1

Well, I read of your blog quite a lot, but I don't comment much.

But I will tell you this - I know about two or three who should be voted out of the island ASAP.

Just check your posting on Pre-Born Discrimination and then we talk...

2

Joe - Catez is a she :D

Good roundup, though!

3

Oh... and I vote Larry Lord! (For banishment :D)

He makes my head hurt... the amount of illogic in a single comment is staggering - when he makes multiple comments... it exponentiates.

4

I vote Larry Lord for banishment as well. For him and a couple other posters, your website is pearls before swine.

5

Larry Lord

6

I vote for no one. Can I cast a keep Larry Lord on vote?

As much as I disagree with him, mumon and several others, I don't want to see EO become a Christian cheerleading section where we live in our nice little blogosphere bubble and don't have interaction with those outside.

I thought we were trying to get out of the Evangelical Ghetto and influence the blogosphere as a whole.

Seeing the comments from the unruliest ones here, allows me to here what the other side is thinking and that is valuable to me.

It is your blog Joe and if you want to ban the person with the most votes, go ahead. You have ever right to do so after some of the stuff that has been said, but I will be a dissenter and not go along with the alliance. :)

7

I know I am just a troll here, but...

My initial, knee-jerk reaction was to vote off Larry, like so many have already done. If for no other reason than he seems incapable of engaging in any substantive debate without making broad, sweeping generalizations and pathetic ad homenum attacks.

However, I realize that Larry provides an example of how desperate and shrill people can become. I think that it is important that you allow him to continue his ranting, even if only to remind everyone else to keep their own emotions in check.

Just a troll's $0.02.

8

I vote to keep them all - like Aaron. Heck, I even link to Mumon and read his site 2-3 times per week.

I think bans should be reserved for the foul mouthed and those who mindlessly repeat drivel, not those who show effort at responding to the posts, no matter how wrong they are.

9

That is hilarious, Joe. The question, really, is if there is anyone you want voted off. Do you have an opinion? (Don't say me!)

10

At the risk of sounding more noble than I really am, I ask that everyone vote me off this blog.

I suggest this (1) because I rarely comment and (2) to keep the Larry Lords and mumons of the world from being excluded. Do we really want to cut them off from Christian interaction? Make one of them a martyr? Furthermore, is the notion of voting someone out even biblical? Vox populi, vox dei? If a believer is behaving badly, then it is encumbent upon those in authority to discipline and not count noses. We claim to live in the kingdom of God, not the democracy of God.

It seems to me that Christ had a particular passion for the outcasts and outrageous (tax collectors? Zealots?) and sought to include them; the religious, intolerant people were the targets of His disdain. Perhaps those who set themselves up as judges of others are the ones that need to be considered for banishment.

I hope this offends enough of you that you will kick me off this soon-to-be-for-eunuchs-only blog. Larry, mumon, et.al., are welcome at my place. I may censor some of their comments (I have done this in the past with people who troll, hijack, or make claims that are meant to do harm), but I will not reject them as people. They, too, bear the image of God (even if some of you would deny that Christ died for them).

Anyway, to paraphrase Groucho, I wouldn't want to be a part of any community that would have me as a member.

11

I have to go with David's viewpoint. Though it would be super to not have to read (rather, try to read)someone's obtuse stance, we really should not avoid it either. I believe it enhances our own need to self-examine and learning how to hone our focus. Yep- sometimes I would love to slap someone up side the head just to see if there is a rattling sound instead of crickets chirping, but I override that and am just glad I CAN and DO have the capacity to look at all viewpoints. Deep inside I just have to chuckle at how thick the soup is. Oh well!

12

Not to sound presumptious, but it seems to me that the decision to vote off / note vote off someone--particularly from a Christian blog--depends largely upon the purpose of the site and the content of their comments.

The Bible specifically directs us to "Vote out" people who poison the churh with repeated and unrepentent acts of sin, and such exclusion can be positive for the other members.

Here, it is obvious that Joe would exclude someone who used excessive profanity, made threats, etc.--and few people would complian.

But the question now is whether commenters are coming with an open mind or with an agenda. I don't know what Joe is thinking, but it must be frustrating when he spends hours preparing a post, and a series of commenters consistently changes the topic to something within the confines of their own agendas--limiting productive discussion of the initial topic and often drawing discussion to one of a handful of deadwood discussion--Bush is an idiot, Christians are idiots, abortion is like an appendectomy, etc.

