I'd like to ask Mr Starr if he believes in what Jesus is reported to have taught about marriage--"What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
If so... what the hell is he doing?
(What, what's that Ken? Jesus' teachings don't apply to gay and lesbian folk? Except... wait... when you want to say they do?)
First, threats and other attempts to intimidate others will not be tolerated on my blog.
Threats are the actions of a bully and I'm sure that you don't want others to think of you as a bully - being perceived as a bully by others would undercut your self-image as a persecuted victim of Unitarian Universalist intolerance.
Second, Ogre was not "attacking" Ken Starr - he was pointing out an inconstancy between Mr. Starr's professed religion (Christian - specifically Church of Christ denomination) and his legal action to break up 18,000+ families.
I agree with Ogre that Mr. Starr's actions are inconsistent with the Golden Rule and other Christian ethical principles. Criticism of actions that will harm families isn't an "attack."
Indeed, calling this an attack is a gross misuse of the word.
I don't know what your comments had to do with the initial post with the video clip or Ogre's comments. They are highly tangential.
Finally, you are free to write about how unfair you think my actions are on your own blog. You have total freedom of expression on your own blog.
But my blog is not your blog and I'm entitled to make decisions about as I see fit.
You are free to post replies as long they are on-topic and you don't attempt to hijack the thread.
You are not free to threaten and bully others on my blog.
:First, threats and other attempts to intimidate others will not be tolerated on my blog.
There is a difference between a threat and a fair warning of negative consequences for certain actions Steve. I gave you a fair waring of what I would do if you deleted my legitimate criticism of Ogre's willfully ignorant sarcastic comment here.
:Threats are the actions of a bully and I'm sure that you don't want others to think of you as a bully -
Are warning shots across the bow the actions of a bully Steve? If so the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force are nothing but bullies when they engage in such warnings. Personally I beg to differ.
:being perceived as a bully by others would undercut your self-image as a persecuted victim of Unitarian Universalist intolerance.
You are too funny Steve. I am the victim of Unitarian*Universalist intolerance and bigotry aka bullying. I choose to fight back rather than allow U*U bullies to get away with their bullying with no negative consequences. Most non-U*Us do not perceive me as bully. They perceive me as someone who doesn't take crap from U*Us.
:Second, Ogre was not "attacking" Ken Starr - he was pointing out an inconstancy between Mr. Starr's professed religion (Christian - specifically Church of Christ denomination) and his legal action to break up 18,000+ families.
You are exercising hypocritical double standards here Steve. If you can characterize my legitimate criticism of Ogre as an attack, to say nothing of my pointing out inconsistencies between your own professed religion and and your action as an attack then Ogre most certainly attacked Ken Starr if not Christians more generally.
:I agree with Ogre that Mr. Starr's actions are inconsistent with the Golden Rule and other Christian ethical principles.
That may be so Steve but Ogre disingenuously misrepresented certain aspects of Christian belief in his less than well reasoned emotional appeal and I pointed that problem out because such disingenuous misrepresentation of Christian beliefs discredits U*U arguments. I was actually trying to persuade U*Us to argue from more solid ground rather than from U*U BS that can be shown to be BS.
:Criticism of actions that will harm families isn't an "attack."
How about criticism of poorly chosen words that will U*Us look foolish and dishonest in the eyes of much of the American public Steve? AFA*I*AC I was doing U*Us a favor by pointing out Ogre's flawed approach.
:Indeed, calling this an attack is a gross misuse of the word.
Wrong. I dare say that your characterizing my legitimate criticism of Ogre's words as an attack is an even less justified misuse of the word attack.
:I don't know what your comments had to do with the initial post with the video clip or Ogre's comments. They are highly tangential.
They are not tangential to Ogre's comments at all Steve. They had everything to do with Ogre's willfully ignorant sarcasm.
:Finally, you are free to write about how unfair you think my actions are on your own blog. You have total freedom of expression on your own blog.
And I fully intend to exercise that freedom Steve.
:But my blog is not your blog and I'm entitled to make decisions about as I see fit.
Indeed you are Steve but I am entitled to make decisions about your decisions as *I* see fit. Warning you of what I intend to do if, in my view, you unjustifiably delete my comments is what I call playing fair. I could have not warned you at all and simply gone ahead with what I intended to do. N'est-ce pas?
:You are free to post replies as long they are on-topic and you don't attempt to hijack the thread.
My comment was entirely on topic and not an attempt to hijack the thread Steve. That should be obvious.
