Many months ago war was waged on my darling little web site by a guy called Bill V. Several emails later he was defeated by me and left to wallow in the humiliation of being himself. But Bill has returned and he's armed himself with The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary and much much more.

This latest email to me is LONG. So long that I've decided it'd be best to break it up into eight parts, each part followed up with a direct response from me. I've dared to censor nothing... so let this be fair warning to you, especially through part one and BibleSoft's "Father of Amasa" explanation. Beyond that however Bill's commentary is fascinating. I love these kinds of letters where I am dissected and exposed, the wonderful theories and ideas and a total disregard for sense. I hope that you enjoy it too.

The Bill V. Files Part 3

Bill's letter is in blue & mine are in black and white.

Back in April I started getting these fascinating letters from a gentleman by the name of

Lester Square

For some reason the emails he would send to me were cut off at the end. It was very upsetting to me and no matter how I begged he wouldn't resend me the endings. I've decided to post these emails anyhow because I just really find them interesting... even if they don't always finish.

Obviously Mr. Bob is only trying to be offensive and is a hypocrite. But perhaps God has sent him to us Christians. Why do I say this? Simple. This site very clearly points out the hypocrisies of modern Christianity. Many come here and say don't judge, don't make fun of us, don't be intolerent, but yet Christians do this all the time. Satire often draws from that which it is criticizing. It's interesting to me that no one offers any testimonials here on the hate pages to Bob. This is one of the fundamentals of Christianity. Witnessing. Testimonials. Let me offer an example to be followed:

"I was once a drug addict. I had no purpose in live. No meaning or direction. Then I heard about Jesus. It helped me. Now I am a better person." The end. No tag at the end. No "You'd better do this or you're in trouble. I'm right and you're wrong. Look out, Hell's gonna be bad." Does that work? No one ever really believes they might go to Hell. I don't think any person on Earth really believes that anymore. Oh sure, people believed it back in the day when they believed people with epilepsy were werewolves. But not today. What's wrong with us Christians. And about the loophole. I never really knew before why we do that. But now I've thought about it, and I have a theory. It makes sense that we would say use the example of the kid who procrastinates and does not pick up his toys. That's good recruitment. In other words, don't wait till it's to late. But then why offer a loophole at the end. And it is there. If heard it in church. The minister tells some wonderful story about a horrible sinne

For some reasons your emails are getting cut off. I swear I'm not editing them. I really like what you've written and am frustrated that I'm not getting the whole letter.

You know, as I tirelessly tread through the responses from Christians to this affront to human decency, I become more and more dismayed. Not because of Mr. Bob's ridiculous antics, but because of the kind of responses I read from other Christians. None disturbed me more than "The Jessica Files" (hate pages 36 and 37). It is disturbing because it demonstrates the terrible practice of scapegoating that unfortunately has often been used by our church. Jessica began her correspondence with an angry series of slurs and attacks. This I have no problem with. It's not a sin to be angry, especially at someone like "Normal" Bob.

But what followed was deceptive and coniving, all be it not the least bit original or clever. Ostensibly upon realizing that she was only encouraging the existence of such a distasteful web site (which I like to call "Mr. Smith Goes to Hell"), she decided to actually pretend that she is only course, someone as incouragable as Stupid Bob might be willing to do this.

Would this be a big deal? With all the attacks gay people have to put up with, I don't think putting a pair of Daisy Duke shorts on a cartoon of Matthew Shepard would disrupt their lives that much.Many people, both believers and non-believers, don't like gay people. And "devil-worshippers" is just code for Wiccans, Buddhists, and beliefs based more on meditation and nature, some of which actually influenced European Protestantism.. Of course, within the "nature faiths", there is still a belief in the supernatural attributes of our universe. In other words, here is what Jessica was really saying. "Make fun of those other, less popular believers in the supernatural. Or attack the fags, that's always funny. We can agree to disagree about what we believe, but at least we're not weird like them." Then, after becoming angry again because the "Pervert" Bob wanted to see her breasts, (why did this surprsise her? He's already admitted he has no morals and doesn't care about anything Mr. Bob. But reading through your voluminous "viewer mail", something troubles me once again. There seem to be some fellow Christians who enjoy playing the crucifixion card, as I like to call it. I'm refering to other Christians who come on here and ask this lost soul how he would like it if he were nailed to a cross. This seems to be a silly argument for us Christians to make, considering we were the ones, the Gentiles, the Romans (who converted the Pagens that would become Protestants), the would be Christians, who actually crucified Jesus. To me, this is like asking "How would you like it if we nailed you to a cross the way we did Jesus? Wouldn't like that very much would you?" This is a bit unfair, and only serves to give this demented individual more excuses to

