tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post3849544291031885666..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Stand WobblyFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56416774862434384152009-08-02T22:45:27.436-04:002009-08-02T22:45:27.436-04:00I do believe I've been banned there also, alth...I do believe I've been banned there also, although I haven't visited that site in months. Obviously, I'm in good company! :)Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-65032916969170848302007-12-14T08:20:00.000-05:002007-12-14T08:20:00.000-05:00Agrarian:Allow me to put the matter across in what...Agrarian:<BR/><BR/>Allow me to put the matter across in what follows. <BR/><BR/>I believe that we can say, with certainty, that Bill Tighe writes with skill and erudition, making his points by use of facts about Christian doctrine, with facts of history, and with reference to books that may be consulted for details. In short, he debates in such a way as to be convincing. What SFIF has revealed, in banning him, is their own intellectual insecurity. It is worse than Bulverism, because it does not even pretend to debate. They banned him not because he debates improperly (for in the last thread that led to his banning, it was SFIF's own Ms. Hey that raised the topic of W "O", making it fair game), but because his facts and logic are too much for them to contend with. They have chosen the easy way out.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-53857713549621753362007-12-14T08:18:00.000-05:002007-12-14T08:18:00.000-05:00Matthew wrote:It's their blog, they can ban whom t...Matthew wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>It's their blog, they can ban whom they wish for whatever they wish, whenever they wish.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>And what does it say about them and their blog if they go to the extreme of banning a man because he exposes the fact that their emperor has no clothes every time he posts? <BR/><BR/>WO and SS are inextricably linked. One cannot honestly be discussed without alluding to the other. Those who deny this are either liars or theological incompetents. But even if they disagreed with the linkage, so what? We're back to the naked emperor again.<BR/><BR/>Yes, it's their blog and they can ban whomever they wish. But who are they? Men and women of Christian integrity or not? Their treatment of Dr. Tighe firmly establishes the latter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-66575374199675839542007-12-13T21:04:00.000-05:002007-12-13T21:04:00.000-05:00Matthew wrote:Y'all can ban me here if you wish.Yo...Matthew wrote:<BR/><I>Y'all can ban me here if you wish.</I><BR/><BR/>You don't get off that easily.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90143056380607788582007-12-13T20:59:00.000-05:002007-12-13T20:59:00.000-05:00I really hupe that Our Lord, when he comes again a...I really hupe that Our Lord, when he comes again and sits upon that throne, will find that we four, for all our weakness and insufficiency, will not have treated this as "our blog" but as His. His voice will not be heard here unless we are willing to listen to those we disagree with and to discuss the issues with them with respect. I accepted the invitation to join this blog because that is what I believed it to be attempting to be. I still think so.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12591168637610449442007-12-13T19:36:00.000-05:002007-12-13T19:36:00.000-05:00The Tighe banning took place at least a week ago, ...The Tighe banning took place at least a week ago, with numerous comments since then deploring the arrogance of the SFIF junta. Finally, someone rises to speak on their behalf. The only argument "Matthew" can muster is "It's their blog, they may ban whomever they see fit." Of course, Matthew. But that high-handed manner of operation destroys even a slight pretense of open debate or a level playing field. I'm not sure what definition of "prolix" you are using, but in Bill's gloriously incessant comments on WO, I did not catch a wasted word. He exemplifies a fine economy of language as befits a scholar of his stature. I regret that he had to endure such rough handling from Greg Griffiths et al., but the incident has served to demonstrate the pathetic failure of SFIF to defend the Apostolic ministry established by Christ, the principal link between the Churches of Anglican heritage and Catholic Christendom. That link is of no value to them, they clearly detest it, and will not tolerate anyone who speaks clearly in its defense. The apostolic ministry as understood in a Catholic sense will be for ever "off-thread" or "off-topic" on SFIF. And as Matthew informs us, "It's their blog."