A Technological Lummox

Sharing Options

One of the many beeves that my adversaries have against me is that I do that Tom Petty thing, and don’t back down. And then, when I do issue a retraction or something, it is done in such a manner as to not let the bad guys hit me over the head with it. In that spirit, let me issue an apology to all my sane readers. This last week, we have seen multiple runaway trains in my comment threads, which I should have been able to stop, but was not.

Where was that delete function again?
Where was that delete function again?

I really am a technological lummox. And as many of you know, in the recent past we have upgraded this blog and its interface, and we are now using Disqus to manage the comments. But when I say we are using Disqus to manage the comments, this is like saying the six-year-old boy taking his dad’s Mercedes out for a joy ride was managing the stick shift.

So I say all this because last night I got a very fine tutorial in how to use Disqus, and I hope that calm will soon be restored to this somnolent little blog. Certain commenters have been blacklisted, and will be blacklisted again upon reemergence. The feature where you can flag problematic comments should be of use to me now, and so please feel free to have at it.

Because God works all things for good, there could be an edifying lesson for you readers in this failure of mine, which is to see the internal contradictions of hatred. It is not every day that you get to read the thoughts of a licensed, bonded, trained, certified counselor who wants to kill you while saying ha, ha, ha, and one might wonder in such cases if the training had really gotten down to the root issues. Still, the point can be made without a torrent of such folks.

Accusations against me are still in bounds. Strong disagreements are in bounds. But if you want to make an accusation, try to do it like a responsible prosecutor inside a courtroom, and not like a member of the mob outside the courtroom, burning the defendant in effigy. What I want to block is scurrility, abuse, and irrational hatred. If you have questions, you may still ask them. If you have a protest, you are still welcome.

So there it is. It was my responsibility to have been ahead of the game on this one, and I wasn’t. My apologies, and please forgive me.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
91 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bugs
Bugs
6 years ago

Good news, that.

Aquila Aquilonis
Aquila Aquilonis
6 years ago

I was thinking that if I had a blog, I would ban some of these commentators for being, well, … obtuse. Glad to know that was a lack of technical prowess rather than wisdom but be sure to keep copies of the deleted comments because they can be very helpful to the authorities should the matter come to a head.

geoffrobinson
geoffrobinson
6 years ago

If people got banned for being obtuse on the Internet, there would be very little Internet left.

Nord357
Nord357
6 years ago
Reply to  geoffrobinson

You say that like its a bad thing.

Malachi
Malachi
6 years ago
Reply to  geoffrobinson

Can we somehow actually make that happen??

josh
josh
6 years ago

But pitchforks and torches and stuff! And flaming arrows, can’t forget those.
Anyhew, some reins will do the horse some good.

Veronica Hurst
Veronica Hurst
6 years ago

Rev. Wilson, it sounds to me like you’re playing dirty pool. The Rev. Shazbot was never abusive to anyone, and was never rude to you, and Shazbot was only rude to people who were rude to him first. So why did you ban him?

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago
Reply to  Veronica Hurst

While I would not have banned McD/Rev Shaz, and never asked for him to be banned, neither can I say I’m going to miss him. Makes me wonder how far back you’ve read his posts? Back he was still McD (Gregory McDermitt), he offered legal opinions frequently so bad they weren’t even wrong, then it turned out – – his admission – – he only had but one semester of bible college, which did not inhibit him in the least from regularly saying I was wrong about the law and the cases I cited. Please, folks, I’m the guy who… Read more »

Veronica Hurst
Veronica Hurst
6 years ago

I just wish Rev. Wilson would reconsider the ban. Shazbot likes New Saint Andrew’s College, much of what Rev. Wilson has to say, and was simply trying to get some of the more bland commentators here to engage in critical thinking. Especially w/ regard to the recent SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago
Reply to  Veronica Hurst

Two questions; no rush.

1. How did you get a list of who has been banned? I missed it. If you have URL of it, please clue me in.

2. Another chance for me to fail “Remedial Tact 101;” but I’ve got to ask . . . what did Shaz ever write which convinced you he was capable of doing any “critical thinking” about Obergefell???

Veronica Hurst
Veronica Hurst
6 years ago

Shazbot told me he was banned, and I assume that’s correct. As for Obergefell, a myriad number of posts made it obvious. He knows Christians hate racists, but he also knows that Galatians 3:28 leads to more Galatians 3:28 leads to more Galatians 3:28 leads to more Galatians 3:28.