OK, here's the deal. I really like your comments on the site, me and everyone else. I really badly want to post them BUT there's something wrong with your email, or something. I have 3 separate letters from you all cut off halfway through. If I could get the full letters I will display them on my site, unedited, in order and on whichever page you feel is most appropriate (Fan Mail, Hate Mail, Special People, whatever). And I will not post your email unless you request me to do so. It seems as if you know my site well enough that you're able to tell I am not pulling your leg or setting you up. I was very simply extremely entertained by your emails and I think others will be as well. Bob Following are your emails that you sent me as I received them.

Well gee Bob, why don't we just start dating. You're like every man I've ever met. Playing games with me while insisting that you are not playing games with me. But perhaps I over reacted. I've now come to believe that you thought I was trying to be clever, giving that this was the title for your hate mail page following our initial exchanges. Of course, by my own admission I was trying to be clever. I was trying to come up with a way to comment on the Jessica Files on the hate page while remaining within the parameters of that board. I'm still not quite sure what you thought I was doing, however. Maybe you believed I was somehow trying to subconcsiously convince you to do exactly what I think Jessica was trying to do. She is a person who believed she was actually clever enough to do that. I would still like my response to those letters to be displayed on the hate page, because to put them anywhere else wo

To a certain degree I have come to hate Normal Bob in the last few weeks, because he reminds me of some fellas I've known, except that they were gay. I'm gay too, and it's a long, personal story which has nothing to do with the topic of this board. However, there is something I would like to comment on; "The Jessica Files" (hate pages 36 and 37). I think these strange letters are a perfect example of the terrible practice of scapegoating that has unfortunately been used by the Christian church for so many centuries. Jessica began her correspondence with an angry series of slurs and attacks. However, the following letters were very deceptive and coniving, all be it not very clever. Ostensibly upon realizing that she was only encouraging Bob with her initial attacks, she decided to actually pretend that she was only a casual Christian. She was only practicing "Jessicanity", as she put it. This being in her mind closer to what he believes, I guess, and a way to trick and befriend him. Then I suppose she believed Perhaps other faiths could be poked fun at instead. Some less popular than Christianity. Jessica seemed to miss the fact that Bob is commenting on Christianity because this relates to his back ground. Then, after becoming angry again because Bob wanted to see her breasts, she tried to present herself as a person whom Bob had inadvertantly helped. She revealed that she was no longer a half-assed Christian, but was now going to start attending church regularly. Because of Bob, Jessica was now a true believer. Finally, Jessica revealed her trick by accidentally admitting that she was an avid church goer and believer all along, while (amazingly) still trying to convert Bob. I realize Bob is rude, sarcastic, and an all around smart-ass. But I wonder how many Christians would take Jessica to task for her trickery? Does the bible not say something about bearing false witness?

Well there you have it. This is the letter I would like to be posted on the hate page. I realize it's rather long. Put it in two parts if you have to. Or maybe put it on the side bar. But some where on the hate page. That's the only place a Christian would read it. That's who it's meant for. There is hate in it, I assure you. For you, and Christians like Jessica. Although, I admitt I'm not as angry with you as I was. You can possibly head it by attesting to the fact that, for some reason, some gay guy ending up hating you. However you like. I don't care what you do with the other letters. You can detail the whole episode on the special people page for all I care. I would also like a picture accompaniment if at all possible.

Thank you for your time.

Lester Square

“Put ALL THIS on the site Bob... I dare you.”


First of all, you DO "misquote" scripture, albeit through your obvious lack of knowledge. Read on in entirety if you think you can handle it. Your words in red, mine in purple. bible and references in blue, bibliography in aqua.