<BR/>Laurence K. Wells+Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-18726483467499475502007-12-13T17:51:00.000-05:002007-12-13T17:51:00.000-05:00It's their blog, they can ban whom they wish for w...It's their blog, they can ban whom they wish for whatever they wish, whenever they wish. And IMHO, Dr. Tighe was waxing prolix about WO where he shouldn't have. The policy about discussing is has been repeatedly stated. Would I have banned him. No. But then again I've never banned a non-spammer in my life. Mocked and humiliated yes, but banned, never.<BR/><BR/>Y'all can ban me here if you wish. That is your right.mousestalkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07640977915382623244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1669046356761211762007-12-11T23:10:00.000-05:002007-12-11T23:10:00.000-05:00"If bullies beat upon a bunch of people, does it r..."If bullies beat upon a bunch of people, does it really matter which one they thrash most soundly? The bullying in itself is what's wrong." (PoetReader)<BR/><BR/>You got me there. Suffice it to say that the StandFirm blog team of Greg Griffith, Matt Kennedy, Sarah Hey, Jackie Bruschi, and David Ould have bullied both Dr. Tighe and myself unjustly.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-31886199665474635882007-12-11T22:58:00.000-05:002007-12-11T22:58:00.000-05:00If bullies beat upon a bunch of people, does it re...If bullies beat upon a bunch of people, does it really matter which one they thrash most soundly? The bullying in itdself is what's wrong.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38955346952641410212007-12-11T20:55:00.000-05:002007-12-11T20:55:00.000-05:00Well Anonymous of 2:07 am, if you care to send me ...Well Anonymous of 2:07 am, if you care to send me an e-mail at "truthunites@hotmail.com", then you'll better be able to compare whether Dr. Tighe was more unjustly banned from SFIF or was it me.<BR/><BR/>You'll be surprised at how utterly ridiculous and how wrong and how unjust and how sinful my banning by Sarah Hey was from Stand Firm.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-68845669850342626702007-12-11T20:40:00.000-05:002007-12-11T20:40:00.000-05:00These are worthy comments, and so I want to remind...These are worthy comments, and so I want to remind the <I>Anonymice</I> to please create some kind of handle, or even sign your real name if you don't mind. In a thread like this it helps when we can identify you somehow.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-43481931383157741132007-12-11T19:07:00.000-05:002007-12-11T19:07:00.000-05:00TUAD, yes, the login thingy here requires me to re...TUAD, yes, the login thingy here requires me to remember my google password. Hah!<BR/><BR/>I think Dr. Tighe was the most unjustly banned. You ruffled a lot of feathers (though not in a way that was really out of line) My views were more conservative than those of the "archons", and I came by it from Scripture rather than from Tradition, which set me apart, but I was given but one warning, and I did not violate it yet was banned. It is the word of God that they fear. They've figured out how to twist tradition, or think that they have. To twist Scripture against someone with a Presbyterian M. Div. isn't something that they can hope to win, hence the ban.<BR/><BR/>To be comfy in the little stone bridges, sipping sherry and smoking cubans, without having to deal with clown masses and non-Anglican wierdnesses seems to be their goal. I would not have thought it of Matt, but I guess when you find someone's idol, you get stoned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-85482136439190579152007-12-11T12:34:00.000-05:002007-12-11T12:34:00.000-05:00Dr. Tighe got banned? Well, I'm in good company th...<I>Dr. Tighe got banned? Well, I'm in good company then! I got kicked for daring to quote Scripture on the WO ghetto thread that they had set up for that very purpose, the very passage that Matt was ignoring on the matter of priestesses.</I><BR/><BR/>Sodbuster, is that you? Yes, I feel like I'm in good company too, since I've been wrongfully banned alongside you and Dr. Tighe.<BR/><BR/>Although Dr. Tighe does rate special mention and recognition amongst our "Banned from SFIF" club. He's the only one of us who got banned from Stand Firm without Stand Firm publicly alerting its blog readers that Dr. Tighe was banned. I think they want his banishment to be kept quiet since they haven't announced it.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Tighe is also the highest profile "bannee". He deserves recognition for that too.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I believe I have the strongest case for a wrongful banishment by Stand Firm's Sarah Hey. Anyone interested in the details, please e-mail me at "truthunites@hotmail.com". I will send you the particulars.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-16837289074774676852007-12-11T00:14:00.000-05:002007-12-11T00:14:00.000-05:00Dr. Tighe got banned? Well, I'm in good company th...Dr. Tighe got banned? Well, I'm in good company then! I got kicked for daring to quote Scripture on the WO ghetto thread that they had set up for that very purpose, the very passage that Matt was ignoring on the matter of priestesses. 