Barnabas
Barnabas
6 years ago
Reply to  Veronica Hurst

He liked to stir the pot but I’ll be sorry to see him go. He probably got banned over one particular crass child molester crack.

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago
Reply to  Veronica Hurst

Used Bible Gateway; pulled up every English version (53 if I counted correctly). The outlier is The Message, with “In Christ’s family there can be no division into Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female. Among us you are all equal. That is, we are all in a common relationship with Jesus Christ. Also, since you are Christ’s family, then you are Abraham’s famous ‘descendant,’ heirs according to the covenant promises.”

McD/Shaz is not here, so I’ll just let this one go.

Nord357
Nord357
6 years ago
Reply to  Veronica Hurst

I would like some clarification on the…leads to more Galatians 3:28 thing. If you dont mind.

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago
Reply to  Nord357

Then it’s NOT just me. That verse in the context of defending Obergefell made no sense at all to me. Of course gays are our bro/sis, etc. So is every other sinner to us, and we sinners to everyone else, in exactly the same way. Even if they weren’t Christians, they’d still be Americans, and even if they weren’t Americans, they’d still be people.

Nord357
Nord357
6 years ago

Nope it ain’t just you.

Dave
Dave
6 years ago

Rev Shaz is rude.

Kelly, you never answered the questions. You thought you did but when cross examined failed to answer.

Please keep praying for the actors in this real life drama and for those who incorrectly accuse and judge from afar.

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

I dunno; maybe it’s just a matter of taste? Shaz never accused me of gassing Jews. You did. Several times. And when I asked for a second opinion on answering you, he got pretty ugly. Yeah, that last bit qualifies as rude all by itself. As for never answering you, I’m doubtful this is a good idea, but I’ll make ONE last attempt on ONE of your badly constructed questions. ONE MORE TIME; this is the supremacy clause; Sec 2 of Art 6 of the US Constitution: 2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be… Read more »

Nord357
Nord357
6 years ago

Let me stir this up a bit. If I may

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago
Reply to  Nord357

You hit “send” too soon?

Nord357
Nord357
6 years ago

I think I am having compatibility issues with some of my human interface devices.

I just wanted to comment that I have a continual struggle with the SCOTUS giving SCOTUS the power of “judicial review” cum ultimate arbitership.

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago
Reply to  Nord357

There’s a really, REALLY sharp lawyer, Ed Whelan, who runs “Bench Memos” over at National Review Online. I respect him a great deal; he shares your misgivings. If you’d like to drill down into some nitty-gritty of secular law on this very point, he’s most definitely your guy. But I can’t square Whelan’s circle. He truly believes there is “judicial review” (a legitimate thing) as contrasted to “judicial supremacy” (not legitimate). He’s not alone; there are reliably known quotes from Lincoln and FDR expressing the same idea. I’ll bet a solid majority here – – probably a supermajority – –… Read more »

Nord357
Nord357
6 years ago

I like Whelan. Oddly enough there is this at NRO todayhttp://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/423811/pathetic-kowtowing-myth-judicial-supremacy-ed-whelan

I would have to say this pretty accurately if not completely summarizes my thoughts on the matter.

IMHO the tool you are looking for is properly exegeted scripture.
To get there we Christians are going to need to take Charles Finney’s counsel and prefer and select Christians to public office.
There is my dominionist coming out again.

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago
Reply to  Nord357

Nothing the least bit odd about it. Totally consistent with his most recent post linking over to his on-dead-tree story this past June, co-published at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Be careful about asking for JUST for Christians. What if we get stuck with a load of “liberation theology” types? Ford appointed Stevens; Reagan appointed Kennedy; Bush appointed Souter. Funny, but even “as constant as the North Star” Roberts could see Ober was nothing but “we got 5 votes.” The real trick is to find and confirm clones of Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. Finally, all of this judge stuff… Read more »

Nord357
Nord357
6 years ago

I meant oddly only insofar as we were currently discussing the issue. Apologies for the confusion. As far as the Just Christians goes, there are some things, we just have to let God sort out. “Duty is ours results are God’s” type of thing. From my saddle, If an official professes to be a disciple of the Lord Christ. I have a concrete immutable standard, to which I can hold him accountable. Arguments over interpretation of the standard are preferable to arguing whether there is one and if so just what it may be ( inclusive of permutations and penumbras.)… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago
Reply to  Nord357