I don't know that on an intellectual site such as this, there is anything wrong with excluding those who consistently and willfully sidetrack productive non-sectarian discussions of various topics--particularly when they do so in a way that degrades the level of discussion with vitriol, ad hominem, etc.

Being Christian means turning the other cheek. It also means including non-believers with the ultimate goal of reaching them with the Gospel of Christ (and here, with some healthy poltical commentary).

But there is a reason Christ advised us not to "cast our pearls before swine". Sometimes if you spend all your time debating those who are close-minded and have no goal but high-jacking discussion, you lose the audience of those uninterested in the anger, and really open to discussion and change. If kicking out the pranksters opens the door to those who want no part of their ridicule, wouldn't it be good to create an atmosphere more conducive to real debate, inclusion, and an atmosphere of openness.

Just a thought.

13

I don't know about you guys, but I'm voting third party this year

14

Ooh, also, regarding "homophobia"... Whenever people accuse me of it, I tell them that a more precise term would be that I'm "antihomogamistic", meaning against marriage of the same.

Much more accurate.

15

Hi Joe,
I may have missed it - but do you have a comment policy? If you don't I think it might help.

16

Joe -

I can't recall ever having a major disagreement with anything you have written until now. I have to ask you whether or not you want your blog to serve only in the Christian community or if you want it to be primarily for the public square. If the latter, then please reconsider voting off Larry. I am really sorry if there are some Christians who do feel that Larry threatens their faith, but my advice for them would be to go hide out in a Sunday School class with other Christians while those of us who actually want to engage in the world welcome, love, debate, and challenge people like Larry.

Also, Catez made a great point, perhaps a 'comment policy' would be a suitable alternative.

17

Interesting tactic Joe....

Mike and John, you both make good points.

Mike, you likely wouldn't get kicked off anywhere as you're comments are thoughtful and deal substantively with the issue at hand.

From my perspective John's statement,

"I don't know what Joe is thinking, but it must be frustrating when he spends hours preparing a post, and a series of commenters consistently changes the topic to something within the confines of their own agendas...

is more to the point. Indeed, the point of Joe's "The Daily Show..." post was ignored and the thread immediately highjacked into anti-bushism. So the issue isn't whether one person disagrees with another, it's whether the comments constitute reasonably apropos dialog and contribute to an intelligent (hopefully respectful) exchange of ideas. Most people fall outside that ideal at one time or another, and some hang out on the edges. Larry Lord pretty much runs away from it. I'm all for giving wide latitude, but it's to the point that I hardly read Larry's posts.

So, fwiw, I say sayonara Larry Lord.

18

I vote to banish no one. I hope this continues to be a site where believers and non-believers both feel welcome and engage in meaningful discussions.

As far as Larry Lord's status, I hope he stays. I don't care for the insults and the attacks and, because of them, my own policy is to never respond to him, but I do not think we are called to exclude others. I think we are called to be hospitable to the inhospitable. I hope everyone here remembers to include Larry in their prayers.

We make a big mistake when we try to segregate ourselves from the world. It may be more comfortable at times, but I do not think it is the correct path.

As far as Matthew 7:6, I think that the pearls in this context are the Words of God. For this reason, I do not use Bible verses with people who say they are not believers. I don't think we should elevate our own meager efforts here to that level.

19

If you're going to ban anyone, Larry Lord would be the one to ban. What on earth does he do for a living to be able to spend so much time spouting bile on your website? And what in the world does he gain from posting all of his irrational, crude negativity?

I don't think he is getting the help he needs here, and he certainly isn't helping your website. There are two logical choices 1.) can him, or 2.) can his posts when he goes off on a crude, irrational tangent (which is at least 8 out of every 10 of his posts). I've been trying to ignore him when I stop by occassionally to scan the blog, but sometimes the threads are full of his irrational venom.

BTW, I make it a point to read the comments of a lot of the regulars with whom I often disagree, but this guy's posts are irrational and irrelevant and border on insanity.

20

Joe - Perhaps an equitable solution to this issue would be to allow all to post (i.e. no outright "ban" of anyone), but, more stringent control over the posts themselves. If things start going tangentially, then, either make a "warning" post in the thread, or just outright delete the posts of that individual. Perhaps at that point you could warn the individual, and, if they stray again, then ban them, either permanently or for a period of time.

