Saturday, August 05, 2006

Rising to the Bait

I’m probably going to regret this in the morning … but, what the heck!?

One commenter downstream accused me of censorship for my decision to turn comment moderation “on” for this blog. That’s rather ironic, since I have published every one of his comments here. I’m not afraid of disagreement, though some of it does sadden me.

Strangely enough, after I announced I was going to begin moderating comments, I only got a few more comments of the “ick” variety, then they died down and took their screeds to other blogs. Perhaps the mere awareness that they were going to be scrutinized here kept some of the bottom feeders away. I don’t know. But I do know that, while waiting for these people to slink back into the primordial slime, I was determined to review comments before I allowed them to post here.

There are some things that are beyond the pale. I will allow some mild profanity here. The occasional mild expletive does not get my knickers in a twist. Heck! I’ll even allow four-letter words like "ALPO" and intellectually vapid phrases like “the plain meaning of Scripture” to be used. But there are certain four-letter words which will not appear here. [Hint: If it would make my mother blush, the word or phrase won’t get published here.] And some comments have had a hateful, unChristian tone which I will not publish here.

Now … if you want some evidence of why I had to begin moderating each and every comment, here are some of the discussions currently transpiring elsewhere in the blogosphere about a couple of my recent entries. Be forewarned: the level of disdain and vitriol in these blogs may be more than some of you want to endure. So click on these at your own risk.

Some folks flat did not like my PhotoChopped "primate" image. You may be entertained by their outrage. Fortunately, at least one blogger urged these folks to “get a life!”

My "After Columbus" post didn’t win me a bunch of fans, either. Readers at Drell's Descants were comparatively restrained – except they couldn’t decide (as they put it) "whether to laugh or throw up" at the distress I and that young man at Starbuck’s were feeling after GC06’s decisions. These Canadians also seem to have come up a gallon short on the “milk of human kindness.” But the prize goes to this Missouri blog , whose readers really went into a feeding frenzy. One progressive priest tried to remind them of the need for Christian charity, and that led to one of them calling him “Antichrist.” You really must read the comments to “feel the love” that these supposedly orthodox Christians exhibit.

Added 08.06.06: I forgot to include this site you should include in your exploration of the underbelly of Episcopalian Bottom Feeders. It’s run by a person (or group; that’s not quite clear) that typifies the behavior of trolling through liberal/progressive blogs in order to find snippets for use as target practice. This lovely little discussion is focused on a friend I’ve made in cyberspace; I merely rate a light comment about my “Mutual Whining Society” site. But the sixth-grade-level name-calling here truly did take my breath away. “St. Elizabeth of the Perpetually Huffy”? “Lizzy the Lezzie”? I am astonished at this kind of speech among purported Episcopalians! I had thought that at least Episcopalians exhibited some manners and decorum. This gang proves me wrong. To their credit, note that one or two of the regulars there actually chide their “orthodox friends” when the venom goes off the charts.

Friends, this is the kind of stuff that's being written on the sites that claim they want to cling to the "faith once delivered to the saints." If that's their faith -- and if those are the fruits of that faith -- then kindly "color me gone."

You may wonder why the heck I am publishing those links. My reason is simple, and two-fold. First, if you want to use the yardstick, “See how those Christians love one another,” then I think you’ll quickly figure out which weblogs are exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit. Second, these were the kinds of comments coming into my wee little blog, and I want you to know why I had to go into “comment moderation” mode.

Edit 8/6/06: Aha! Now I understand. It's the Cavaliers and the Roundheads again. MadPriest has a great and funny analysis of this whole dynamic. Go there and read!

6 Comments:

Blogger ... said...

Oh. My. God.

I knew that some "christians" (and in this case, I use the term VERY loosely) were bottom feeders, but Lisa, you seem to have found the ones that feed at the bottoms of septic tanks.

I read the comments regarding your page that were posted over on the Midwest Conservative Journal. ( http://mcj.bloghorn.com/2555#Comments )

How in the name of all that is Holy can these people claim to be even remotely christian?

Time doesn't permit me to do it now, but I believe I will take their (rather colorful) commentary and post it on the front of my blog as an example of what seems to pass for an orthodox Anglican these days. If this is truly representative (and I pray to God that it is not), then the ECUSA would do well to wish these bottom feeders the best of luck as they walk apart.