The only two people on this blog who will admit to having a JD and passing a bar exam are moi and K2. Despite our Christian/atheist disagreement about the faith circle, we almost always agree about matters in the law/secular circle. The former Resident Legal Authority (albeit one without portfolio), McD/Rev Shaz, has been replaced, first by Dave and lately by Michael. I played with engineers a LOT in my flight safety days and then in my wetland days. In between, the first time I was retired (2 years as a small drainage board prez), it was back to playing… Read more »

Chuck Michaelis
Chuck Michaelis
6 years ago

For the “supremacy clause” to be in effect the laws made must be made in pursuance to the Constitution. The Supreme court does not make law. Article I, S. 1- “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” See? No courts. The “supremacy clause” only is valid for laws made regarding the enumerated powers, i.e, Article I, S. 8-9 since these are the only delegated powers (Amendment 10- “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago

What part of “any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding” do you truly believe can fall outside the scope of this text? If not the SCOTUS, where does the power reside to make the decision of Yes/No when a dispute about “contrary” arises? Even Whelan, Tribe, Lincoln, and FDR all agree that Marbury (1803) is good law. ALL of them agree “judicial review” is legit. What happened to VA in 1967 and KY in 2015 (the Kim Davis contempt finding which set off Dave) was a holding that a state law had violated… Read more »

Chuck Michaelis
Chuck Michaelis
6 years ago

And what part of “The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.” don’t you think apply? What part of Article 1, secs. 1, 8, 9 do you think don’t apply?

You may think that Marbury is good law. So what? It’s usurped law. That’s what really matters.

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago

usurped? You’re arguing a position so extreme that not even Tribe buys it.

Frequently a challenge trying to explain legal concepts to laymen. Here, now, at this point, we are solidly into pig/wrestle/sing/waste territory.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree agreeably.

Chuck Michaelis
Chuck Michaelis
6 years ago

Yes, usurped. Please tell me in article III where the federal courts are given the power to negate laws passed by either state or federal legislatures that do not regard the original jurisdiction of the courts?

Should be interesting.

Chuck Michaelis
Chuck Michaelis
6 years ago

Always fun dealing with legal “experts” who are sure that the words don’t mean what they mean but only what the courts, in empowering themselves extra-constitutionally, redefine them to mean to their own advantage.

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago

I’m not an expert, have never claimed to be, refused that badge when a much earlier poster offered to me, but you’re not even an attorney . . . and it shows. You can’t scale the word “anything.” Now you’ve taken it upon yourself to decide that “The ‘supremacy clause’ only is valid for laws made regarding the enumerated powers . . .” plus you also get to decide who has redefined what to boot.

Have all the “fun” you want, just include me out.

P.S. Mindlessly repeating “Fox Four!,” “You’re on fire, buddy,” and “Bail out!” are optional.

Chuck Michaelis
Chuck Michaelis
6 years ago

You are one…and it shows. Tell me, how much time did you spend in constitutional law on the actual text and history of the Constitution? Unless you went to one of a handful of law schools the answer is little or none. Instead you studied case law, now didn’t you? And what does case law say? Well, it says the supremacy clause makes the federal government a limitless entity. Articles I-V and the Bill of Rights say different. Try reading them. I didn’t make the decision on the “supremacy clause.” The men who wrote the document did. And then when… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago

Ack’d receipt.

P.S. Now you’re an authority on how to TEACH law as well.

timothy
timothy
6 years ago

I prefer the Wild Wild West version. It makes for better Christian gunslingers. The Gospel of Christ belongs in the down-n-dirty of hard-living and tough things.

(rides his mule off into the sunset as the theme from The Good The Bad and The Ugly plays….)

Nopussyfootin
Nopussyfootin
6 years ago

Oh, what a relief it is

AMA
AMA
6 years ago

You probably already have, but you should consider reporting Reaver’s death threat to the authorities, or at least to his/her/zir employer, if you can find them. Something tells me that those who bonded, licensed, and background checked Reaver may have missed something…

Chuck Summers
Chuck Summers
6 years ago

You can’t win, you know. What ever you do, you will have detractors, which says that the problem is not with what you say, but the detractors have a problem with you. One thing about it, though, is that you won’t get criticism if you slink into obscurity. Only those who are doing significant things get criticized. Thanks for all you are doing.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago

Doug, did you get your Disqus tutorial, by chance, from a “step-stool, silent, invisible unable to teach” woman some how associated with you? ? If so, send her my way, who knew there was a lummox epidemic?

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Is this like “semi-pelagianism?” An inside joke that, say, Methodists, won’t be able to catch without outside help? Is an “invisible unable to teach woman” the same thing “do not suffer a woman to speak in church?”