And, as far as Larry goes, I'm with others here - I have a personal policy of not reading or responding to his posts. But, I also don't think he should be asked to leave, either.

(BTW - good suggestion before - let's all pray for Larry and ask Christ to change his heart.)

21

Scott Buttes:

Puhleeze. Larry Lord and people like him do not threaten my faith. Don't give him that kind of credit. What he does threaten is reasonable discussion. I want to wrap my head in duct tape so it doesn't explode after reading posts from him and mumon and boonton.

None of us are Jesus Christ. Not only did Jesus hang out with the undesirables, but he was also able to shut them up with a word of rebuke or love as the case may be. To tell you the truth, I sometimes don't post, because my posts don't shut them up--they simply encourage more vitriol.

Along those lines, I have to admit that Mr. Ed has more patience than I can imagine. He carried on a long conversation yesterday with Larry Lord that would have required a whole roll of duct tape.

22

JD,

For me to say "threatens their faith" is perhaps too strong a statement. That was simply the initial impression I got by some of the comments.

I guess the reason I am having a difficult time with this is because I would have thought that those who feel very strongly against him would just ignore him. But if one ignores him, then why would one still want him banned? It seems to me if you want to ignore him, then do so. If you want to challenge his points, then do so. But banning him? It just seems such a .... Salem Witch Trials, Spanish Inquisition, Hide out in the church while waiting for the Rapture to happen, crazy fundamentalist version of Christianity to me.

But that is just one man's opinion. ;)

23

I would vote for Larry Lord to be booted except for two things. 1.What would stop him from coming back under another name, causing me to inadvertently read his venom. 2.My theory on him is that he doesn't believe half of what he writes, but that we're all one big experiment to him. He wants to see what it takes to get us to lash back in kind, or maybe it's just an experiment to see how long it takes to get censored or booted from a Christian discussion board. Maybe this is exactly what he wants.

On the other hand, I think mumon is more sincere in his opinions. Based on other's comments about him, I probably haven't read his most unhelpful posts. But I think what he writes, at least half the time, challenges us to think more clearly. Even if I'm right and he's wrong about something, it doesn't hurt to be challenged and for weaknesses in the way I present an idea to be refined. And, sometimes I have a plank in my own eye.
So, if possible, I'd ask that my vote be used to cancel out any vote off the island for mumon.

24

Yes!

I've been arguing for years that homophobia is a ridiculous term! People just enjoy using the word because it has "shock value" - you don't want to be labelled as being afraid of something. If anything, I figured "homosexualphobia" would be more correct, but not as catchy, but I like Heteronormative.

Of course, the opposite of "homophobia" (literally, afraid of things that are the same) being "homophilia" would actually be more accurate - if you only like ideas/things the same as you, you would naturally reject homosexuality if you are not a homosexual. Of course that isn't as specific as "homosexualphobic" - you could be a homosexual and hate heterosexuals, in which case homophilic would apply.

But, homophilic or heteronormative, they're both great words.

25

I like Larry, he is not as good as me in terms of style but he adds a lot of spice to our little debates. Limit the banning to spambots.

26

"There are few words in the English language more contrived and worthless than 'homophobia.'"

"Compassionate conservative"?

27

Scott Buttes wrote:

"It just seems such a .... Salem Witch Trials, Spanish Inquisition, Hide out in the church while waiting for the Rapture to happen, crazy fundamentalist version of Christianity to me."

All I basically said was that what larry and company write drives me crazy. They often resort to using terms like Nazi, Hitler, Inquisition, Fundamentalist, rapture waiting...in fact, the very kinds of exaggerations you're guilty of using. But this kind of rhetoric is becoming commonplace lately, almost exclusively from the left liberal type. It's simply not helpful to keep comparing your opponent to society's worst. How is it meaningful to compare someone sitting at a computer keyboard with the Spanish Inquisition?

28

JD -

You are correct to say that Christianity recieves many bad stereotypes, like what I just mentioned. Here is my issue: I think banning Larry is going to proliferate those stereotypes in the eyes of many Christians and non-Christians?

29

Kevin:

"There are few words in the English language more contrived and worthless than 'homophobia.'"

"Compassionate conservative"?

Yeah, I know. I hate redundant terms too.

30

touche.

