and over again.

The first email is a reply I wrote to someone who asked me the question: "I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHY YOU TURNED DOWN THE DINNER ... " 

#########################################################
                     
Subj:	Re: BILL MORGAN 
Date:	24-Oct-00 11:33:03 Pacific Standard Time
From:	DWise1
To:	STEWEDPRUNE
CC:	DWise1

>>I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHY YOU TURNED DOWN THE DINNER WHY DONT YOU BRING UP
CARBON-DATING TO THIS BILL?<<

I believe that introductions are in order.  You seem to already know about
me, but I do not know how you know about me nor how much.  I also don't know
where you fit into this discussion nor what you have learned and how.  Please
enlighten me on these points so that I can give more meaningful responses.

Basically, what is happening is that Bill Morgan has accused me of having
written several offensive things and taken several very bigotted positions
which I have no knowledge of ever having done.  Bill has a long history of
ignoring what is going on around him, of misunderstanding what is written
(perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he doesn't actually read what
is written), and even of just making things up.  So on several occasions I
have had to re-present what was actually written and explain it to him very
carefully.  However, in order to clear up this mess, I need to know which
messages Bill had misunderstood/misconstrued.  Bill refuses to provide any
information that could help to identify those messages; eg, he accuses me of
having called him several "very nasty names", but will not tell us what any
of those names were.  At current count, I have requested that information 36
times.

Bill is blocking any and all progress in this matter.  By your screen name,
STEWEDPRUNE, am I to assume that you are here to get things moving again?



The complete transcript of my correspondence with Bill Morgan, from 1998 to
09 Sep 2000, is available at
http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript/transcript.html .  Bill had requested that
I provide a specific message (which did nothing to support his claims
anyway), so I went the extra mile and posted everything on a web page to
provide all participants with full and free access to that information.  Bill
is still trying to ignore that fact and to falsely claim that he doesn't have
that information.

Before the current exchange, which started in July 2000, I had also posted a
number of pages discussing my earlier exchange with Bill.  You will find them
starting at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/morgan/index.html .  My own
creation/evolution pages start at
http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/index.html .


BTW, it is my practice to keep a record of the emails that I send out.  In
order to accomplish that, I CC: them to myself.


>>I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHY YOU TURNED DOWN THE DINNER<<

For the reasons that I have already told Bill many times.  This goes back for
years, when he kept dodging my questions by insisting that I call him or meet
with him personally.  Because I am short on time, I will simply repeat it
here.  Then if you have more specific questions about it I can address those
questions personally:

1. My wife is very disapproving of any time I spend that is not family or
career-related.  She is especially disapproving of my spending any time on
something that is a complete waste of time.  She has had some extremely bad
experiences with Christian fundamentalists (particularly when her brother's
conversion and his sudden personality changes caused by that conversion
nearly tore her close-knit family apart).  From those experiences, she has
formed the opinion that it is a total waste of time to discuss certain things
with fundamentalists because they will simply refuse to listen.  Creation
science would be one of those topics and Bill's conduct has consistently
confirmed my wife's opinion.  

Being the focus of my wife's disapproval is not a pleasant experience.
Therefore, any contact with Bill would require that my wife not be aware of
it. 

2. A verbal discussion is very inefficient for communicating factual
information.  Email is much more efficient.  Also, I need to be able to refer
back to what had been said; very difficult to accomplish in verbal form, but
very easy in written form.  It turns out that this has become vitally
important, as I will discuss below. 

3. A phone conversation would require privacy.  I do not have private use of
a phone at work nor at home.  Therefore, a phone conversation would not be
feasible.

4. Dinner with Bill is out of the question.  I do not have the time and there
is no way that I could sneak it past my wife.

5. Going to a meeting is problematic.  Most of the time they take place on a
drill weekend (I am a reservist).  Most of the time that they do not, our
family has other plans.  On the few occasions where I could be free to go,
the topic is of no interest to me.  Plus, there is still the matter of my
wife finding out where I would rather go than be at home with the family.

6. My hearing is starting to deteriorate.  I have difficulty carrying on a
conversation with someone in a room where other conversations are going on or
there is other background noise, such as in a restaurant.  A phone
conversation is slightly better, but there again I would not hear everything.
However, I can read every single word of a written communique.  Therefore,
the written form is much preferable.

7. I am very shy about calling a stranger on the phone.  I am not a good
speaker and I do not think quickly on my feet.  I prefer to have time to
think about what has been said and about my response.  I also prefer to be
able to research a question rather than to just answer off the top of my
head.  I feel that that is much better for a discussion with high
informational content.  That cannot be accomplished in a verbal discussion,
but very readily accomplished in a written discussion.

8. I could go to some extreme lengths at considerable effort to meet with
Bill personally, but I would have to have a reason to exert all that effort.
Why should I?  I repeatedly asked Bill to give compelling reasons why I
should go to such lengths and effort.  He never gave me any compelling
reasons.  All he would say is that he didn't like typing and he prefered to
use the phone.  Well, I prefer to not use the phone.