:You are not free to threaten and bully others on my blog.
Call it threatening and bullying all you want Steve. I call a fair warning of my intentions if you censor and suppress my legitimate criticism of Ogre's comments which was rather more civil than his sarcastic attack on Ken Starr if not Christians and Christianity more generally. I consider apparent disingenuous misrepresentation of the beliefs and practices of Christians, to say nothing of Jesus or God, to be an attack on Christianity as a religion.
I will proceed as I warned you In would proceed. AFA*I*AC it would have been better for you to allow my critical comments to stand. When someone gives you fair warning you should take it seriously, even if they throw in some humour to the warning itself. I would have thought that a former B-52 crew member would have paid more heed to what I said to you.
I'm letting your last comment stay on my blog not because I agree with it nor because I'm really afraid of the threats of a person who engages in bullying behavior.
I think your comments are evidence that you cannot tolerate me making a decision that you disagree with on my blog.
I'm not telling you how you should run your blog because it's none of my business.
You have a right to free speech but you don't have a right to tell others how they should manage their blogs.
No matter how you spin this by saying you are providing "fair warning of negative consequences for certain actions" instead of the more honest word "threat" for your actions, it really doesn't reflect well for you.
Your use of euphemism is akin to Bush administration referring to "torture" by the more gentle term "extraordinary interrogation techniques."
Your words may convince a neutral third party that the Unitarian Church of Montreal was justified in asking you to leave.
I will leave these threatening words up as a witness to your threating attitude.
But I'm asking that you stop making online threats against others. It reflects very badly on you when you do this.
I haven't made any "threats" Steve. I simply warned you that if you chose to delete my comments I would reproduce them on my blog. That is hardly a threat. If you count that as a threat than U*Us have threatened me far more times than I have very justifiably accused them of threatening.
:Your words may convince a neutral third party that the Unitarian Church of Montreal was justified in asking you to leave.
Actually I fully expect that my words in the comment you left intact will convince most neutral third parties that you are talking through your hat Steve.
10 comments:
I'd like to ask Mr Starr if he believes in what Jesus is reported to have taught about marriage--"What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
If so... what the hell is he doing?
(What, what's that Ken? Jesus' teachings don't apply to gay and lesbian folk? Except... wait... when you want to say they do?)
Robin,
My default or reflex position is for minimal content restriction in the comments on my blog.
However, your totally off-topic comments to ogre are uncalled for and I've deleted them.
If you want to attack people, you can do so on your own blog instead of mine.
Emotional appeals are not inconsistent with reason. Some emotions like compassion are beneficial for all of us.
I would suggest that reason when combined with compassion has an excellent performance record for making the world a better place for all.
Good day.
Robin,
First, threats and other attempts to intimidate others will not be tolerated on my blog.
Threats are the actions of a bully and I'm sure that you don't want others to think of you as a bully - being perceived as a bully by others would undercut your self-image as a persecuted victim of Unitarian Universalist intolerance.
Second, Ogre was not "attacking" Ken Starr - he was pointing out an inconstancy between Mr. Starr's professed religion (Christian - specifically Church of Christ denomination) and his legal action to break up 18,000+ families.
I agree with Ogre that Mr. Starr's actions are inconsistent with the Golden Rule and other Christian ethical principles. Criticism of actions that will harm families isn't an "attack."
Indeed, calling this an attack is a gross misuse of the word.
I don't know what your comments had to do with the initial post with the video clip or Ogre's comments. They are highly tangential.
Finally, you are free to write about how unfair you think my actions are on your own blog. You have total freedom of expression on your own blog.
But my blog is not your blog and I'm entitled to make decisions about as I see fit.
You are free to post replies as long they are on-topic and you don't attempt to hijack the thread.
You are not free to threaten and bully others on my blog.
Good day.
:First, threats and other attempts to intimidate others will not be tolerated on my blog.
There is a difference between a threat and a fair warning of negative consequences for certain actions Steve. I gave you a fair waring of what I would do if you deleted my legitimate criticism of Ogre's willfully ignorant sarcastic comment here.
:Threats are the actions of a bully and I'm sure that you don't want others to think of you as a bully -
Are warning shots across the bow the actions of a bully Steve? If so the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force are nothing but bullies when they engage in such warnings. Personally I beg to differ.
:being perceived as a bully by others would undercut your self-image as a persecuted victim of Unitarian Universalist intolerance.