31

man o man, larry lord made this blog more interesting than just about any single contributor. use reality tv as your ethical model if that works for you, but the one thing that i actually like(d) about reading here was that i felt pretty assured that you *weren't* censoring anyone, and that evangelicals here (at least some) weren't irredemably drunk on the christian kool-aid, and could still have moments of progressive critical introspection. oh well. tally ho with the inane circular conversations about the liberal media (eyes rolling) and cutting edge ID science, et al. you needn't worry about the sort of reality-based scrutiny (delivered with a delicioius acid wit) that mr lord afforded. because you're banned him. Triumph! Praise!

32

I won't vote anyone off the island either, not even Larry. Ultimately though, it's Joe's site and his call. He know what he wants to accomplish here and whether trolls play a part in that.

Larry's net contribution might actually be pro-Christian inasmuch as what he says amounts to "Hey! look at me! I am a Christian-basher and my clever arguments are nothing but name-calling!" If you can damn someone with faint praise, Larry praises Christians with faint damnation.

Besides, for all the bile he spews, Larry is attracted to Christians. Why else would he be here all the time?

33

I struggle “with the idea that we have no shorthand for the view that homosexuality is abnormal and morally aberrant.”

I don't know why. I've heard one quite often.

Everyone know that a faggot is a homosexual who has left the room. - Truman Capote

Isn't the sentiment and idea expressed by the word "faggot" exactly the same as Jeremy's statement?

Incidentally, "homophobia" probably has it's roots in court cases where murder defendants used the "homosexual panic" defense to explain that they were so overcome with disgust at the presence of a homosexual that they just had to beat him to death. Lawyers needed a phobia or mental illness to blame their clients vicious and evil behavior on. Its still frequently used, because it often works. So you see, "homophobia" is actually from straight people. And worse, from straight lawyer people. Icky.

34

"But, homophilic or hetero-normative, they're both great words."

Actually "homophilic" is probably a little confusing. An older and still sometimes used word for homosexual is the word "homophile". It was used to describe Walt Whitman or Oscar Wilde for example.

Incidentally, I will give 5 dollars to anyone who can actually come up with a meaningful and accurate definition of what "hetero normative" is supposed to mean. Bonus points if you can stop yourself from giggling while trying to do it.

35

Incidentally, I will give 5 dollars to anyone who can actually come up with a meaningful and accurate definition of what "hetero normative" is supposed to mean. Bonus points if you can stop yourself from giggling while trying to do it.

A belief that males and females possess distinct and separate psycho-, socio-, and physiological differences; that men were born to be men and women were born to be women; and that marriage between make and female is both a biological and societal normality.

You can send the money to my Grand Caymans account.

36

I wouldn't vote anyone "out," but perhaps vote someone into the "penalty box" -- i.e., the issue for me, at least, should be civility and courtesy, and there should always be a way back.

37

Conspicuous by their absence in all of the comments thusfar are Larry and mumon.

Have we succeeded is "excommunicating" them?

38

I doubt it Mike. They're probably just keeping a low profile at the moment. Can't imagine why.

39

The blogs of the intellectual Left such as the Panda's Thumb, Left2Right and Dispatches from the Culture Wars already rely on censorship, (some against me) it is a bad principle to support.

The interesting thing is that unlike here, where it seems that many people begin to write against censorship the Leftists, including Leftists that comment here like Mumon and DS, work to support censorship. This is a consistent pattern in more than just blogging (see: Tammy Bruce, The New Thought Police).

Example, this little fellow could not support the prejudices typical to the social Left and so he relies on censorship instead. It's the same on Left2Right. If you are reading a Leftist blog then it seems that one should assume that they rely on censorship. (Not for obscenity, etc., instead they set up some false victimization scripts about "hatred" and the like which then supposedly justifies the work of the sweaty little hands of the censor.)

That has been my experience.

40

There is censorship on the right, too.

My experience at "Free Republic" was one of instant, know-nothingism censorship. My first post at Free Republic, I made the mistake of voicing the criticism that Bush wasn't conservative enough. I thought that would be acceptable at Free Republic. Apparently not.

41

That story about the Free Republic, sans links, sounds just a bit shakey. But anyway, apparently you have an example from the Right right here at the Outpost. I would say it is not much of a pattern on the Right though. It is not like on the Left (Panda's Thumb, Culture Wars, Left2Right) where the number of voices raised in opposition to censorhip approached nil. Innstead, the weak minds seem to "bundle" together more closely to protect their memes and the like. Does not the etymology of the term fascist come from "bundle of sticks"? Each one is easy enough to snap on its own, so they bundle more tightly. That's what they seemed to do on the issue of censorship too, including some of the weak minded that write here sometimes. It seems those who put the inanimate before the animate cannot think through their brains very well. Perhaps instead they just accept a bundle of memes that they then bundle together to protect.

