User talk:JoeWallack

From Errancy Wiki
Revision as of 13:09, 18 May 2009 by Hello (talk | contribs) (No-one is around)
Jump to navigationJump to search

The Origin Of Joe Wallack


Our roving reporter, Dan Dan, the Doctor Son of Man, explains who JoeWallacks is:

In a message dated 8/14/99 8:48:05 AM, POLLDIV2 writes:

<< p.s. Please dont rough me up too hard on your response. Terah ( Gen 11:26) / \ / \ Sarah------Abraham Nachor -------Milcah / (Gen24:24) / / / / Bethuel etc....... >>

Dear Poll: You are almost see Nahor also went by the name of Benny....a nickname given to him by his mother........also Bethuel...........who in your chart is not the real Bethuel(again only a nickname), but in fact one Gamouli Mizrahi that never married but had an illicit affair with a cousin of Nachor . Rumors in Tatu (a suburb of Ur) had it that Benny himself was a ladies men and his nephew Mamzor a rogue and a philanderer. I realize that this is not the place nor the time to go over exactly what happened when Jacob the trickster dressed like a sheep went into the tent that already smelled awful and said ..........Hi dad....... Esau your #1 son here with a nice leg of gazelle mit garlic and oregano and baklava for dares and a nice cold mint tea..... all for you mine papa.................are you going to bless me now or what??..... Will have to go over this one day very seriously Poll I hope that this information may help your chart some ....remember Bethuel (alias Gamouli) had six sisters (regardless of what you may read) the 4th Sarah Mushke married one Yosef Ha Tov a simple but honest sheepherder..... today Joe Wallack is a direct descendant of that union.


Warning: Insulting Content


Some of the text of your argument in Matthew 1:8--specifically, the sections regarding JP Holding--insult Holding as a person, rather than critiquing the ideas he presents in an academic context. While I understand that you and Holding have had problems in the past, we're trying to avoid personalities here and discuss the actual issues.

Please rephrase your argument so as to comply with Rule 1: "Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic."


--JustinEiler 15:03, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)

"Hi Justin. I see absolutely nothing in my 1:8 article that insults Holding. Please identify to me exactly what you see as insulting. Thanks."


While we're on the subject of Holding here I asked the Admins here to invite Holding to argue against Genealogy error. He declined. Regarding my attempts to engage Holding in Argument:
1) His site doesn't allow any type of open posting.
2) My site has never had any Censorship what so ever. He has never posted there.
3) At Tweb where he selectively debates under Fundamentalist Moderation and primary Membership the Owner has currently banned me for titling a post:
"Gonna Roll Away The Stones And Win Father A New Pair Of Jews"
Which then became the title for my Review of "The Empty Tomb" at
which they immediately posted.
Holding's current description of me is:
"1.21 Joe "Wally" Wallack
1.21.1 Wally Begs for Mercy
--Follow the link to see Wally's debates with me why he asked for help. It didn't help. More on Wally here. He's scared of me he hasn't updated his page in over a year. Wally is also a crass maker of anti-Semitic remarks, which tells you what sort of people Brooks thinks are role models.
[hosted by the Anti-Defamation League]"

JW: I conclude from this that Holding does not want to debate Genealogy error here because he knows his argument is weak. Thus, more evidence for Error. The top Internet Apologist is afraid to argue against in a fairly moderated and polite Forum.

Do you actually use insults or call Holding names? No, you do not: but your argument is against the person, not against their arguments. Holding's behavior is utterly irrelevant to the GMatthew text arguments.

--JustinEiler 17:25, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)

(As a side note: if you will please, respond here. I evidently don't have my Talk link set up correctly. Hey, just like everyone else here, I'm still learning the software and the interface.)

Hi Justin. The way to hurt JP Holding is not to insult him but to publicize Errors In The Christian Bible. So I've done far more than insult Holding. I've hurt him and I wish to go on hurting him. Just kidding. Souly because you ask and not because I think you have demonstrated any insult on my part, I will prune the article until it meets with your satisfaction (as opposed to your approval). The Price I'll take considering that everything above is true is that I'll do it within 24 hours.


"I've hurt him and I wish to go on hurting him."

That's funny ... you don't look a thing like Ricardo Montalbon. :D

Souly because you ask and not because I think you have demonstrated any insult on my part, I will prune the article until it meets with your satisfaction (as opposed to your approval).

Thank you, Joe. And please realize that I'm not fussing at you. You've got a great argument--from where I sit, the comments on Holding actually detract from the strength of the argument itself. I don't want to see your work derided or ignored because of other issues--let it stand on its own merits.

Again, thanks.

--JustinEiler 19:03, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)

Regarding Matthew 1:13 (Humor)

Joe said: "How Did This Tradition Get Started You Ask?"

Somehow, Joe, I don't think you look a thing like Tevye.

--JustinEiler 18:50, 28 Sep 2005 (CDT)

What ErrancyWiki is all about

(Moved from Matthew 1:6.)