1 Timothy 3, he kept wanting to look at irrelevant passages, and didn't want to acknowledge that one. They actually banned God's word, and hence God, from their blog, telling Him by implication, to shut up.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Tighe is a gentleman of the highest caliber. <BR/><BR/>I lost a lot of respect that I had formerly had for Matt, Sarah and the others back when they started engaging in the skulduggery to avoid discussing priestesses, and their banning of people who disagreed with them where they set it up to be discussed. They lost most of the rest when they didn't leave TEC on September 30th as they had intimated for some months. This is very sad. I found them likable and respected them, but I cannot do so now. If I recall correctly, the comment policy required warnings. Greg Griffiths then violated comment policy in banning Dr. Tighe, though violating comment policy was pretty common among the cabal of wobblies.<BR/><BR/>Commentatrix is the alter-ego of Sarah Hey, I think both have administrator privileges.I got the impression some time before I was banned that she didn't like me.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what they are "standing firm about" if they are still in TEC after September 30th.<BR/><BR/>Apart from having priestesses, at any rate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-5784996987477128052007-12-09T17:34:00.000-05:002007-12-09T17:34:00.000-05:00For those who miss him, Merseymike can be found bl...For those who miss him, Merseymike can be found blathering with others of his persuasion and supporters at www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk This ironically named blog shows the CoE has the same problems as TEC compounded, noting the recent Finnish court case, by being the state church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-77260960150982426942007-12-07T16:53:00.000-05:002007-12-07T16:53:00.000-05:00This is really suprising - I haven't seen a lot of...This is really suprising - I haven't seen a lot of comments from the man in question (I guess I've been reading the wrong blogs), but every time I do, they stick out as being head and shoulders above almost everything else being posted. The man is an academic, and - as a Byzantine Catholic - is something of a disinterested, potentially more objective, commentator on the current Anglican situation. To find that he, of all people, was banned from a blog is profoundly weired.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04603402422216696381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80519246139103391432007-12-07T16:23:00.000-05:002007-12-07T16:23:00.000-05:00Ed, the reason I posted what I did about tabernacl...Ed, the reason I posted what I did about tabernacles was that I have heard about (but not directly observed) conservative Roman Catholics who make a point of not bowing (or whatever they do these days) to a tabernacle in an Anglican Church. They have their own beliefs about sacramental validity, which we regard to be erroneous, and in upholding them, Whom do they ignore? I'm therefore inclined to give a tabernacle the benefit of the doubt, and trust that God knows I am worshipping Him, or having the intention to do so.<BR/><BR/>As to sacramental validity, it's not just whether a priest is male, or the sex of the bishop who ordained him. A priest's sacramental effectiveness also hangs on the identity of the bishop in whose place he acts--so you might want to see a man's licences as well. Or you might want to give up on the whole mess and join the Continuum, which is, after all, what you've done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-71840596719901242542007-12-07T11:16:00.000-05:002007-12-07T11:16:00.000-05:00---Finally, while it is clear that a pro-WO stance...---<BR/>Finally, while it is clear that a pro-WO stance is not the official orthodoxy of SF (as it would seem that both Greg Griffth and Sarah Hey are against it, and only Matt Kennedy favors it),<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Actually, from what they have said several times, all of them have an unorthodox position on the subject.<BR/><BR/>Sarah Hey -- in some well-thought-out and articulate posts -- has depicted 4 possible positions on WO which (if I remember them correctly) are:<BR/><BR/><BR/>1) WO is okay, even mandatory<BR/><BR/>2) WO is merely a matter of "taste" or "style"... those who disapprove of it may be tolerated but their taste is irrelevant to the policy of the church as a whole<BR/><BR/>3) WO is inappropriate, however nothing bars those with differing views from being in communion with each other<BR/><BR/>4) WO is unorthodox and has theological and sacramental ramifications which preclude full communion.