Richelle, you said that "there is not one contradiction in the whole Bible. Not one thing contradicts another."
1 Chr.2:17 "And the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite."
2 Sam.17:25 "Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ishra and Israelite."
Now you can never say that there is not one contradiction in the Bible ever again. OK?
(Quotes from page 72 of Hate Mail)

2 Samuel 17:25-26
And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.

1.  Son (seemingly illegitimate) of Jether or Ithra, an Ishmaelite, by Abigail, David's sister (from Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1998 by Biblesoft)

According to 2 Sam 17:25, Amasa is the son of Abigail, the sister of Zeruiah and David, and Ithra, an Israelite; but another source, 1 Chron 2:17, calls his father Jether the Ishmaelite. (from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1996 by Biblesoft)

1. The son of Abigail, a sister of King David, by Jether, or Jithra, an Ishmaelite (2 Sam 17:25; 1 Kings 2:5,32; 1 Chron 2:17). (From The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (c) 1988.)
(Note: Ithra or Ishra is a Hebrew variant of Jether --  [like Bob for Robert])

Absalom had made Amasa captain over his army instead of Joab, who had remained true to David, and had gone with his king to Mahanaim. Amasa was the son of a man named Jithra, yisªrª'eeliy who had gone in to (i.e., had seduced) Abigail, the daughter of Nahash and sister of Zeruiah, Joab's mother. He was therefore an illegitimate cousin of Joab. The description given of Jithra as yisªrª'eeliy is very striking, since there was no reason whatever why it should be stated that Amasa's father was an Israelite. The Seventy have therefore given ho Iezraeeli'tees, i.e., sprung from Jezreel, where David's wife Ahinoam came from (1 Sam 27:3); but they have done so apparently from mere conjecture. The true reading is evidently hayishªmª`ee'liy, an Ishmaelite, according to 1 Chron 2:17, where the name is written Jether, a contracted form of Jithra. (from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

Amasa , whose father was by birth Jether, an Ishmaelite (1 Chron 2:17), but by religion Ithra (as he is here called), an Israelite; probably he was not only proselyted, but, having married a near relation of David's, was, by some act of the state, naturalized, and is therefore called an Israelite. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

Amasa. By the genealogy it appears that this captain stood in the same relation to David as Joab, both being his nephews. He seems to have been an illegitimate son, his father, Ithra, being an Israelite (from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database.Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

A little understanding of Hebrew, and ancient cultures would have clearly shown you that the verses you quoted (out of context, and incomplete) are not in contradiction.

My god William, you've gone to such great lengths to weed out the falsities I preach and misleadings I've propagated.

You seem to have spent the most time researching my Jether the Ishmaelite/Ishra the Israelite "contradiction" that was for all intensive purposes an amusing punch line to entertain the masses.

Your 500+ word explanation was more than I could bear. By the time I got down to Biblesoft's "illegitimate son" theory I realized that my flippant remark wasted several hours of your your life. You clearly have strong feelings about who Amasa's father was, so Bill, I'm about to make your day. I'm going to give you this one! Amasa's father is whoever you want it to be! Don't thank me, you've earned it (but let me remind you that I didn't misquote scripture). Now let's move on because this is where it got fun for me!

You stated that historically (in the Bible) everything lines up. Now, God made the Earth, and then four days later He made man. You know, I read in the paper the other day that someone several years ago found a bone buried somewhere that just might prove that there was once a great many reptilian beasts roaming this planet long before mankind ever did. Have you heard of that? I clipped the article out if you'd like me to send it to you. They're calling them "di·no·saurs".
(Quotes from page 72 of Hate Mail)

Why is it so easy to believe that we evolved, from a mutation cause by cosmic rays, and so hard to believe in The One True God? (God meaning of course the supreme being, comment on that in a moment) Things do not become MORE ordered over time on their own. Common sense. Things wear out for example. Living things die. Over time, things tend to become MORE disordered if left alone. Chaos does not spontaneously become order.

The Supreme Being. Not a "stupid" concept, after all, there's always one entity that surpasses all others. The Bell-curve has ONE point higher than all the rest. In ANY group, there is always ONE element that is superior to the rest. (you might have to look VERY closely, but one is ALWAYS better)

Goddamn! Your explanations here are why I got into the blaspheme business in the first place. Watching you try to explain how life doesn't evolve and how there's always an entity that surpasses all others is fascinating! I think I'm gonna worship the guy who surpasses God! You dazzle me Bill.