I am truly disgusted and ashamed for these ignorant fools who are so trapped in their own self-righteous arrogance that they will willfully tear down churches rather than consider that other, valid, viewpoints exist.

However, it is not without a benefit, my having strolled in the much that passes for a blog in Webster Groves, Missouri. No, this homosexual has staked out his place in the ECUSA and no scum-sucking anti-christ of a bottom feeder is going to turn me away from it.

Thanks, folks, my resolve is fully tempered now. You lose.

And Lisa, you keep on rocking, girl. You're a blessing and we need you too.

Jeffrey

8/05/2006 11:38 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Thanks, ToeWalker. You've hit the same "wall" I did. First I was hurt. Now, I'm just ticked and determined that these people will not define Anglicanism in the U.S. Those people are evil. Evil, pure and simple.

Yes, I think the best thing we can do is to let all the world see what the faux-Anglicans have to say. Let's get it out there!

8/05/2006 11:53 PM  
Blogger ... said...

Working on it. Their entire commentary will be on my blog before I retire for the evening.

8/06/2006 12:02 AM  
Blogger Pat Greene said...

Wow. It always amazes me what people will say in the name of Christ. I think I need to pray for them extra hard next Good Friday, at the part in the liturgy that requires us to pray for those who use Scripture to oppress others. : )

8/06/2006 1:55 PM  
Blogger Bill said...

Hi Lisa,
I'm a titusonenine kinda guy and also a stand firm type so I guess I'm a bottom-feeder, a reasserter, a pretty conservative kind of guy in most ways. You are quite right about some of the commenting over 'there'; I guess people so fundamentalist their comments can be inappropriate. I also find there are a lot of commenters who are serious, very serious people, better theological scholars than I will ever be who have a lot of good things to say that really feed me (and not off the bottom!! :) ).
That's way too long of an introduction but I wanted to say as I see it the Episcopal Church is made up of folks who are at opposite ends of the spectrum -theologically, biblically, behaviourally- and then there are a lot in between who are just 'moderate' Episcopalians. One of the fairly regular commenters on titusonenine, 'merseymike' who is gay lives with his partner in Liverpool and is excited at the prospect of his civil union which is coming up is always saying that "we have to split (CofE in his case). What is the point of staying together when we will never agree, we see and believe things from totally opposite perspectives". The CofE, the Episcopal Church, the CofCanada and others each are two churches under one roof. The roof doesn't hold both and it never can. I agree with that and for several years as I watch the Epiiscopal Church, it makes no sense for the 'warring' parties to remain together. And there truly are hard feelings and harsh words on both sides and it seems to me that there is no choice but the healthy one which is to split. Global Anglicans are roughly split in two -two churches.
I don't see any other choice neither do 'merseymike'
or 'brian' who is with Mike on this. On the larger level we have parishes that are effectively polar opposites from their diocese and perhaps other parishes. There are diocese (around 10 or so as you know) that are at polar opposites as say Bishop Chane's diocese. It's not just anger that 'reasserters'
feel as someone heere or on Elizabeth's blog said it is oil unable to live mixed in with water (lousy metaphor -sorry). Somen last night on Stand Firm said that Jesus told us that we need to love each which is absolutely true. So, I don't know you from Adam ... errr Eve so I can't say I love you but I ought to if we knew each other. At least I can say I respect you for sure her.
I'm sorry. I've been terribly wordy and if you've read this far thanks. Splitting isn't necessarily the wrong thing to do. You colonists did it in 1776 and it was probably (I guess ... YES) a very good thing.

I'll be merciful and stop .... I could probably have said this using a quarter of the words.
Regards,
Bill
I'd tell you you're free to write on my blog but I've only put up three posts and one is a painful attempt at poetry so you're advised to stay away.
Thanks

8/19/2006 11:34 PM  
Blogger wyclif said...

Hey, that bottom-feeder stuff is highly amusing, coming from here-- you've been around since when?

March 2006. Way to go, Lisa. But you're not a bottom feeder, it's me.

Righto! ;-)

Daniel Nathan Stoddart
wyclif.net
since 2001

10/26/2006 12:49 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home