<BR/><BR/><BR/>She has also rightly observed that the first 3 groups can, at least to some degree, all be in the same church -- in fact, this is the attempt of the nacent "new US province" as it attempts to paper-over or downplay this fundamental and irreconcilable difference.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I believe it is in _this_ sense (#2 or #3 above) that anyone on staff at SF is "against" W"O", and statements that they "oppose" W"O" should be understood accordingly. This is not a case of accepting the teaching of Scripture and Tradition on the priesthood, on sacraments, or on ecclesiology.<BR/><BR/>Positions 1-3 all share the <I>same</I> defect of rejecting that orthodox and catholic faith "handed down, once for all, to the saints", even those positions which have reservations about W"O".<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thus what is threatening to them is not objection to W"O" per se (provided it is the #2 or #3 kind), but rather the objections which are based on a catholic understanding of the authority of Scripture being received through the authority of Tradition, one which rightly understands the theological and sacramental ramifications of the acceptance of W"O".<BR/><BR/>It is this _orthodox_ objection to W"O" which so frequently causes the contempt, insults, and censorship of the orthodox by the "moderate revisionists" within the wider Anglican world... even while they appeal, to demonstrate their tolerance, to the sort of vacuous objections to W"O" (#2 & #3) which do not threaten their polity.<BR/><BR/><BR/>pax,<BR/>LPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-39542902337029002272007-12-07T10:24:00.000-05:002007-12-07T10:24:00.000-05:00Dr. Tighe writes: "The only other commenter who *...Dr. Tighe writes: "The only other commenter who *may* have received such treatment there was an English homosexualist troll going by the name of "Merseymike" -- but I only state this because after his sudden disappearance some of the comments asked why he was no longer there, and one of the site archons replied that he had been banned."<BR/><BR/>Unbelievable. That an excellent church historian such as Dr. Tighe should be lumped together and treated the same as an English homosexualist troll like Merseymike. That is degrading and humiliating.<BR/><BR/>Making it worse is that at least SFIF had the courtesy to let its readership know that Merseymike was banned. As far as I know, SFIF has not yet informed its readership that they've banned Dr. Tighe.<BR/><BR/>Alas, Stand Firm has posted a thread today titled <B>Finland Court Convicts Pastor For Refusing To Concelebrate Eucharist With Female Minister</B>. Professor Tighe would have been the perfect resource to comment on this thread because he has insider knowledge of this situation.<BR/><BR/>Plus WO would not and could not be considered off-topic for this thread.<BR/> <BR/>But alas, Dr. Tighe has been wrongfully banished. Their loss.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-35730876753539540122007-12-07T09:58:00.000-05:002007-12-07T09:58:00.000-05:00If I might add some more observations:First, it is...If I might add some more observations:<BR/><BR/>First, it is my impression that commenters at SF who incur the disfavor of of the site's archons are warned several times and finally told, "this is your last warning" before being banned. I received no such warning, and I cannot recall being admonished at all for some considerable space of time. The only other commenter who *may* have received such treatment there was an English homosexualist troll going by the name of "Merseymike" -- but I only state this because after his sudden disappearance some of the comments asked why he was no longer there, and one of the site archons replied that he had been banned. For all I know, however, he may have received the courtesy of a "last warning" as I did not.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, and referencing my previous posting on this thread, if I was banned for my response on the thread that I mentioned to kyounge1956, it seems either ignorant or disingenuous of the "commentatrix" to have deemed part of my comment as "off topic" since it was in response (and an accurate and relevance response) to her question. One might note, also, that the commentatrix, in removing my comment as off topic, did not add "And you are banned" or "one more such comment and you will be banned" which leads me to conclude that she (or they) were seeking any plausible excuse to ban me, and for lack of anything more plausible they hit upon that comment. <BR/><BR/>Third, anyone who visits SF will soon see that there are certain regular posters whom I might describe as dogmatic and scoffing liberal Episcopalians ("Brian from T1:9," "Plainsparson," "Bob from Boone" and others) whose comments are regularly personally abusive and ad hominem, unlike my own. This is also the case at "Titusonenine," where the "webelves" have openly admitted more than one occasion that such "reappraisers" are allowed a much wider indulgence than the orthodox or pseudo-orthodox "reasserters" in order to "maintain the dialogue." Perhaps this is also the policy at SF, although I do not recall having seen it explicitly formulated.