Bill, did you know that there is absolute documented proof that man has evolved? In the past several hundred years human beings have gotten better looking, taller, stronger, smarter and our life expectancies lengthened. Your proof that we don't evolve because we eventually wear out and die shows me that you're catastrophically ignorant about this subject. Wearing out and dying is the number one tool used by evolution. The weak and stupid are less appealing mates while the strong and smart are more appealing. These qualities are passed down during reproduction and the Bill V's of the world reproduce less eliminating those less desirable traits from the evolutionary chain.

Four days.  How does one explain, in understandable terms, that which is not understandable? ( how would you explain "up" to a being that is two-dimensional? He'd have no way, no reference to use to understand the concept of "up") Many times by allegory. Our "days" are OUR OWN concept of days. Before man developed this concept, who's to say that the "day" referred to in Genesis is not actually a much longer period of time? The REASON for the use of "days" is to separate the stages of Creation. Not necessarily to indicate an absolute definition of "24 hour days." That's just the way MAN defines a "day." Tell me, would it make any difference if you replaced the word "day" with millisecond, or millenniums? The meaning of the text is still the same. The reason for all the different "religions" is due to those who get hung up on details that simply don't make a difference in the meaning of the teaching. A lot of atrocities and wars have been caused by those who choose to pick apart and define minuscule, irrelevant details just like that.

Some of the things in the bible are cultural. For example: "40 days and 40 nights" is used. That's OUR translation of a Hebrew FIGURE OF SPEECH (40 days and 40 nights means "a long time", just as the number 7 is used, time and again, as a figure of speech for "completeness" [time and time again]) I.E., It took us forever to finish.

Of course it makes a tremendous difference if you substitute the word "days" with the word "milliseconds" or "millenniums". Are you trying to tell me that it may have taken GOD millenniums to make our universe? Light? Us? 40 days and 40 nights is pretty specific. Are you saying the Earth could have been flooded for years?

If "figures of speech" is the excuse you're using then maybe "God" is simply another way of saying "nature" or "feelings" or "opium".

Bill, here you are at the beginning stages of I-know-it-doesn't-make-sense-but-I-don't-care train of thought. This is something that you should fear because it will let you down and the fall is hard.

Dinosaurs. So what you are saying is that the works of man (I.E., Carbon dating, anthropology, for example) are infallible? We know beyond a doubt that our scientific assumptions are absolutely correct? (now THERE'S a stretch of the imagination! Hey at different times it was "common knowledge" that the earth was flat, or the center of the universe, or how about bloodletting or trepanning skulls of living people as "proscribed medical treatment"? Please. To think that we know absolutely what we believe through scientific research is ridiculous.)

Point is we COULD be wrong about the dinosaurs, we could be wrong about EVERYTHING. "New" discoveries and revelations in the scientific world are a regular item, after all every postgraduate college student has to "write a paper." Main point of this whole paragraph is, ultimately, that you have to have "faith" in something. YOUR faith is in and of this world. You COULD be wrong. A lot more learned and revered men before you certainly have been.

The pill you're telling me to swallow here is that we once thought the world was flat so maybe we're wrong about dinosaurs too. Are you telling me that we may be wrong about the world being round too? When you make statements like "we could be wrong about EVERYTHING!" you show me that you are way in over your head in I-know-it-doesn't-make-sense-but-I-don't-care.

I suppose that everyone could be wrong about everything so we may as well believe in the mad rantings of a psychopath?

I understand that you're at a loss for answers but this argument is no argument at all. It's admitting complete and utter failure as well as defeating your own beliefs.

Leviticus 11:13 & 19
God thinks that bats are birds.
(Quotes from page 72 of Hate Mail)

(hataleeph = the darkness bird). Delighting in dark holes and caverns. This is the point of Isa 2:20, "a man shall cast his idols to the bats," while the idolaters themselves shall vainly hide in the rock from the wrath of the Lamb (Rev 6:16). Unclean in the eye of the law (Deut 14:18-19; Lev 11:19-20). Ranked among "all fowls that creep, going upon all four;" it has claws on its pinions, by which it attaches itself to a surface, and creeps along it. It is connected with quadrupeds: the bones of the arm (answering to a bird's wing) and fingers being elongated, and a membrane extended over them to the hind limbs. (from Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1998 by Biblesoft)

Lev 11:16-19 haa`aTaleep (OT:5847) is the bat (Isa 2:20), which the Arabs also classified among the birds. (from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

I had no doubt that there were explanations for my wisecrackin' quotes from scripture. The reason that they're funny is because they're NOT misquotes. It's funny that God messed up the animal names that Adam and Eve went through so much trouble to think up. It amuses me.