9. I strongly suspect Bill's motives.  In a few of his messages, he made it
quite clear that his goal was to convert me.  A personal meeting would not be
conducive to a factual exchange, but it would be an ideal venue for
proselytizing.  I disapprove strongly of many fundamentalist proselytizing
methods.  My Christian training is fundamentalist so I am familiar with those
methods and I am familiar with what Bill would be trying to convert me to,
which is one good reason why I will not convert.  I am also very familiar
with the use of creation science in proselytizing.  I am fully immunized, so
his proselytization attempts will most certainly fail and prove to be a
complete waste of time.  For me to go to such lengths and exert such
considerable effort only to have Bill turn it into a complete waste would be
intolerable.  

10. Bill's conduct on-line has been extremely evasive.  He refuses to answer
most questions, no matter how reasonable they are.  His response is usually
to pull a trick that he calls "rabbit trails" [see Bill's article on his web
site, "Witnessing Tips #3" at
http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article34.htm].  He teaches his
proselytizers to not fall for that trick, yet it is SOP [standard operating
procedure] for him.  I would have at least some chance to try to keep him on
the straight-and-narrow in a written format, but a verbal format would give
Bill much too much room to cut "rabbit trails" all over the place, thus
preventing any substantive discussion.  Again, a complete waste.

11. A verbal meeting would allow Bill to use rhetorical tricks that would not
work well in print.  One example would be the "Gish Gallop", named after its
most famous practioner.  In the Gish Gallop, the creationist rapidly runs
through a sizable number of claims in an effort to overwhelm the opponent (an
important intermediate goal in proselytizing).  It is particularly effective
in a debate format, where the opponent could not possibly respond to all the
gallop's questions within the time alloted.  For example, assume a gallop
which poses ten questions in one minute, not an unreasonable rate.  Assume
that each question would require ten minutes each to be answered (somewhat
too short a time in most cases), so the opponent would need at least 100
minutes just to respond to the gallop; that's not counting his presentation
itself.  The debate format only allows him ten minutes.  An often-used
side-effect of the Gish Gallop is that it doesn't give the audience enough
time to absorb any of the points or to think
about them (a criticism reported about Hovind presentations); all they walk
away with is the impression that there's a lot of evidence, but they couldn't
tell you anything about it except that it sure was impressive.  Tricks like
the Gish Gallop are easy to pull off in a verbal format, but it is a lot
harder to get away with them in a written format.

12. A personal meeting between Bill and myself would require mutual respect
and trust.  After the frustrating experience of trying to deal with Bill and
Bill's tricks, I find that I cannot trust him.  The problem of trust is
worsened by my knowledge of Bill's goal, which is proselytizing, and a number
of the tricks he might employ, so that anything and everything he says and
does becomes suspect.  Furthermore, while I may be able to maintain my
respect of his beliefs, his proselytizing would negate his respect for mine,
so there could be no mutual respect.  With no trust and no mutual respect,
nothing productive could come of that meeting.  Quite the opposite.

13. Then the final reason why Bill has made a verbal discussion between us an
complete impossibility.  Here is what I wrote to Bill in 23 Aug 2000:

"During this past month, we have watched you repeatedly distort and
misinterpret what I have written.  And each time your misunderstanding has
gotten more and more bizaare.  In an earlier sub-culture, we'd be asking for
your pipe in order to find out what you've been smoking.  I'm starting to
have some very serious doubts about your grasp on reality.

"In light of these events, I have to think about how I am going to protect
myself.  When you misrepresented my statements in the last newsletter, the
only protection I had was the transcript of our messages which contains the
actual text that we had written.  Even then, it took about a half-dozen times
of telling you that you had misrepresented my words and showing what the
actual words were and explaining them to you very carefully before you would
accept that you had gotten it wrong, that you had misunderstood.  But then it
took about a half-dozen messages asking you what your corrective action would
be before I could even get you to commit to correcting your mistake.  And
then only after reminding you that failure to do so would constitute lying to
your readership.

"Right now we have a situation where you are making a lot of accusations
about what you claim that I have said and you are refusing to substantiate
those accusations in any way.  And you are refusing to let us even try to
clear up this mess by refering to the text of what was actually written.

"OK, Bill, that is how out of control you can be when the hard facts are
available to correct your misstatements.  What would happen if there were no
transcript?  If there were no way to show you conclusively what had really
been said?  You would be totally out of control and making the most
outrageous accusations!  And I would have no way to defend myself from the
falsehoods that you would spew!