Sometimes it’s like y’all are speaking a foreign language. Looked up that heresy complaint from back into 2002 – – mainly out of curiosity – – but then had to look up even more stuff just to try to figure out what the dispute was about. Never did break the code so I just let go of the whole thing.

RayNearhood
RayNearhood
6 years ago

It’s a joke referencing other spurious accusations. For example:
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-critique-of-the-bluestockings.html

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago

Kel, in the interest of brevity, just read the last three paragraphs of “Critique of the Bluestockings” from Sept. 3, 2015 on Blog and Mablog. I will likely riff on that forever as,…. in addition to being a joke, any riff is a subtle honor to the women in question. Not bad for a lummox huh? ( I am just guessing that Wilsons’ wife or daughter brought him up to slow speed on Disqus, which would make him more adept than me.)

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Y’all I recall that now. Good one!

Dave
Dave
6 years ago

One thing about the Methodists is that they always beat everyone else to lunch!

Jerrod Arnold
Jerrod Arnold
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

I was formerly an enjoyer of the early service. It was always so nice being seated and with food by the time the wave of baptists showed up.

Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
6 years ago

One of the things this last week has really shown me that I never expected is how really scandalous the Gospel really is. There are some people who will not forgive, and don’t want someone else to be forgiven. And they especially don’t like it when someone else tries to treat the person like they really have been forgiven.

Keith LaMothe
Keith LaMothe
6 years ago

Doug, thanks, and whatever forgiveness you need on this I gladly give. I’ve come to generally avoid the comments section on this blog, unlike in years past, because the sheer volume of unrepentant wickedness became more than I could bear. I don’t know if that will change decisively because I know you bring in a lot of traffic, but I appreciate the shift.

James Brown
James Brown
6 years ago

The hatred was like seeing satan up close and personal. I have prayed for your physical [ and spiritual ] protection.

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
6 years ago
Reply to  James Brown

Some of Satan’s children anyway. I have a feeling it was only the JV team though so don’t stop praying.

Job
Job
6 years ago

Thank you for maintaining this forum with an air of grace and civility.

David Trounce
6 years ago

The level of abuse here left me feeling stick in the stomach on a number of occasions. And It was a lot like seeing the Devil up close, nostrils flaring and I half suspect he is quite upset with Doug over the PP thing.

That said, I also found the threads helping me to think more deeply. To develop an answer more thoroughly to those steeped in sin.

While tidying up the threads certainly makes things more comfortable for us, the fray is also something need to get used to.

It’s a brave new world.

Grant Kruger
Grant Kruger
6 years ago
Reply to  David Trounce

True, David Trounce. The kinds of things that certain commentors were saying, or at least the attitude with which they were said, will more and more be heard from society as Christians refuse to surrender the Gospel to their agendas.

Bro. Steve
Bro. Steve
6 years ago

Bro. Doug, In my first pastorate — literally a week after I was ordained — the leading deacon came to my house and told me the guy running the youth programs was suspected of being a pedophile. We investigated. It was true. We went to the cops. The cops said they knew about it but had no proof that could stand up in court. They suggested we talk to the mother of one of the kids who had been molested. We did. She refused to file charges because, she told us, she had had an abortion, and the molester had… Read more »

David Trounce
6 years ago
Reply to  Bro. Steve

It is an interesting thing, repentance. We don’t speak of someone being “apparently saved”, or “seemingly born again”, but we often refer to repentance with this cautionary tone as though it were something less than a total gift of Grace. If repentance was of man it would indeed be an unreliable benchnark. I also get the concerns about marriage and children. Hey, if man commits adultery, divorces and wants to marry again, the church would not bless the marriage. So, such man, if repentant, would be welcomed to the table. But his sin, though covered in the blood, would still… Read more »

Jonathan David White
Jonathan David White
6 years ago

Amen to that. If it’s in your power, so let it be written, so let it be done.

Dottie
Dottie
6 years ago

Doug Wilson is the sword wielding “christian.” In his own words his theology “bites back.” I can’t see Jesus writing blog after blog in his own defense – calling his enemies names. Blocking his enemies. Jesus was beaten, ridiculed, humiliated and his reaction was calm and collected. He was plied with many questions and gave no answer. (Luke 23:9) Aren’t we to strive to be like Jesus? How is “biting back” like Jesus? How is writing blog after blog about how you are justified and right in your actions, defending yourself, how is that like Jesus? Oh that we may… Read more »

Seth B.
Seth B.
6 years ago
Reply to  Dottie

Does “white washed tombs”, “pharisees, hypocrites”, and “brood of vipers” sound familiar?

