Just a quick post here to highlight curious practice of deleting legitimate comments by one who has complained about ill treatment after having been blocked from commenting at the blogs of Stan, Neil, Glenn, Mark and I don't know how many others. Oh, how he whined when references to his positions were posted at any of these blogs! Now, after having been accused of supporting and defending rapists, he deletes my comments posted to clarify my position and question how his charges expresses the spirit of "embrace grace"...a term he is quick to use at other blogs where his weak arguments are appropriately derided for being as weak and dishonest as they are.
You'll note that at this here blog, I only delete comments that are no more than personal attacks, either upon myself or worse, my other visitors...one of the only rules for engaging here that I have. Even then, if such comments contain actual substance, I tend to copy such comments, delete them, but then re-post them with the childish vitriol either deleted or re-worded in brackets (this happens now and then when feo posts something that, for him, has just a bit of substance or something for which a response seems appropriate---a rarity).
Some would ask, why bother? There are two reasons:
1. I enjoy regular discourse a bit deeper than small talk.
2. I much enjoy discourse with those who have opposing points of view. And with those with invented religions to which they attach the word "Christian", there is much to discuss.
It's too bad, but leftists are notorious for running away...surrendering without actually conceding defeat. Deleting comments is one manifestation of this trait. And even if any of my comments are truly lacking in substance (as feo's routinely is), deleting them leaves one forced to take the word of he who deleted them...and that's a risky proposition, given the less than honest reasons given for deleting them in the first place. I say, let others back you up by joining in and criticizing what I said.
I once deleted a comment of Mark's because I thought it was over the line in terms of crudeness. His point could easily have been expressed differently to get the same thought across. From that point, his deleted comment was referenced falsely by the person at issue here, and from that point I found it more practical to leave even the crude comments stand, so as to let people expose themselves as well as to let others respond if they felt like it. And of course, to respond to what was actually said, not like Dan who responded as if Mark said something he never said.
I've mentioned all of the above in one way or another on more than one occasion. I try to practice what I preach...at least here at my blog. Dan does not. When he runs up against that which he cannot counter, he quits, pretends he never saw it, accuses the commenter of bad behavior or he deletes. And he certainly fails to ever "embrace grace"...whatever the hell that was ever supposed to mean.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I only delete comments that are no more than personal attacks
I didn't delete all your comments, only those that were attacks on victims of rape and oppression, where you blame them, in part, for what they've done.
I only delete comments that are no more than personal attacks, as well.
That you don't recognize the vile depths of your personal attack is on you, not me.
~Dan
The "vile" attack angle is crap. It's an excuse to avoid the point being put forth. This is nothing more than your well-known hypocrisy...assuming you know better than your opponent what his intention is...something about which you routinely whine. It's another example of how you don't "embrace grace" as you assume the worst in others.
But even assuming the worst is true, you show no "grace" rejecting an opportunity to inform and influence one you clearly see as gone astray. You're a helluva "Christian".
I sincerely doubt Art ever attacked any victim of rape.
As for victims of oppression, I'm still waiting to find someone in the USA who meets that definition -- other than Christians who are oppressed by homosexuals and their lackeys.
Dan believes that suggesting victims likely could have made better choices than could have led to a different outcome is vile. How exactly that's true he won't say. So suggesting not leaving one's car running while one is shopping is vile. Warning against counting one's cash while walking at night in high crime areas is vile. And God forgive anyone who dares suggest to any of these victims that their choices were not the best.
The question becomes, how does one respond to a victim's request to understand why she/he was victimized? More so, how to prevent future victimization.
Dan: “I welcome all comments and hardly ever delete anyone. Until, I get tired of people disagreeing, asking questions, and I run out of expletives. Then I stop welcoming comments.”
It's how Dan models "embracing grace".
I don’t think he’d recognize grace if if bit him on the leg.
Post a Comment