You are too funny Steve. I am the victim of Unitarian*Universalist intolerance and bigotry aka bullying. I choose to fight back rather than allow U*U bullies to get away with their bullying with no negative consequences. Most non-U*Us do not perceive me as bully. They perceive me as someone who doesn't take crap from U*Us.
:Second, Ogre was not "attacking" Ken Starr - he was pointing out an inconstancy between Mr. Starr's professed religion (Christian - specifically Church of Christ denomination) and his legal action to break up 18,000+ families.
You are exercising hypocritical double standards here Steve. If you can characterize my legitimate criticism of Ogre as an attack, to say nothing of my pointing out inconsistencies between your own professed religion and and your action as an attack then Ogre most certainly attacked Ken Starr if not Christians more generally.
:I agree with Ogre that Mr. Starr's actions are inconsistent with the Golden Rule and other Christian ethical principles.
That may be so Steve but Ogre disingenuously misrepresented certain aspects of Christian belief in his less than well reasoned emotional appeal and I pointed that problem out because such disingenuous misrepresentation of Christian beliefs discredits U*U arguments. I was actually trying to persuade U*Us to argue from more solid ground rather than from U*U BS that can be shown to be BS.
:Criticism of actions that will harm families isn't an "attack."
How about criticism of poorly chosen words that will U*Us look foolish and dishonest in the eyes of much of the American public Steve? AFA*I*AC I was doing U*Us a favor by pointing out Ogre's flawed approach.
:Indeed, calling this an attack is a gross misuse of the word.
Wrong. I dare say that your characterizing my legitimate criticism of Ogre's words as an attack is an even less justified misuse of the word attack.
:I don't know what your comments had to do with the initial post with the video clip or Ogre's comments. They are highly tangential.
They are not tangential to Ogre's comments at all Steve. They had everything to do with Ogre's willfully ignorant sarcasm.
:Finally, you are free to write about how unfair you think my actions are on your own blog. You have total freedom of expression on your own blog.
And I fully intend to exercise that freedom Steve.
:But my blog is not your blog and I'm entitled to make decisions about as I see fit.
Indeed you are Steve but I am entitled to make decisions about your decisions as *I* see fit. Warning you of what I intend to do if, in my view, you unjustifiably delete my comments is what I call playing fair. I could have not warned you at all and simply gone ahead with what I intended to do. N'est-ce pas?
:You are free to post replies as long they are on-topic and you don't attempt to hijack the thread.
My comment was entirely on topic and not an attempt to hijack the thread Steve. That should be obvious.
:You are not free to threaten and bully others on my blog.
Call it threatening and bullying all you want Steve. I call a fair warning of my intentions if you censor and suppress my legitimate criticism of Ogre's comments which was rather more civil than his sarcastic attack on Ken Starr if not Christians and Christianity more generally. I consider apparent disingenuous misrepresentation of the beliefs and practices of Christians, to say nothing of Jesus or God, to be an attack on Christianity as a religion.
I will proceed as I warned you In would proceed. AFA*I*AC it would have been better for you to allow my critical comments to stand. When someone gives you fair warning you should take it seriously, even if they throw in some humour to the warning itself. I would have thought that a former B-52 crew member would have paid more heed to what I said to you.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
Robin,
I'm letting your last comment stay on my blog not because I agree with it nor because I'm really afraid of the threats of a person who engages in bullying behavior.
I think your comments are evidence that you cannot tolerate me making a decision that you disagree with on my blog.
I'm not telling you how you should run your blog because it's none of my business.
You have a right to free speech but you don't have a right to tell others how they should manage their blogs.
No matter how you spin this by saying you are providing "fair warning of negative consequences for certain actions" instead of the more honest word "threat" for your actions, it really doesn't reflect well for you.
Your use of euphemism is akin to Bush administration referring to "torture" by the more gentle term "extraordinary interrogation techniques."
Your words may convince a neutral third party that the Unitarian Church of Montreal was justified in asking you to leave.
I will leave these threatening words up as a witness to your threating attitude.
But I'm asking that you stop making online threats against others. It reflects very badly on you when you do this.
I haven't made any "threats" Steve. I simply warned you that if you chose to delete my comments I would reproduce them on my blog. That is hardly a threat. If you count that as a threat than U*Us have threatened me far more times than I have very justifiably accused them of threatening.
:Your words may convince a neutral third party that the Unitarian Church of Montreal was justified in asking you to leave.
Actually I fully expect that my words in the comment you left intact will convince most neutral third parties that you are talking through your hat Steve.
Bon nuit,
Robin Edgar
Post a Comment