"Bill, in order to protect myself, I must have a complete and accurate
transcript of everything that either of us says.  Not somebody's
recollection.  Not what somebody thinks that they heard.  Not a tape
recording (which can be garbled; ambient sounds could drown out words and
some words would have been mumbled, besides which the speaker is not always
identifiable).  But a complete and completely accurate transcript of every
single word that everybody had said, with each speaker clearly identified.
Anything less is totally unacceptable.

"I know of no totally reliable and affordable (YOU'd have to pay for it,
Bill, not me) system for accomplishing that for verbal communication.
Written communication automatically generates the requisite transcript.  

"Bill, your own behavior has made any kind of verbal discussion between us a
complete impossibility."

[clipped response to the carbon-dating question]
                     
#########################################################

Bill Morgan (AKA "Bill M") started including his friend, Bill Bequette (AKA "Bill B"), in our email exchange. Bill B has taken Bill M's side on the Denny's question, so I sent him the following email. In other emails, I have repeatedly offered the same explaination to both Bills. So they have been informed; they just refuse to listen. 

#########################################################

Subj:	Re: Saturnalia Gift Idea for the Two Bills
Date:	12/13/2000 17:56:08 Pacific Standard Time
From:	DWise1
To:	billbeq@mediaone.net
CC:	billyjack1@hotmail.com, DWise1
CC:	editor@liberator.net

Bill B, we are meeting right here.  We can very easily conclude and resolve
this mess that Bill M has created right here online.  Indeed, it is the ideal
place and venue to arrive at a resolution, because all the factual
information can be researched and presented much more clearly and
understandably AND UNDERSTOOD much better here on-line than would ever be
possible at a restaurant or any other verbal exchange.  Plus, a complete and
accurate record of the proceedings would automatically be generated so that
refreshing our memories of what was said, when, and by whom would be very
easy and error-free.  In a verbal exchange, such as in a restaurant, faulty
memory of what was said would only result in further dispute which would bog
down or derail the proceedings.

Another very pertinent problem is Bill M's penchant for not listening, for
twisting and distorting what had been said (demonstrated most recently by his
falsely accusing me of a "hate crime"), and for inventing events that never
happened.  The only way to deal with that is to have a complete and accurate
record of everything that had actually been said.  Without such a record,
Bill M would have free rein to make any wild accusation he would want to and
we would have no way to counter those wild accusations and to impose the
facts on him.
 
That is why I must insist on a complete and accurate record of EVERYTHING
that is said.  It is an absolute necessity when dealing with Bill M.  There
can be no compromise on this point.  And until such a record can be generated
with absolutely reliability from a verbal exchange, a personal meeting is
completely out of the question.  Or until Bill M can consistently demonstrate
for an extended period of time and extended number of exchanges that he has
completely reformed himself.


Frankly, I cannot understand why you guys are so fixated on a personal
meeting.  The ability to exchange factual information clearly is far more
superior online than in a restaurant.  Trying to resolve this matter, with
the need for exchanging and examining exact wording and for conducting
on-the-spot researching (eg, search the record for a specific message), would
actually be greatly impaired in a restaurant.  Meeting in a restaurant for
purposes of examining the evidence in order to arrive at a resolution would
be counter-productive.  It doesn't make any sense.

Of course, I have long suspected that Bill Morgan does not want this matter
to be resolved and that his insistence on meeting in a restaurant is nothing
but a diversionary tactic to prevent a resolution.  If Bill Morgan truly
wanted to have this matter resolved, he would immediately join in the online
proceedings.  As you will observe, he does not.

>>... you will find him to be a likeable fellow ...<<
I have never doubted that and I have noticed that Bill M obviously has an
extremely high regard for his own personal charm.  So what?  What does that
have to do with anything?  Being likable does not prevent one from doing
terrible things!  This matter centers around that facts, not on a popularity
contest.  Whether Bill M is likeable has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

You want to be able to get together to eat and enjoy some companionship?
Fine, do it.  Nobody's stopping you.  Just don't include me in your social
events.  I'm not starved for company like you guys appear to be.  I have more
than enough of social life to deal with.  And good food is easily had.  

I simply do not see how meeting personally with Bill Morgan can have any
beneficial consequences.  Quite the contrary.  It would be so difficult for
me to break free to make such a meeting with him and his conduct online has
made it abundantly clear that Bill M would make that meeting unpleasant and a
total waste of time and effort.  I get enough of his manipulative abuse
online; I don't need to go through a lot of extra effort and trouble just so
he can jerk me around in person too.  It just isn't worth it.

################################################

I hope that this explains what this question is about and that it will short-circuit Bill Morgan's attempts use this "issue" to divert attention from the real issues. If you still have questions or just want to make comments, feel free to email me at the address given at the bottom of this page.

Share and enjoy!

Return to Top of Page
Return to DWise1's "Bill Morgan's Accusations Against Me" Page
Return to DWise1's "Bill Morgan" Page
Return to DWise1's "Creation/Evolution" Page

Uploaded on 2001 January 10.
Updated on 2015 November 06.

Contact me.