My Recent Interview with McKinnon Mitchell

Comments

11 responses to “My Recent Interview with McKinnon Mitchell”

1. 

   February 15, 2022

   Ben Berwick

   Not had the opportunity to listen to it all yet, but firstly I love the accent! 😀

   Secondly, it seems so typical of that kind of fundamentalist institution that they’d treat any form of Bible outside their own as satanic. No wonder Christianity has been gripped by infighting for centuries. Everyone is absolutely convinced they hold the truth!

   Reply
2. 

   February 15, 2022

   Neil Rickert

   I watched both videos.

   I thought that your interview went very well.

   As for the Hovind documentary, it fits very well what little I know of Hovind. But I wonder why he made the interview. I don’t think Hovind is worth the effort.

   Reply
3. 

   February 15, 2022

   Troy

   That’s a great interview. I suppose it is standard to get informed consent before an interview? McKinnon asks great questions. The fate of Midwestern is interesting to me, as it is in my own back yard. I like the observation that even though it is essentially dead, it remains alive only to avoid the stigma of quitting.

   I actually think Hovid is an interesting topic, and interviewing Bruce is appropriate as they are the complete opposite side of the same Midwestern coin. I’m not sure if Hovind would have been able to walk the tightrope between “Dr. Dino” and staying within in the law. Fleece the rubes, but not cut the sheep so to speak.

   I was going to make a comment that back in the 1970s, atheism was a much smaller movement, so the traditional church whipping boy Satan was much more common. You had Paul Kurtz fighting the fight and more infamously Madeline Murry O’Hare, but before the internet it wouldn’t have been on evangelical radar. I still find it ironic that by the 1980s there were Satanic panics blaming Satan for everything while the Catholic church was routinely abusing kids using the reverence to the clergy as cover.

   Reply
4. 

   February 15, 2022

   Tammy Schoch

   Watched the documentary part 1. Enjoyed hearing from you again Bruce. You’re reasonable, honest, and kind. I don’t think your detractors understand that when they paint you like the devil 👿😄

   Hello from Jim too.

   Reply
   1. 

      February 18, 2022

      Bruce Gerencser

      Good to hear from you, Tammy! I’m at the place in life where my family and friends know who I am. Those who refuse to accept my story at face value can fuck off. 🙂

      Give Jim a big kiss for me. Such memories. 🙂

      Reply
5. 

   February 15, 2022

   Dr. David Tee

   I have had experience with Mr. Hovind a long time ago. It was not pleasant but putting that aside, I do not see the validity or credibility of this documentary. The man making it said it was not an ad hominem attack but it sounds just like one. he said it was not an attack on his creationist views yet that seems to be exactly what it is doing.

   Then he said he was speaking for the victims or against the harm Mr. Hovind has done but not one word about victims in this part one. Maybe it will come in part two. I do not see the purpose of this film as Mr. Hovind discredited himself a long time ago and has been refuted many times about his personal and academic claims and the way he presents his point of view.

   I do not think this is an honest presentation and it looks like it was done with a specific bias in mind. It is a little unfair and a needless project as the news articles, jail sentence and other arrests have removed any credibility Mr. Hovind thought he had. The victims do not need a filmmaker to speak for them as they have lawyers to do just that in the proper arena.

   This film begs the question why drag up old material to do something that has already been done by many others over many years?

   Reply
   1. 

      February 15, 2022

      Bruce Gerencser

      You can’t help yourself, can you? You don’t know anything about McKinnon, yet you immediately judge his motives and character. At least you are consistent.

      This is a multi-part documentary. Episode one, if you were fucking paying attention, takes a look at the influences on Hovind’s life as a young preacher: Tom Malone, Henry Morris, and Bob Gray, Sr. (Texas). These influences go a long way in explaining the man Hovind has become.

      Reply
      1. 

         February 15, 2022

         Dr. David Tee

         I made an honest assessment of part one. Why would you have a problem with that? I already know the influences on his life, you ignored what I said about having a little experience with Mr. Hovind. I would like to see the rest of the series.

         There is no need for you to get nasty, I didn’t address your interview at all but stuck with the documentary

         Reply
         1. 

            February 15, 2022

            Bruce Gerencser

            I wasn’t being nasty in the least. You attacked McKinnon’s motivations and character. All I did was point this out. I’m sure other readers can do the same.

            That you can’t see this . . . Well . . .

            Reply
         2. 

            February 16, 2022

            Bruce Gerencser

            You mean like the “honest” assessment you left on YouTube (using the name David Thiessen)?

            “This is just another bad hit piece that does the opposite of what the filmmaker claims. It is an ad hominem attack and a useless piece of work that is redundant and fails to do anything for his alleged ‘victims’ The bias is evident and this film is not honest in any aspect. There is a lack of real evidence supporting the claims the filmmaker makes about Mr. Hovind. “

            Do you ever get tired of defending rapists, child molesters, abusers, and felons?

            You, David, are a fucking troll. But, hey, you love Hey-Zeus. 😂😂

            Reply
6. 

   February 15, 2022

   Joel

   I grew up on Kent Hovind. Some of this is news to me, but most of it is not. Another one bites the dust.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.