Dear "Dr." James White:

I noticed that soon after you had sent that first nasty, outrageous note to Gary Novak, you had calmed down just a bit and also backed down from your lofty judgment seat.  I like seeing you eat crow, feathers, feet and all.  But, unfortunately, I also notice that you apparently could not get out of the mess that you got yourself into, Sir, to employ you[r] favorite bit of imperious language, other than by ending your letter with still another insulting remark -- something about how you can see that Novak is not interested in meaningful dialogue.  Of course, that leaves the impression that you are interested in such an exchange, which is pure nonsense, if your past performances are any indication.

Novak has raised some interesting questions about your flashy new diploma.  That was all he was interested in doing.  And it seems that he has invited a meaningful dialogue with you over the character of the correspondence school, or whatever you prefer to call it, from which you were granted your new credential, and also about the type and quality of the work you did to merit your diploma.  And I also note that others are raising these same questions.  Now is the time, it seems, for you to enter into what you call a "meaningful dialogue" over this matter.  I await your detailed responses to all inquiries concerning your diploma, and the work that went into it.  I suggest that you begin by posting the syllabus with which you got mentored -- I think that is the trendy new jargon on such matters -- on the way to this new credential.

Please do not get angry.  Try dealing with these issues openly and honestly.  Just recall that "Dr." Walter Martin, in the middle of his career as a countercultist, did not exactly distinguish himself by getting what appears to be an essential phony doctorate through an unaccredited correspondence school.  His reputation has never quite recovered from that episode in tricking people into thinking he had academic qualifications.  And please keep in mind that some of us are still asking exactly what he did, other than pay a fee, for his diploma.  Now I suspect that you may have actually done something.  And I trust that your degree is at least marginally better than was "Dr." Martin's.  What I would like to see you reveal is exactly what it was that you did to earn or merit this degree.  I hope that it was not granted by grace alone, and that you earned it by good works.  [Emphasis added.]

It would be nice to know how you were examined.  So let us now have full disclosure and no more hiding behind slogans about how one of those secular universities might corrupt your doctrinal certainty and purity and so forth, or challenge your bibliolatry, bias and bigotry.

Would it not be better for you to face these issues right now and not let this embarrassing boil fester?  And I am sure that both the Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web and SHIELDS will be pleased to post any response you care to make to the kinds of inquiries that some of us have about your new "non-traditional" credential.

Grace and peace,

Louis Midgley