What seems most likely to trigger censorship on the Left is the deconstruction of the cultural scripts and memes which they believe about their Gays©.

42

"What seems most likely to trigger censorship on the Left is the deconstruction of the cultural scripts and memes which they believe about their Gays©."

I hate to rain on your martyr parade, mynym, but you couldn't decontruct a wet paper bag! I read Dispatches, and you were banned for the same reason people eradicate poison ivy. Or, in your case, kudzu.

That said, I wouldn't have voted to ban you regardless. A little dissent never hurt anyone. I hope Joe's just kidding around.

43

I also vote to ban no one (except, as was previously suggested, spambots. Although there are some posters who might have difficulty passing a Turing test. ;-)

24 ¶ Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.
25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.
26 When the wheat sprouted and formed ears, then the weeds also appeared.
27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

44

I didn't know I was supposed to post a web address.

I'm not sure if this will work, but feel freel to check my post at Free Republic, August 29, 2004. I lamented Bush being too big government, insufficiently conservative. It was the first, last and only post I was allowed to offer.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?name=Septimus

45

Joe, I agree life isn't fair.:^)

It's your blog.
Put up a simple site policy.

I use one that works for my readers. Let people talk, and if they are disrespectful to themselves or others they get a 'play nice' warning and are asked to read the site policy which is very simple. It's written for churched and none-churched people in plain language.

After that, it's my decision because it's my blog and I am responsible for the tone of the debate. I repeat. I am responsible for what happens in my comments section. If I can't accept that, then I might as well log off.

I've used 'play nice' twice. Both times the commenters read the policy, understood they would be held to that policy and apologized.
They received a private email asking if they understood why, we talk, and they are welcomed back.

I haven't had to ban anyone yet.

I don't understand why helping others by setting sensible boundaries would be a source of angst and up for a vote. We all want to be liked, we want to be fair.
Why can't you be clear about use of your bandwidth?

The number of blogs that do manage their comments sections effectively outnumber the blogs that don't. The ones that wind up with the inmates running the asylum get the attention.

I don't run from conflict or disagreement, but people that don't exercise self control and self-respect are not going to rule the dialogue and shame others.

Anyway, think about it. Site policies work for most of us. Take mine if you want it.

46

"I hate to rain on your martyr parade, mynym, but you couldn't decontruct a wet paper bag...."

Uh huh. It's not as if I was planning on staying, instead I would just refute the radical egalitarians at issue and be done with it. The wet paper bag seemed to be stuck on Ed's head....so, how many other blogs that have to rely on censorship to protect ignorant and stupid ideas do you read? I can name a few. How many more are there?

"That said, I wouldn't have voted to ban you regardless."

It seems that the social Left is not like Christians on this. Did you write against it like some have here? No. Did anyone? No.

Are these your secret convictions? How convenient! The ACLU type Left is the first to apply the principle of free speech to pederasts while simultaneously failing to protect the free speech of Pro-Life activists. I can document this. Again and again, it is the social Left that fails when it comes to free speech. Canada, the Netherlands, the American University, they can all be entered into evidence as to this point as well. Or Lawrence Summers vs. Ward Churchil, etc....the social Left will make room for the "speech" of pornographers before they will truly protect freedom of political speech, the very thing the Founders were actually protecting.

47

Okay Septimus.

I don't read the Free Republic. And now that is one reason not to begin.

48

Joe, I think the site/comment policy idea is a winner. As your deletion of a racist post a few weeks ago showed, the issue isn't about whether to censor or not, but what behavior merits it.

To those who think no Larry=no dissent: I don't think there's any danger whatever of this blog becoming a chorus of sycophants and ideological Joe-clones. Anyone paying any attention whatever knows disagreement over ideas isn't the issue here. The substance and manner of disagreement is. Larry has proven over a length of time that he isn't interested in discussing different veiwpoints so much as venting his interminable animosity toward Christians. It's telling that Larry is the only one receiving any votes. I say if you're consistantly rude, is it surprising that you might be asked to leave? That said, if voting on Larry wasn't an option, I'd be in the "no vote" category.