"Joseph, not only are you bringing up a ridiculous objection as an "error," with such comments as "possible reasons for differences in the Genealogies are not explanations of defenses against error, they are explanations of the cause of the error," you're poisoning the well. The Genealogies in Luke and Matthew are two separate genealogies, traced through two different lines. Now, like you, I don't happen to feel that either one is terribly accurate, but if we were to assume that they were accurate (less the omissions in the Matthian genealogy, which I still feel results from a stylistic choice rather than an actual error), tracing two lines of ancestry to a common ancestor is not at all uncommon. Indeed, I have (rather distant) ancestors who I am related to from both my father's line and my mother's. Most of your genealogy objections have been tempests in teapots: this particular one could be called "making a mountain out of a molehill," save for the fact that you didn't even have a molehill to start with. --JustinEiler 11:40, 25 Nov 2005 (CST)"

JW: Listen up Justin, ErrancyWiki is intended to be a Serious discussion Forum consisting primarily of Complete Arguments and not Incomplete Assertions. If you are mainly interested in low level discussions consisting largely of Incomplete Assertions stick with Tweeb. You need to move the above to the Neutral Section as a post primarily consisting of the following does not meet the ErrancyWiki Standards justifying placement in the Con Section:

"ridiculous objection"

"you're poisoning the well"

"Most of your genealogy objections have been tempests in teapots"

"this particular one could be called "making a mountain out of a molehill,"

"save for the fact that you didn't even have a molehill to start with."

Admin Resignation

Hi, Peter and Joe,

Due to reasons of health, I'm going to have to step down as an ErrancyWiki admin, effective immediately. I apologize for the short notice, but this kind of caught me without warning.


--JustinEiler 21:30, 7 Dec 2005 (CST)

High Crimes and Drug Misdemeanors

Hi, Joe,

Looking at the IP addresses, it looks like this is coming from a variety of known "spam" sites in Asia, including: in Japan; in Myanmar;, Seoul; and, also in Seoul. However, they all redirect to a website hosted by, a known "spam-haus". You can try to contact, but it's probably going to be better to simply block the offending domains permanently.

And unfortunately, you're going to have to edit the spam from the pages as well as block the domains that its coming from. I'll help with that what I can.

--JustinEiler 22:58, 12 Dec 2005 (CST)

Hi, Joe, the sequel. <grin>
I think I got all the spam that's there currently--you'll want to doublecheck, of course, but hopefully it's all gone.
Joe, you and Peter might want to discuss the posibility of restricting editing to registered users only--that's a change he has to make in the software. It won't take care of all the spam and vandalism (as you've noticed), but it will be a big help towards getting rid of the lion's share of it.
--JustinEiler 00:02, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)
How does Wikipedia solve the spam problem? Regards, Thomas Ash
Well, they do several things, but they also have a lot more resources than we do--more editors, more readers, just generally more people to stomp on the problem.
However, there are some technical means that can be brought into play, but those means are up to Peter (the Top Dog here) to implement: has some ideas, but many of them require super-admin access to implement.
--JustinEiler 14:05, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)
I've just cleared out whole bucketloads of spam (fortunately, the mass spam attacks on different days seem to have mostly hit the same set of pages). Though, Joe, I think you might have "shot an innocent" on 1st Jan: user posted on Ezekiel 46:6 just before a mass spam attack, and seems to have gotten banned with the others.
--Robert Stevens 07:19, 4 Jan 2006 (CST)

Possible Site Redesign

I sent you an email outlining the possibility for a site redesign that incorporated new features to make a more useful website. This would involve ditching the MediaWiki and going with another software such as Drupal, along with customized programming to make it do just what we want it to do. If you are interested, email me back. --Peter Kirby 06:10, 21 Nov 2006 (CST)

Article outline suggestion

Just had a thought concerning the organization of the verse articles :-). I was wondering what you thought about maybe changing the "Pro" section title to "Errancy" and the "Con" section title to "Inerrancy." The point I guess would be to get rid of any confusion that may exist on which one is which. For example, a visitor may come to the site and say, "What is 'Pro' supporting, and what is 'Con' against?" But if it at least said "Errancy" and "Inerrancy," that would give people a better idea immediately I think. Maybe it's just me though, I was confused the first time I came here :-). --Tom 17:22, 28 May 2008 (EDT)


We are going to leave the Pro and Con descriptions as is. If someone is confused it is the Administrators job to correct them. "Pro/Con" fits the context of an organized debate and "Pro" implies a higher burden of proof in order to demonstrate something.

--JoeWallack 10:08, 30 May 2008 (EDT)


I would like to invite you to consider joining a project that I think will interest you. If you would email me, I will send you a briefing. Thank you. --JohnB

No-one is around

According to Recent Changes, you're the only person still around (at all).

I was wondering if you'd like to help fix some scanning errors (typos etc.) in the WikiSource copy of Encyclopaedia Biblica. (Its a very detailed and comprehensive 19th century scholarly encyclopedia about the Bible - including several details of interest in relation to errancy).

Hello 09:09, 18 May 2009 (EDT)