March 12, 2011

Chris Rosebrough disses James White and Robert Sungenis (3-13-11 FURTHER UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION)

(note as of 2-24-2015: I am no longer a Pirate Christian supporter.  On 9-2013 there was an update on the Ingrid/ChrisR situation - please go here:  Ingrid and Chris had reconciled.  This was a good thing.  We were all friends again.)

 Further update here:
I am no longer a Pirate Christian supporter.  Too much hypocrisy, too many double standards, too many false accusations. I apologize for all the confusion.  I pray it won't happen again.)

UPDATE 3-12-11  I was recently informed that Chris says he was mortified over all this:
Chris Rosebrough ​@Julia - I'll let you in on a secret. I didn't want Ingrid to take her blog down. I wish she hadn't. What I really want her to do is own up, repent and be forgiven. Not too long ago I made an off the cuff remark that sounded like I was dissing Dr. James White. I didn't intend the comment as a dis. When it was brought to my attention I was mortified. I immediately contacted Dr. White and apologized and I apologized publicly on my radio program. That's what Ingrid really needs to be doing rather than trying to justify her irresponsible mishandling of that photo.
Now I don't know about you, but if you read through his emails below, that sounds nothing like 'mortified.'  It sounds like 'embarrassed and resentful that anyone dared point out his mistake and make the only reasonable inference from it.'

My interpretation was completely correct, including the context that Chris's ability to analyze an argument these days seems to be slipping dramatically.  Many would say it was only passing fair to begin with.  Couple that with the fact that the podcast here in question was in front of an audience that is typically hostile to the sort of teachers James White represents, and Chris's coddling of such emergent compromisers, I simply could not come to any other conclusion than that Chris had decided to toss them a bone in the form of slighting or dissing James White's approach.

[ADDED CORRECTION-CONCESSION 3-13-11] After some discussion with Jason about this idea, I admit that the next paragraph is not fair. Jason is correct in saying so.  For that I apologize. I say it is not fair, because I only started saying anything about its point to my husband the other day.  It is a point that he also hadn't thought of it as something that ought to be done.  I don't remember when I started thinking about it vs actually verbalizing it, so considering Jason hadn't, and I hadn't until recently, it is unfair for me to expect that Chris would have done it either, before anyone else did.  However you can be sure that as soon as I did think of it, I would try to do something about it. I am sorry for the inference that could be made from it that I expected it to have been done already.  I do not expect that.  I confuse the issue by not stating so plainly in the original paragraph.  Let it be just a statement that I think it would be important to do this thing that the paragraph is about.

Here is the next paragraph in its original form, and the rest of the post:]

I still have to wonder if he contacted Something Beautiful and asked them to add a clarification TO that podcast, or did he just try and smooth it over with White and let his incorrect statement stand alone where it was originally made?  If I was trying to impress emergents, that's what I would do, but if I was interested in the truth, I would contact Travis Mamone and ask him to add a clarification to the podcast page here.  I am sure the people who listen to Travis are happy to continue thinking Chris doesn't care for James White's "disrespectful" approach to the defense of Scripture.  Since Chris hasn't trumpeted the idea that he tried to correct the record with Travis and get Travis to post a notice there, and since no notice appears there as of this writing, I have no choice but to assume he did not.

And as far as demanding Ingrid should be doing the same, well again I am reminded of that very clever statement someone made to me not so long ago, "If your opponent disagrees with you, then maybe, just maybe, you haven't made a compelling enough case."  Again, just can't remember who said it.

But for me, someone who cannot communicate passingly clearly and, as a result, continually blames others for 'misunderstanding him' should probably not be in discernment ministry, nor endeavoring to teach other Christian people on a podcast on the internet, but should rather consider moving to South America and taking up a career picking bananas.

(now if you think that is unkind, then take it up with Chris, because that is where it came from)

[UPDATE (as of 12-21-2010) at the end of this post]

original post: 12/18/10 11:46 PM
Now I know he's losing his mind.

Chris recently appeared on the "something beautiful" podcast, in which he was asked about his debate with Doug Pagitt on hell in October.

At 28:37 into the podcast He says:
"Doug and I attended the debate the night before ours and that was on the doctrine of purgatory and we didn't particularly feel that the tone of that debate style was very redeeming and so we tried to find a way to make our debate more of a respectful conversation between two people who have very differing views rather than two guys pretending to be attorneys who have never been to law school trying to out-attorney each other because that just would have been an abomination. So. I think we pulled it off, I think we succeeded."
I will repeat, Chris Rosebrough needs an intervention. Paging Dr Rosenbladt! Seriously, if anyone can get in contact with him, maybe Rosenbladt can rein in this loose cannon on the sinking pirate ship.

He also references the Dan Kimball fiasco, somewhat backtracking without apology, saying basically what his critics have been saying all along (that there isn't enough information out there to separate Dan from his former associations, and that misunderstanding is DAN's OWN FAULT, if indeed he is orthodox), and for which his critics got flamed BY him.

It sounds as if the irrational philosophers he has been reading for research have been influencing his thinking more than he cares to admit. But he's feeling liberated by all this, so.... bully for him.

Most of the rest of the Something Beautiful podcast was really saying nothing much of anything... and therefore sounding more and more emergent. Something stinks in denmark, and Chris has no desire to be corrected by those whose input he has in the past actually said he 'values.' So again I ask, how is that going to work for him when he creates his little 'pact' with whoever for better blogging integrity in the Christian discernment camps?

A friend of mine Charles T on Facebook just posted this to me which I thought made a great point:
Listening now; it's now "the emerging conversation" he's come to understand. Used the phrase about four times in thirty seconds. So Chris is truly on board emotionally; these folk seem to connect with him. They get it; and now too, does Chris. Just because they might have written and disseminated falsehood, but that doesn't tell who they "really" are. You can't know people's Christian beliefs merely from what they write. Got to go and meet them and befriend them and see where their hearts are really at.

Which brings me back to a question nagging the back of my mind: Why did Peter not bring Simon the Sorcerer down to Jerusalem to meet the Council, so they get a feel for what was on his heart?

Why, O why O Why, can't everybody discern in their discernment?

It's a new level; discerning not just other discerners, but also discerning whether there is true discernment in their discerning.

Well, as for "Ingrid's Lies"; Chris' experiencing the emerging conversation for himself, he discerned you can't go simply by what people say or write. That's just words, you just have to get to know their hearts. So not very discerning on Chris' part to "discern" Ingrid's disagreements with him as "lies". So Chris, follow your own rules, and no more Cross Talk about Ingrid.
The only problem is, ceasing to 'cross talk' about Ingrid is insufficient. Chris needs to repent. His problem is far deeper than just a misstatement about Ingrid.

[UPDATE as of 12-21-2010]

So, here is the correction he issued on his show. Beginning at about 5:30 he began to address the subject. At 6:20 he says:
And as a result of that when you take an affirmative position or a negative position on a particular topic there's always going to be people who disagree with you. And then sometimes there's controversy that's caused as a result of me not quite explaining what I mean and sometimes people taking part know, taking what I said and um well um... not exactly ... um... well, not properly interpreting what I said. And because I left, you know, enough room in the interpretation that you can drive a Mack truck through it. Case in point, if I could, recently, in fact over the weekend uh, one gal wrote a blog post and she was responding to something I said in an interview that I did on the Something Beautiful Podcast. And I appeared on the Something Beautiful Podcast, and the interview itself was recorded probably three four weeks ago. And so it was uh recorded during Kimballgate, even though it was just recently released. And something I said in my interview with uh Mamone, Travis Mamone, got misinterpreted by somebody and I wanted to clear the air so that people don't think the wrong things."
He then reads the title of my post, and explains the background to the quote I took issue with, then reads the quote as I have it above, and continues:
"Now I think in grammar they talk about dangling participles, you know, and you gotta make sure that you don't have any dangling participles because otherwise you create some vagaries in your communication. Unfortunately I created some vagaries in my communication here, and this one person, well, took what I said in completely the wrong way in which I intended it to be understood. And I was not dissing James White. In fact, hang on a second here, I sent off an email this morning to the person who runs the blog in order to clear up things (ahem), because I thought it was important to set the record straight. You know, For one thing I have the deepest respect for James White and his ministry. Anyway here's what I said, I said "the comment that I made on the Something Beautiful podcast was not a diss against James White...
and he reads through that email from above, until the point where he says "This is what I was referring to in the podcast interview. "

OK, Let's just look at that email in context. Context is important.

Chris contacted me yesterday about this. Now, lest I be misinterpreting anything, I'm going to try to let his own words on this subject speak for themselves. I'm sure he will understand even though I have not asked if I may duplicate his email here. He has had enough run-ins with the infamous Richard Abanes claiming his posts are copyrighted to know that won't fly. And I am convinced it is safer to take public any discussions with public figures that I don't trust, or don't trust me, for accountability on all sides. Especially when i have already repeatedly tried to in a more private forum tried to talk to that person, I think that is understandable. At this point I don't trust the other party and I don't even trust myself enough to do otherwise. My judgement is called into question about what people say so often, and yet if i were to actually share word for word what it is that I received or heard, I would be 'gossipping.' So I am caught between a rock and a hard place. I am choosing the public route to deal with this at the admitted risk of causing further offense.
From:Chris Rosebrough
Date: December 20, 2010 9:00:59 AM CST
To: Paula Coyle
Cc: Jason Coyle
Subject: Dissing James White?


I was recently alerted to a recent blog post that you wrote claiming that I had dissed Dr. James White during my interview on the Something Beautiful Podcast.
[ASIDE: Yes, I wonder if This and this are the alerts to which he is referring. Somehow I don't think so, but whatever. Ok. END ASIDE]
The conclusion that you drew, that I was dissing James White couldn't be farther from the truth. I have the deepest respect for Dr. White and his ministry and would never knowingly impugn him nor his ministry.

The comment I made on the Something Beautiful Podcast was not a dis against James White. If you'd have heard the purgatory debate, then you'd know that the tone of debate was set by Robert Sungenis and that Bob's cross examinations were particularly tedious in their delivery and content. Dr. White did a fantastic job of answering Robert's questions and solidly refuting Robert's arguments. But over and again Sungenis kept belaboring that same tired point that he was trying (and failing) to make from one and only one passage passage of scripture. As a result the debate dragged at times and felt like a really poorly acted courtroom drama as Sungenis asked the same question a 100 different nuanced ways in an effort to try to make the Biblical text say something that it just doesn't say. Even Dr. White appeared and sounded frustrated by Sungenis' tactic. This is what I was referring to in the podcast interview.

The outlandish conclusion that you drew from my comment is the opposite of the truth and for you to publicly make it appear that I had taken a swipe at Dr. White is irresponsible and at best and libelous at worst. Now that you know the truth, you have a responsibility to retract your statements and set the record straight.

Paula, I don't understand why you have felt it necessary to go to war with me. But, I want you to know that I am not at war with you.

It is obvious that you believe that I am doing something wrong and that I need to repent. Fact is, If I am am doing something wrong then I will repent. But, as a Christian sister you have obligation to Christ and to the body of Christ to correct me in love.

Since Kimballgate, I have watched a sister and a friend betray slander and assault me, my character and my credibility with barely any effort to communicate, listen and properly understand my position. As a result, what has been lost in the rhetoric of your personal 'war' is even a basic understanding of the issues and a failure to recognize the common ground and the faith that we still share. Sadly, in your war against me you have made some egregious misstatements, have been undiscerning in your discernment and have drawn conclusions that are not only factually incorrect but ones that are 180 degrees opposite of the truth. What you've done has caused me deep pain and sorrow and I am at a loss to figure out how to remedy this situation AND I am convinced by your actions that you probably feel the same way about me as I do about you.

I would love to speak with you over the phone or even over skype. Not because I want to argue with you (that's the last thing I want to do) but because I truly believe that if we could talk then we could come to an understanding and you would see that your war is not necessary. I don't want to be at odds with you because I know that we're not truly at odds. Somehow in the heat of the battle we've talked past each other rather than to each other.

Is there a way that we could have peace talks? I truly miss my friend and sister.

Your Brother in Christ,

Chris Rosebrough
I'm not quite sure how the word 'misinterpret' keeps getting thrown around, but ok. I wanted everything to be in context. Chris is big on context. And so am I. (of course I might be accused of breaking the 8th commandment about myself there, depending who you talk to). I have not responded yet, not privately. I have been consulting with 8 others on what is going on, throughout this whole situation. And there are plenty of others who share my concerns besides those 8 that are (or at least were, in my estimation) closer discernment blogger friends with Chris.

More context: Shortly after this I received another one:
Chris Rosebrough
Date: December 20, 2010 12:00:29 PM CST
To: Paula Coyle
Cc: Jason Coyle
Subject: Gossip


Not only have your misrepresented me, now you've crossed the line into malicious gossip. On your Facebook page you acknowledge the fact you received my email but you just brushed it aside and continued with your misrepresentation without even posting my explanation so that people can decide for themselves. This behavior on your part is flagrant breaking of the 8th commandment Paula. Repent Paula. Your behavior is beyond wrong. But even now I will forgive you for your lies and gossip.
Now here I might insert that offering forgiveness and absolution to people who don't believe they've done anything wrong is spitting into the wind. And here it seems reasonable to me to infer that Chris wants his emails posted in context.
Prov. 16:28 A perverse man stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates close friends.

Prov. 18:8 The words of a gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to a man’s inmost parts.

Prov. 20:19 A gossip betrays a confidence; so avoid a man who talks too much.

Prov. 26:20 Without wood a fire goes out; without gossip a quarrel dies down.

Rom. 1:29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,

2Cor. 12:20 For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder.

1Tim. 5:13 Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to.


Chris Rosebrough
Back to Chris's correction of the record on the show:
"This is what I was referring to in the podcast interview. "
He then adds: "
with Travis Mamone on Something Beautiful. I was not dissing Bob Sungenis.
Now, it seems from the context here that he really MEANT to say James White here, since he already spent a bunch of time in his correction of the record re-dissing Bob Sungenis. See, I CAN put the best construction on things. Sometimes. However I cannot be sure that's what he means anymore because definitions like "diss" and "slander" and "lie" and "discern" and "fallacy" and "accountability" seem to have differing definitions from one moment to the next these days with Chris, depending on whether he is on the giving or receiving end.
And in fact, you know, let me take another crack at this also. The part where I said that we didn't want to make it appear like two guys who had never been to... be attorneys who had been to law school trying to out attorney each other.
Yup that actually was supposed to be MORE clear.
That's specifically about the fact that neither Doug and I are really debaters. He is an emergent pastor and a radio personality. I'm a radio guy, and I, reality is I'm not much of a debater. And neither is Doug. And so we didn't want...we saw what they did and we saw the tone that Robert Sungenis took, and we knew that if..first of all that's not us, secondly we're not, neither of us are trained to argue and debate in that manner
But.. that IS the manner of "debate." Otherwise Ergun Caner is at least half right about how many people he's debated. Oh, I forgot. Definitions are flexible. I will agree, Chris is not a debater. Especially not lately. And why would anyone want to agree with Doug Pagitt about what format is effective for getting theological ideas across? How has that worked out for Doug and his listeners? Why give Doug more cover for hiding his incompetent hermeneutic? Is that what we call being 'nice' and 'reaching out' to these poor bruised reeds and proving to them that we are nice guys? "No really, we are! See, watch me let you take advantage of me and watch me follow your literary method of prattling and rambling all over the field in order to obscure the truth to prove it!" Chris apparently is unaware of WHY people came up with debate rules. It sounds lke he'd rather play Emergent baseball-football-basketball-golf-soccer-cricket-polo.

[added 3-8-11 My husband and I were thinking through this post of mine recently when Chris did an admittedly similar thing to Ingrid yet again.  However, I don't think it is similar enough in that the only reasonable explanation for Chris's original statement is that he was dissing both debate participants, not just Sungenis.  I could not get the same conclusion Chris got from Ingrid's post on Rick Warren's infiltration of the Reformed camp.  So yes, unfortunately, I still think he's losing his mind.]

A little tangent here that may apply comes in the form of a tongue in cheek comment Jason made to several of us the other day, which I thought was a very astute observation: "The more educated you think you are, the more convincing you find Doug Pagitt. This is not a compliment."

Back to Chris's correction again: as a result of it it would have really not been a good thing if we had tried to go that route. And that's why we took the route that we took. But it was not a diss against James White at all. James did a fantastic job, really given the format and given the tactic that was being employed by Robert Sungenis during the debate. It was difficult to listen to and tedious at times, and I think if you go back those of you who listen to James White's radio program and if you've heard the debate. Listen to the cross examination sections and I think you'll see what I'm saying. It's not a diss against James White it's just... that's my observation on the tone of the debate. And that tone was not set by James White. It was clearly set by Bob Sungenis. So this blog post has gotten a little bit of action out there. But the problem is that it's miscommunicated my position and said something, basically made me say something I didn't say and that was is that I was somehow insulting Dr White. In fact I would not want to do that with Dr White. I have the deepest respect for him, you know, professionally I think the guy's spectactular, and he does a great job as a Christian apologist and I have no beef with James White at all. So just wanted to clear the record there."
Crystal clear. As clear as Doug Pagitt at least. I am glad we agree James White is spectacular. As long as spectacular actually still means something positive. As long as positive still means... something positive.

I'm just not sure how I could have gotten any of that from what was said. Perhaps it's those flexible meanings of words. I need to brush up on the ever changing algorithms so I can predict what the meaning will be the next time I have to use a word. I've noticed the definition of 'misinterpret' has changed now too. Daniel Webster will want to take note.

In the interest of providing more context of Chris's apologetic tone about admitting fault in his unclear communications, a few more emails went back and forth yesterday afternoon:

Jason responded to Chris's original email:
From: Jason Coyle
Date: December 20, 2010 3:21:25 PM CST
To: Chris Rosebrough
Cc: Paula Coyle
Subject: Re: Dissing James White? (from Jason)

Hi Chris,

I'm trying to dig through the 20+ emails from today about this, and trying to do it fast. This note is where I started, so I don't know know yet how far behind the curve I am on this. I hope to still say something productive.
I have the deepest respect for Dr. White and his ministry and would never knowingly impugn him nor his ministry.
I'll admit that all I've heard about or from that debate has been from Dr. White's own show, and your characterization of it is what I took away as well (and knowing something of Sungenis, it was what I expected going into the debate).

But here's the problem.

Paula's blog post gives a link to the Something Beautiful podcast, with a timestamp to the quote she addressed and a transcription of it. Chris, I don't think what you actually said matches what you claim you intended, and I think any fair-minded observer would have to agree with me on that. You speak only of the "tone of that debate style" not being redeeming, making no differentiation between the participants (or even indicating that you were only judging one of them). Given your context of the actual debate, Paula's inference that you and Doug were referring to both White and Sungenis seems completely warranted. And since you and she seem to agree that Dr. White's debate style and content is excellent, her characterizing what you said (i.e. "not redeeming") as "dissing" him, while dramatic, isn't out of bounds.
for you to publicly make it appear that I had taken a swipe at Dr. White is irresponsible and at best and libelous at worst. Now that you know the truth, you have a responsibility to retract your statements and set the record straight.
No, Chris. You were at best extremely unclear in your public statements. The responsibility to clarify publically is yours. For you to send Paula a private response saying "what I *meant* was..." and then demand she retract her statements on the basis of that new information is unreasonable. She is not your press secretary or apologist.

To throw around words like "libelous" is not worthy of you. Honestly, Chris, I've been extremely confused and troubled by several of the extremely poor logical arguments you've made in the past few months, because I know you know better. This is not a comment on your heart, just your reasoning, or in some cases your prioritization. I've heard you dismiss, belittle, or mischaracterize some well-meaning and reasonable critiques of your recent broadcasts, only to raise essentially the same points yourself as valid a few days later. I don't have a positive way of describing that sort of behavior, and I don't think I need one; it's wrong. I could say much more about how others could interpret such behavior in malicious or negative ways, and how that concerns me, but that's beyond my scope here.
I would love to speak with you over the phone or even over skype.
I can't speak for Paula on this sort of request. At the risk of saying too much, I'll comment this way: She tends to prefer written communication, to provide a better record of what was actually said and as a firebreak against emotionalism driving or preventing the conversation. Paula feels things very strongly, and in the immediacy of a phone or F2F conversation, that can be more a hindrance than an aid to clarity.

I'll leave it to her to say anything else about that.

Chris recorded his show with the correction, and then responded to Jason again (emphasis added by me):
From: Chris Rosebrough
Date: December 20, 2010 6:43:30 PM CST
To: Jason Coyle
Cc: Paula Coyle
Subject: Re: Dissing James White? (from Jason)


Your email makes it even clearer to that we should talk. Email is not the right vehicle for clearing the air plus it takes far too long to compose emails and Im not interested in an email debate. An So much of this adversarial posture is because of an incorrect understanding of what I've said and believe. Ya'll should not be at war with me. Since you admit that you know me then if you're confused by something I've said then all you have to do is talk with me. Ya'll actually have access to me. Rather than use it to get clarification or seek to understand what I'm saying Paula has instead made some very inflammatory and misinformed statements about on her blog that don't make any sense coming from someone who knows me. We need to clear this all up. What is happening is not right.

BTW, I publicly clarified my statement regarding Dr. White on my radio program today. AND I privately contacted Dr. White to clarify my statement. I've both privately and publicly set the record straight on this matter and even though Paula is not my apologist she has a duty to recognize what I've said and back down from her incorrect interpretation of my statement and publicly set the record straight.

Let's talk.

I agree, here I am setting the record straight.  The whole truth.  Chris is big on truth, or so he says.