49

A fair thing about a site policy work is that the blogger is up front about what the reader can expect from them.

I'm clear about what I offer.
I'll correct my mistakes, keep the site spam free, protect readers from spammers, show myself and you respect. I didn't use crappy legalize - a primary school student could read it and understand.

In turn, you (the reader/commenter/emailer) are welcomed.

There is nothing undemocratic or unchristian about clarity.

50

Opps. A fair thing that helps a site policy work...
zzzzzz. Nite.

51

I, also, don't think the issue here is so much one of disagreement over the ideas (I've disagreed with Joe and gotten linked for my pains) as shouting down the debate.

Consider a town hall meeting, where at the outset it is *assumed* that everyone has the privilege of speaking their mind.

If one person steps up to the mic and begins ranting for hours, hijacking the meeting, eventually that person will be told their time is up; if they fail to respond, they will be removed from the room.

Similarly, if someone in the back jumps up and shouts down a speaker who has the floor, they will be silenced, and then removed.

This, however, is a blog; it is not a town hall meeting, though Joe's policy up to now has been to treat it as if it were one. We are in Joe's space, he is publishing our comments, and he has every right to be as open or as restrictive as he thinks appropriate. I like openness; I don't think he should be expected to be so open that he can't have the kind of discussions he wants to have on his blog.

I don't much like "vote off the island" as a metaphor for this sort of matter. I have to admit, though, that my instinct was, also, to wish Larry Lord's posts would be consigned to the oblivion they so richly merit.

Cheers,
PGE

52

I assure you, mynym, that your first amendment rights are precious to me. I just don't feel they entitle you to post on Ed's blog if he doesn't want you there. I'd fight for your right to express yourself to your heart's content in print, in person, and on the air, just not on another private citizen's dime. How exactly are you being repressed? Were you removed from the president's motor route so he wouldn't have to see or hear you as he drove past? Oh, wait, that was ME. I was moved to a nice little "Free Speech Zone", far from the action, where real Americans wouldn't have to witness my disgraceful liberal rantings.

Be careful about suggesting that restricted speech is primarily the domain of the left; it just ain't so. I can name plenty of right-wing and evangelical sites that regularly ban people. Left-wing and secular sites do the same; it's their right to do so. That's why I didn't object to your banning.

I'm in favor of pro-life demonstrations even though I don't sympathize with the cause. However, I don't want to see places of business effectively shut down and its proprietors and clients harassed and threatened. Rights of one group have to be balanced against the rights of others. That's what's so great about America: we respect diversity. Most of us, anyway.

53

For me, it's not that Larry is "threatening my faith".

He's spoiling my enjoyment of a great site.

When _every_single_post_ is 1/2 Larry's Rant Parade... that's excessive.

Very excessive. Not only that, but the bilious hatred he shows for everything Christian really, really, really grates - especially when it's not even half-logical, the majority of the time. I likea good discussion - keep Boonton and mumon (even if I think they're off-base 9 out of 10 times) - but at least they usually manage to stay civil.

Larry doesn't even bother. The more he comments, the less I read. That's how I gauge Joe's success on a post, though.. by how much Larry is frothing at the mouth. But really.. rabies is just not a pretty mental picture for every visit - you know?

Please, ask him to tone down the acidity - or boot him. He's still my vote.

54

Boonton

"I like Larry, he is not as good as me in terms of style ...."

Ha, good one, Boonton. Do you want me to vote you off? ;)

I get the feeling my torch is going to get snuffed out pretty soon ...

A final (?) message to Joe Carter: you're pretty good at what you do here. The abortion and euthanasia topics are always thought-provoking. I just wish you'd cut it with the atheist-baiting, gay-baiting and scientist-baiting stuff. It amounts to hogwash nearly every time.

55

". I just wish you'd cut it with the atheist-baiting, gay-baiting and scientist-baiting stuff. It amounts to hogwash nearly every time."

Hmmmmmmm. There have been times when I think Joe is deliberately stirring up the hornets nest. Like a kid that just can't resist sticking his finger in the electric socket to see what happens.

That being the case, I think that standards for getting banned, (if any are needed at all) should be rather flexible.

56

"I can name plenty of right-wing and evangelical sites that regularly ban people."

