I, the undersigned, B. Kok, have this to say,
1) Rev. Ophoff has taken exception to my statement in the Standard Bearer of January which reads as follows: “I also wish to inform our readers that we were both limited by the editor to five typewritten pages which is equivalent to about four columns of the Standard Bearer. But lo, instead of four, my opponent used up more than eleven columns, or about three times the space allotted him. By taking such undue advantage he has really forfeited all right of expecting an answer from me.” The brother maintains that five columns of this space was taken up by an ‘‘introduction to the Debate,” in which, according to him, he does not debate, but merely states the issues. This I could not see, but I am willing to let the readers judge. If in this statement I have wronged the brother I gladly retract.
2) The final paragraph of my rebuttal (The Standard Bearer for Jan 1) reads: “I have come to the end of my allotted space of five typewritten pages, I hope my opponent does not again take undue advantage of me, by taking more than his allotted spaced.” Reconsidering, I realize that the statement: “I have come to the end of my allotted space of five typewritten pages” is incomplete. The sentence should read: I have come to the end of my originally allotted space.” For the fact is that not for my first article, to be sure (the one appearing in The Standard Bearer for Dec. 15), but for my rebuttal, the editor, in view of the fact that my opponent had written more than he should have, allowed me as much space as I thought I would need, thus more space than was originally assigned to us. The reason I filled none of this extra space is that I had told my opponent that I was intending to limit myself to the space tree was originally ours, and that my opponent said that he would try to do likewise.
3) There is abroad a rumor to the effect that my opponent took unfair advantage of me in this respect that he wrote his first article after he had read my first article. Another rumor has it that after he had his first article written, he read my first article and that, in consequence thereof, he made certain changes in his first article or enlarged it. There is sufficient objective evidence at hand to prove these rumors thoroughly false. Besides, anyone who compares his first article with my first article will easily and readily perceive that these rumors must be false. My opponent would be glad to have anyone in doubt about this approach him on the matter.
I, the undersigned, G.M. Ophoff have this to say.
1. I am grateful to the brother for these corrections and remarks.
2. I now realize that I should have limited myself to the space originally assigned to us, and also that it would have been better had I not involved the consistory of Hudsonville. My mistake is, that I made of our debate a controversy, while the purpose of the editor, in assigning to us the question in dispute, was not controversy but formal debate.