And Jason had one more response for him last night:
From: Jason Coyle
Date: December 20, 2010 9:10:12 PM CST
To: Chris Rosebrough
Cc: Paula Coyle, Daniel Neades
Subject: Re: Dissing James White? (from Jason)

I'm not opposed to a discussion, Chris; I understand how much more time an email discussion takes, and there are times when the repetition that's more possible with a spoken discussion is important. I can't really suggest a time right now, but I'll try to get back to you soon.

Having said that, I wanted to respond in a bit of detail to what you wrote here, in hopes that it'll set a foundation for any future conversation.

First, I want to let you know where I'm coming from. In any discussion, I think clarity must be the primary goal. Any worthwhile agreement is impossible without it, and disagreement is still valuable if it's informed and understood by both parties. In order to have clarity, definitions need to be shared and sufficiently explicit, or everyone won't even know whether they're agreeing or not. So whether it's phone, face-to-face, or email, that's going to be the way I approach the discussion.
Im not interested in an email debate.
Frankly I'm not looking for a debate at all, and I don't really think any of my critiques have aimed at having one. Chris, you need to understand that almost every issue I've had with you recently has nothing to do with the substance of your assertions re: Dan Kimball; my initial critiques were about inconsistencies or weaknesses I saw in how you framed your argument, and my subsequent concerns have been about how you responded (or didn't) to the responses you've received. That's why I don't really feel I'm in an adversarial posture; I haven't made any comments to you that I wouldn't have made in pretty much the exact same way if I had completely agreed with your position. I'm a firm believer that the right position expressed or defended poorly is almost more tragic and dangerous than a wrong position that's presented strongly, in a logical manner.

That doesn't mean I do agree with everything you've said, but with everything that's happened since the initial discussion, I don't feel that debating that is the place to start. I may very well have more views in common with you than either of us would credit, but that's moot. Right now, I don't have any confidence that you really understand how this whole situation has degraded, and what part you've played in that. I don't say that as an insult; frankly, in some ways it's the most positive spin I can put on things, because if you do understand, then you've deliberately chosen some paths with which I do have grave problems. That needs to be resolved first, IMO.
Ya'll should not be at war with me. Since you admit that you know me then if you're confused by something I've said then all you have to do is talk with me.
Chris, I know you're very busy, and I honestly haven't expected personal responses from you. But your comment here ignores that I have sent you numerous questions in the past, and I'm certain Paula has as well. Confusion doesn't really seem a strong enough word for how both of us have felt over the past weeks, seeing how you have (or haven't) responded to the questions we've had.
Rather than use it to get clarification or seek to understand what I'm saying Paula has instead made some very inflammatory and misinformed statements about on her blog that don't make any sense coming from someone who knows me.
I won't argue inflammatory; different people will choose different phrasings, and we can't always be responsible for how others take them. It's not my intent to defend specific things she's said here.

But if you think her comments don't make any sense from someone who knows you, please use your feelings as a barometer for how baffling she's seen many of your actions, and honestly, how that's hurt her and many who've found you so helpful in the past.
We need to clear this all up. What is happening is not right.
I'd agree that it's not right, and it's already having negative results. I'm not sure what clearing everything up means, but as I mentioned, clarity must come before unity. However it works out, I'd feel better if I were confident that you understood what Paula and I are actually saying (and to be fair, I know there are many others with similar concerns).
BTW, I publicly clarified my statement regarding Dr. White on my radio program today. AND I privately contacted Dr. White to clarify my statement. I've both privately and publicly set the record straight on this matter and even though Paula is not my apologist she has a duty to recognize what I've said and back down from her incorrect interpretation of my statement and publicly set the record straight.
I look forward to hearing what you've said. At the risk of making this one comment a metaphor for our whole relationship at this point, I do want to rephrase how you've said this, so you can see how I saw this.

I don't think Paula made an incorrect interpretation of your statement; she made a legitimate inference from a pretty clear comment by you. Based on what you've written since, that statement didn't accurately reflect your opinion. I don't see how that was her fault, and the way that you framed how Paula wrote about it in the first place betrayed a subjectivity that I found beneath you. Now, if you've clarified what you meant to say on the podcast, then IMO that clarification is part of the public record that wasn't there when Paula originally wrote. Not having heard the show yet, it's hard for me to comment beyond that.

I know that Daniel spoke with you already today about this general topic, so I'm CCing him as an FYI.

So I'll let you all draw your own conclusions from here.