I suspect that evangelicals are generally banning for obscenity and not to protect stupid and ignorant ideas about sexuality. It seems that the social Left bans to protect a neurotic sort of radical egalitarianism because of their neurotic feelings on such issues. They're the same sort walking out on Lawrence Summers because he "provocatively" touched on the neurosis of these passive ones.

The passive will say that those who do not share their sort of neurosis are "controversial," "a polarizing figure," etc. They are the ones "...deliberately stirring up the hornets nest." of neurosis. They are active, the others are just these poor lil' passive things who fit into some victimization script.

I do not agree with the principle I see beginning to take hold on blogs. I.e., "This is my private space!" Yeah, well if it is so private then don't publish it and link it in all over the internet.

"....where real Americans wouldn't have to witness my disgraceful liberal rantings."

Uh huh, where one or two self defined queer anarchists are gathered together, there shall the Old Press be. You have your voice. In fact, it has been quite the megaphone for a long time. The Old Press is only now being answered more and more.

"...we respect diversity. Most of us, anyway."

Yes we do, yet perversity is not diversity.

"...it's their right to do so. That's why I didn't object to your banning."

The Left seems to shift to talk of "rights" when they are taking an incorrect position. The point is not whether he has the right to, of course he does. Did I ever say he didn't? Was he right....no, his ideas were stupid and ignorant, i.e. wrong. I can go through them again, but this is not the place. It's just an example.

57

If you are going to ban someone I think it should be on the basis of their text, not some vote. Their text should be demonstrably off topic, etc.

58

I say ban everyone. Much simpler that way.

59

"I suspect that evangelicals are generally banning for obscenity and not to protect stupid and ignorant ideas about sexuality."

So it's O.K. when they do it, hmmm?

"It seems that the social Left bans to protect a neurotic sort of radical egalitarianism because of their neurotic feelings on such issues. They're the same sort walking out on Lawrence Summers because he "provocatively" touched on the neurosis of these passive ones."

His comments certainly didn't rock MY world. Guess I'm not as neurotic as the other lefties.

"I do not agree with the principle I see beginning to take hold on blogs. I.e., "This is my private space!""

But it is; you don't have to go there, and they don't have to let you comment. Just because my house is on a public street doesn't mean you can come in. Sheesh!

"Uh huh, where one or two self defined queer anarchists are gathered together, there shall the Old Press be. You have your voice."

But...I'm straight; nobody saw our forlorn little group standing around with signs three blocks from the action. Maybe I should have ACTED gay.

"Yes we do, yet perversity is not diversity."

And who decides what is perverse? mynym does!

By the way, what is my "wrong position" that induced me to switch the talk to rights? My position of not crying foul when you were banned? That didn't rock my world, either. I'm not as neurotic as most lefties, you see.

60

Joe, quit trying to get out of the responsibility of managing your own site by this diversion. Just start limiting or banning the the people who deserve to be limited or banned. Call a spade a spade, and act.

Grow some nads, Man.

61

Catez Stevens? He converted to Islam, right?

62

"I don't know that on an intellectual site such as this..."

Say what?

I vote for kicking Joe Carter off. That guy is such a putz. Seriously, a philosphical hack of epic proportions...he doesn't believe in science...he's as politically savvy as the average Bush supporter...he's a Jesus freak...he picks his nose then eats it...

This is pretty funny too:

Quote of the Day -- From Noah Millman: “So: make a smash hit film about a guy who allows himself to be killed to redeem the world, don't get nominated. Make a modestly successful film about a gal who asks to be killed because she can't bear to live as an invalid, win Best Picture.” (HT: Gideon Strauss)

I haven't seen Million Dollar Baby, but I have seen the Passion. It sucked. That's why it didn't win any awards (besides best wardrobe or whatever). Get it through your thick heads. The movie had no plot, no story, no nothing. It was just a dude getting his ass beat for two hours and then getting nailed to a piece of wood. It sucked.

63

I vote for kicking Joe Carter off. That guy is such a putz. Seriously, a philosphical hack of epic proportions...he doesn't believe in science...he's as politically savvy as the average Bush supporter...he's a Jesus freak...he picks his nose then eats it...

...and you're apparently one to talk? We're supposed to read an accusation like that and make you the arbiter of Joe's intelligence? Jeeze.