Amos 9:13-15
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.

The plowman shall overtake the reaper. A forecast of the Millennial fertility of the land. 14. I will bring again the captivity of my people. A promise that Israel would be restored to her land, which would be rebuilt and made to prosper. 15. I will plant them upon their land (cf. Jer 24:6; 32:41; 42:10).

Israel's return would be a direct act of God. They shall no more be pulled up out of their land. An unconditional promise of permanent possession, which has not yet been fulfilled (2 Sam 7:10; Isa 60:21; Joel 3:20).

The Lord thy God. The final words of the prophecy were the ground of the assurance to Israel that these things would come to pass. (from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press)

OK, sure. Whatever. I don't know what point you're trying to make here but that sure is a hella-lotta quotes there. How very dull and impersonal of you.

The God you worship creates all evil.
Isaiah 45:7
(Quotes from page 72 of Hate Mail)

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Jehovah is the Creator and Sustainer of the physical universe, and of the moral law as well. The evil he creates is the antithesis of peace. But since the opposite of peace is not sin or moral evil, it is obvious that physical evil, or the calamitous consequences of wrongdoing are here intended. Nowhere does the Scripture ascribe to God the creation or authorship of sin; this originates only from the free moral agency of created beings. (from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press)

Did I misquote something? Perhaps I pulled it out of context but that doesn't make it any less funny. This is a good example of how you don't recognize humor and that I'm simply putting forth a neat piece of scripture. No misquotes. No lies. Just funniness. I don't think there's any God in the first place Bill.

By the way on page 73 of hate mail, you make a comment about all the "hits" you are getting. I assume you are referring to the webpage, and those "hits," note THIS from your homepage:

Interested in purchasing ADVERTISING space on or Please contact me for prices and availability.

Seems to me, the main issue here for you is money. You, like so many zealots, have deliberately created a "stir." This entire page of yours is nothing more than a marketing ploy on your part. How better to attract attention than to cause outrage on the one hand and camaraderie on the other? Seek a truly controversial subject! You've caused extreme attention to your "religion" ( I think that word fits very well here) for the sole purpose of monetary gain, and personal fame. (and are trying to line the coffers with it...and don't give me bull about costs for maintaining bandwidth, other religions state their cause for "operating expenses" as well) What better controversial subject than religion? Next, do politics, and then, sports, you'll have all the angles covered. You are as much of a charlatan as those you deride. You play emotions, and deliberately incite responses with your caustic "wit," you are nothing more than a sideshow con-man. Just like the ones you claim to be against. You are: "The Wizard of Bob,"... the little man behind the curtain.

Put ALL THIS on the site Bob. (how about putting the previous section on your homepage even? hmmm?) I dare you. Nothing exposes a falsehood better and faster than the real, honest, truth.

Bill V.

Finally you go for the throat; my greedy lust for money. This explains why my site is choked with ads, cheesy over-priced merchandise and constant ploys to sucker my audience out of their hard earned cash. Sometimes I'm shocked that I have any fans at all seeing as how I screw them over so blatantly without regard for my own reputation or credibility. Wait a second, are you sure you haven't mixed me up with SeanBaby?

The reason that there aren't ads on my site, Normal Bob Smith merchandise, collaborations, stock options or pyramid schemes is because all I want is to express my thoughts... and no one else's. I give you no bull about bandwidth because it is all donated to me as long as I keep that banner on Jesus Dress Up. I don't want your money. I don't need your money. All I want is the luxury of being the little man behind the curtain saying what he thinks, and that's all.

I've taken your dare and posted your letter Bill. What do I get? More quotes from the Moody Press?

The Wizard of Bob (I like that),
Normal Bob Smith

New Hate Mail
Past Hate Mail