Leah Atha
Leah Atha
6 years ago
Reply to  Seth B.

And the incident with the whip…

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Dottie

Dottie, Jesus and His Word, in the below verses, speak of Jesus as He Is, as well as some of the actions He may lead us to take, as He did. Like Jesus, in many struggles, Wilson has done or tried to do, as his Lord has done. Thanks and Salt, “A” dad Matthew 10 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her… Read more »

denise njim
denise njim
6 years ago

Grace, forgiveness and the gift of repentance cannot be discerned without spiritual indwelling. In fact, free will~ers find it quite repulsive.

Jael
Jael
6 years ago
Reply to  denise njim

I know of no free will-er who does not consider a call to grace, forgiveness, and repentance a precious gift of the Holy Spirit. Certainly none would consider it repulsive. Sister, do you hear how smug and self-congratulatory that sounds?

Scripture warns against this and we need to heed it. Otherwise we’re just thanking God we’re not like “them,” while others are beating their breasts, asking for mercy, and going away justified.

Monte Harmon
Monte Harmon
6 years ago
Reply to  Jael

Reminds me of a misunderstanding a commenter had about the Reformed view of evil and the grace that often follows.

Former Literalist
Former Literalist
6 years ago

Is this a confession of sin?

Monte Harmon
Monte Harmon
6 years ago

Didn’t sound like it, but I see he is being gracious.

Benjamin Bowman
6 years ago

Awe, you got rid of the mobs? But without them how am I supposed to know what not to think?

Brian
Brian
6 years ago

Don’t worry. Doug will tell you.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago

For the past five years, I have disagreed (mostly politely, I hope) with virtually everything Doug writes, and I’m still here, so I don’t see how anybody can plausibly claim that differences of opinion are squelched here. Personal abuse, that’s another thing.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago

One of the many beeves that my adversaries have against me is that I do that Tom Petty thing, and don’t back down.
…Oh, and speaking of Tom Petty, you don’t live like a refugee either ,……because you know that you don’t have to, “turning from darkness to light, has that effect! ; -)

Acts 26
I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God

Barnabas
Barnabas
6 years ago

I know Doug Wilson has had other issues to address but there is a deafening silence from Evangelical leaders on the current Islamic conquest of Europe.

Job
Job
6 years ago
Reply to  Barnabas

I imagine they will have quite a bit to say on the reconquest.

RandMan
RandMan
6 years ago

Douglas, since there is a tendency to fall back here to legalese… I am wondering about the insistence upon riding the technical line here in a matter of child safety. Di you forget his or are you muddying the waters here purposefully? I think transparency is important to make your case. Moscow ID: “Compromises notwithstanding, it’s true that at one time Steven Sitler had state-approved chaperones. But by the time Pastor Doug Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, published his Open Letter on September 5, it was not true. And he knew it.” And see below Douglas Wilson Sept 5th blog… Read more »

Tangerine
Tangerine
6 years ago

So, in response to the criticism that you are incapable of admitting fault, wrongdoing, or poor judgment, you apologize . . . for letting your detractors speak. Irony indeed abounds.

Not that I don’t understand the need to moderate blog comment sections. I wish you wisdom in that difficult task.

Nonna
Nonna
6 years ago
Reply to  Tangerine

Tangerine: I believe you’re on to something. But that was last week and it’s time to move on. As Teflon Don would have said: Fahgettaboudit!

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Tangerine

Luke 23 : 32 Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed. 33 When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left. 34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”[c] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. 35 The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. Christ was falsely accused in public and in court by religious people who had a yeast of the Pharisees problem.… Read more »

Tangerine
Tangerine
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Let’s just say that many decades of life in the church has made me wary of comparing pastors to Jesus. Many a defensive demagogue, incapable of admitting fault, has hidden behind hand-wringing about false accusation and persecution.

Working on removing the planks in my own eye (which are legion) isn’t incompatible with being wise as a serpent about those in power in the church.

And when those in power appear have more bombast and ego than gentleness and humility, it’s a giant red flag.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Tangerine

Tangi, Thanks for the comment, which in principle, I can agree with, as you might, with my previous point. Another point we might both agree on is that appearances can be deceiving, not to mention that Christ Church is hardly hiding on these several mixed issues. The short version of the polemic is: Critics: “If I am right about the facts, Christ Church, then you are wrong.” Christ Church: “You are not right about the facts and we are not at liberty tell you all of the facts, though we can tell you some.” To butcher a phrase, “The fault,… Read more »