The movie was depicting an historical event, which, if you look into it, is quite a story (whether you recognize the importance of it or not). That dude getting his ass beat for two hours and then getting nailed to a piece of wood was an historical figure (with more proof of his physical existence than Plato, Homer, Aristotle, and any other human being from around his time or before) who made some pretty bold claims about being the Son of God. He also had some people around him claim that he rose from the dead...and all of these people were so serious about this that they wouldn't renounce it to save their own lives (getting hung up-side down on a cross, getting decapitated, stoned to death, etc). The response you give to these claims has massive implications for you and the rest of world history, if He and they were speaking the Truth. I would encourage you (if you haven't seriously done it already) to take a look at his life and claims and see for yourself what is at stake.
Examine the meta-story that He is putting forth, through which all other stories can be interpreted. Examine the interpretation of world/human history that the Bible puts forth and see if you can find a better one which describes it more accurately and takes into account EVERY aspect of reality (and that won't change every few hundred years like all other man-made ones do). His claims are much more impressive and comprehensive/holistic than those of your science.

64

"...an historical figure (with more proof of his physical existence than Plato, Homer, Aristotle, and any other human being from around his time or before)"

Utter hogwash. Are you saying there is more evidence of a historical Jesus than there is for pharoahs whose actual bodies, belongings, and personal histories we have? More evidence than that for Julius Caesar? We have contemporary accounts of Plato. We still have Plato's Apology. What did Jesus write?

When you make a wild, unsubstantiated claim like this, it's hard to take you seriously. I'm not asserting that Jesus never existed, only that his existence is not supported as strongly as you assert. Show me the evidence for Jesus, and I'll show you how it pales in comparison to that for Caesar or Plato.

65

My apologies, please forgive me. I made a mistake and I take back what I said in the parantheses...I was mixing up that point with a fact about the Bible, and how we can trust it in its current form as the same/VERY similar to the original manuscripts (...because we have so much physical proof of THAT, not "physical" proof of the body of Christ. That would be pretty hard since he's not rotting in the ground but alive and kicking [and ruling] today).

Again, Rob, please forgive me....I humbly receive the rebuke.

66

Joel,

I wouldn't respond to BCB. His comments about "The Passion" above are so childish, over the top, and off-topic, he might as well be wearing a big sign that reads, "Jesus is a poo-poo head." Oh nooo. You're offending me. I can't handle it. Going to cry now.

It's bait, people. Don't take it.

67

I'm not offended, Joel. And, as I stated, I don't deny the historicity of Jesus. I merely contend that the evidence for a historical Jesus does not exceed that for several contemporaries and predecessors.

Your humility reflects well upon you, and I wish I hadn't worded my response so vituperatively.

68

Sorry to have disturbed your preconceptions so much that you had to take down my post! In any case, you can expect "homophobia" to remain a staple in the public discourse, because it's an accurate word to denote the sense of threat felt by some heterosexuals in reaction to the reality of homosexuality.

Sorrier if you did keep my post up but I can't find it. New to blogs...

69

Joel said:

The movie was depicting an historical event, which, if you look into it, is quite a story (whether you recognize the importance of it or not). That dude getting his ass beat for two hours and then getting nailed to a piece of wood was an historical figure (with more proof of his physical existence than Plato, Homer, Aristotle, and any other human being from around his time or before) who made some pretty bold claims about being the Son of God. He also had some people around him claim that he rose from the dead...and all of these people were so serious about this that they wouldn't renounce it to save their own lives (getting hung up-side down on a cross, getting decapitated, stoned to death, etc).

I fully realize the movie was depicting a historical event. A comedian named Patton Oswald has this wonderful bit about the Passions where he likens Gibson's attempts to market the movie to his (Oswald's) attempts to market a movie about the life of Albert Einstien, but limits the story to two hours of Einstien's life where he was on the toilet because of food poisoning. Einstien, of course, is a historical figure, but I still wouldn't say that this would be much of a story.
Second, I don't doubt that some dude that claimed to be the son of God existed. In fact, I was on the bus the other day and the guy sitting behind me was making the same claim, and I'm pretty sure he existed (he was sitting right behind me after all). Of course, I don't think the guy on the bus had the backing of the Council of Nicea.
Third, it seems that Jubus wasn't the only one working miracles back then--including rising from the dead. In fact, it was quite common. For Example:

The modern Jesus Seminar holds that the various cures are probably true, since there were many others in the ancient world credited with healing power, but rejects most other miracles, at least in their literal interpretation from the Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus