(Update2: I've posted Chris's email response to what I wrote here, along with my comment on it.)
(Edit: I opened comments on this post, but I won't accept any that don't come from Chris or me. If something sneaks through somehow, I'll delete it on sight.)
(Update: Chris sent me an email in response. I've prepared a response, but I've decided to make an offer to him first, before posting it. The offer is below; I've emailed it to him as well.)
What follows is the text of an email I just sent to Chris Rosebrough, something I wasn't really expected to do. Since it relates to him specifically, I'm not going to allow comments on this post.
I've made minor formatting changes, but the text is identical.
(Edit: I opened comments on this post, but I won't accept any that don't come from Chris or me. If something sneaks through somehow, I'll delete it on sight.)
(Update: Chris sent me an email in response. I've prepared a response, but I've decided to make an offer to him first, before posting it. The offer is below; I've emailed it to him as well.)
What follows is the text of an email I just sent to Chris Rosebrough, something I wasn't really expected to do. Since it relates to him specifically, I'm not going to allow comments on this post.
I've made minor formatting changes, but the text is identical.
I was told you're saying on FaceBook that I misrepresented you in a blog post I wrote. To quote:
"[H]ere is the funny thing. Jason Coyle is the one who is misrepresenting me. I've never said that Ingrid says that Horton has been seduced away from orthodoxy or that she is claiming he's now a heretic. From the beginning I've strongly disagreed with the fact that Ingrid is claiming that Horton is a Bridger that must be warned against."
I'm a little surprised to hear this. I know you disagree with my critique, but I was fairly sure by now that I'd presented your position accurately. I've tried to give you every opportunity to correct me for any inaccuracies I made, and you've not done so in any of the emails you've sent me since I posted.
When I wrote my post, I sent you a link and asked for any corrections on the way I'd represented your statements: "If I've misstated your position, let me know. If you disagree with my conclusions, that's different." In your response, you said nothing about any misrepresentations.
When I wrote back, I told you "Since nothing you said disputed my presentation of your position, I'll assume I described it properly." Your only message since then was silent on this point. In fact, you closed saying "I appreciate the time that you've taken to explain your concerns and the tone in which you delivered them."
Chris, I'm not writing you about the differences we have over whether you should have said what you said; I'm only concerned here with whether I've stated your position accurately. Frankly, I'm not sure from the quote above what you think I claim you said. However, given your accusation after the actions I took in trying to ensure I'd fairly presented your side, I don't understand how you could write this in your last email to me: "I understand your position and your concerns and understand your position regarding my actions."
Once again, I invite you to offer specific examples where I've misrepresented your position in what I've written. My concern is for truth and accuracy; I have no interest in ascribing to you a position you do not hold.
You are, of course, free to ignore me and say whatever you like about me. But if you do not respond, I can only operate in good faith and continue to assume I've been fair in my characterization of your statements. However, given your charge against my words and my efforts to be conscientious in presenting your own, I will expect to hear from you, either to offer substantive corrections or to retract your false statements.
You are, of course, free to ignore me and say whatever you like about me. But if you do not respond, I can only operate in good faith and continue to assume I've been fair in my characterization of your statements. However, given your charge against my words and my efforts to be conscientious in presenting your own, I will expect to hear from you, either to offer substantive corrections or to retract your false statements.
Since this regards public actions by each of us, I'll post this letter in its entirety on my blog as well, for accountability's sake.
Jason
1 Pet 3:8-9
Update
Chris, I have a post with your response and my comments on it prepared.
But before I presented that, I want to make an offer. I think part of the fuel for this whole thing has been the democratic nature of social media; anyone can chime in with near-equal volume. It's nearly impossible to track individual arguments, and that's especially destructive when major disagreements hinge on small misunderstanding, nuances of meaning, or reactions to how something was said rather than what was said.
I can't speak for anyone else, and I don't mean to offer myself up as a representative of anyone. But if you're willing, I'd like for the two of us to call a moratorium on commenting further on this anywhere, and not allowing others to comment either, in forums we control, and take the time to talk it through ourselves. I understand that probably is a larger burden on you, since you have more public interaction than I do.
I don't pretend that everything will be gumdrops and rainbows, but I want to think the discussion could be profitable. I don't believe you understand what Ingrid was trying to say; you may feel I don't understand your point either, I don't know. But I'd far prefer having honest disagreement about known issues to the confusion I'm seeing now.
Also, I've tried to be clear that I have real problems with your behavior in this imbroglio, and I'm not excusing or setting aside any of that in making this offer. My hope here as for clarity and understanding on the issues; I don't have any goals beyond that.
We can talk about what the process would look like, etc. if you're interested. Let me know.
(If I don't hear from you in a few days, I'll just publish what I've prepared, and be done; it includes some clarifications you've given me, so I don't want to be fair to what you've already sent me if we aren't talking directly.)
1 Pet 3:8-9
Update
But before I presented that, I want to make an offer. I think part of the fuel for this whole thing has been the democratic nature of social media; anyone can chime in with near-equal volume. It's nearly impossible to track individual arguments, and that's especially destructive when major disagreements hinge on small misunderstanding, nuances of meaning, or reactions to how something was said rather than what was said.
I can't speak for anyone else, and I don't mean to offer myself up as a representative of anyone. But if you're willing, I'd like for the two of us to call a moratorium on commenting further on this anywhere, and not allowing others to comment either, in forums we control, and take the time to talk it through ourselves. I understand that probably is a larger burden on you, since you have more public interaction than I do.
I don't pretend that everything will be gumdrops and rainbows, but I want to think the discussion could be profitable. I don't believe you understand what Ingrid was trying to say; you may feel I don't understand your point either, I don't know. But I'd far prefer having honest disagreement about known issues to the confusion I'm seeing now.
Also, I've tried to be clear that I have real problems with your behavior in this imbroglio, and I'm not excusing or setting aside any of that in making this offer. My hope here as for clarity and understanding on the issues; I don't have any goals beyond that.
We can talk about what the process would look like, etc. if you're interested. Let me know.
(If I don't hear from you in a few days, I'll just publish what I've prepared, and be done; it includes some clarifications you've given me, so I don't want to be fair to what you've already sent me if we aren't talking directly.)
On Mar 11, 2011, at 14:04, Chris Rosebrough wrote:
ReplyDeleteUnder ONE condition.
That BOTH Ingrid and I publicly state on our respective social media that further discussion regarding this affair are being suspended while both parties seek to resolve the issues at hand.
Thanks for the response, but you've asked for something I did not offer and cannot grant; I tried to be clear that I was only speaking for myself.
I appreciate why you'd feel talking with me under the terms I offered would be "unilateral disarmament." In response, I can only say that my interest here is informed understanding, not an attempt to muzzle you. I've tried to be very clear about the ways in which I disagree with your position and actions as well as the goals I have if you accept my proposal. I can only tell you again that I'm operating in good faith, with no ulterior motive or machinations.
The offer remains open, Chris, but as I initially made it.
(To preserve transparency in consideration of the question, I'll continue posting copies of all correspondence related to it as responses on my blog's post for this same thread. Feel free to answer there instead, or use email, whichever you prefer.)