<BR/><BR/>The cause of my "protest" is not the fact that I have been banned there, since it is the clear right of the archons who rule the site to do so. It is the hypocrisy of the "double standard" that prevails there and the fact that it came without warning (whatever lame invocations of "previous warnings" we may now be hearing from Mr. Griffth -- who, if not their Ialdabaoth, seems to be their point man in this matter) that occasions my making a matter of it.<BR/><BR/>Finally, while it is clear that a pro-WO stance is not the official orthodoxy of SF (as it would seem that both Greg Griffth and Sarah Hey are against it, and only Matt Kennedy favors it), what is clear is the "unofficial orthodoxy" that it is a completely different matter from SS, or at least that one can be "orthodox" while embracing or favoring WO but eschewing SS. What precedent for this position is there in Anglicanism as a whole before, say, 1960? I would say none, and add that the contretemps over the purported "ordination" of Lee Tim Oi in 1944 demonstrates this; and one can of course adduce additionally the fact that it has been the same sort of creative and novel readings of Scripture and discounting of Tradition (as with the former Dean of TESM's, Peter Moore's, arguments in favor of WO a decade ago) that were used to "justify" WO that hav e been since then used to "justify" SS.<BR/><BR/>But, then, as the old saw goes, "there are none so blind as those that will not see."William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-82055844419188438572007-12-07T04:08:00.000-05:002007-12-07T04:08:00.000-05:00Perhaps Bill Tighe would like to consider becoming...Perhaps Bill Tighe would like to consider becoming a regular contributor here. He would be most welcome.Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-4350662515397876602007-12-06T23:25:00.000-05:002007-12-06T23:25:00.000-05:00As a result of his banning at Stand Firm, a techni...As a result of his banning at Stand Firm, a technical glitch in the software has also prevented Bill from posting at Titusonenine, believe it or not. One of the reigning oligarchs at Stand Firm has repeatedly promised to correct this problem for two days now. This is what I wrote to him:<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Why not simply restore the man's posting privileges in full and reevaluate this silly PC censorship policy? Honestly, that would take care of all the problems here in one fell swoop, and you could get back to your responsibilities, once again free of these annoying and unnecessary interruptions.<BR/><BR/>I have generally always been labeled a conservative, and my natural inclination when encountering a posted message I do not like has always been to simply scroll past it, not to call my mommy and not to page the thread police. When I encounter a television program I do not like I simply change the channel, not to deprive others of the opportunity to watch it. When I encounter a vegetable I do not like I simply refrain from putting it on my plate, not to deprive others of the opportunity to eat it. This trait, I do believe, is an artifact of a genuinely conservative temperament. <BR/><BR/>For me to insert myself into such matters as some sort of supreme arbiter for the rest of mankind strikes me as pride, for obvious reasons I should think. It smacks of the perfectibility of man, and that concept of course is completely alien to a genuinely<BR/>conservative temperament. It is, however, central to modern "liberal" belief. <BR/><BR/>Stand Firm fancies itself as the "conservative" Anglican's blog. By current definition, that would appear to be true. People now calling themselves "conservatives" are embracing the perfectibility of man across the board, and the repercussions are brutal, both nationally and globally. In fact, Bill Tighe has never written truer words than when he wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals."<BR/><BR/>There is a difference between a conservative and a fascist. A conservative has always been on the Right. A fascist, on the other hand, having departed the Left after a political schism, has merely found a constituency on the Right (always "social conservatives"). Nevertheless, despite the right-wing garb, he remains a man of the Left with all his utopian ideals and his belief that command and control structures can actualize the perfectibility of man. This was true in Europe in the '20s and '30s and it is true in this country today.<BR/><BR/>You and yours at Stand Firm have been routinely editing posts and banning posters for no other reason then to control content. What you are engaging in is no different from Political Correctness. An actual conservative (by the pre-21st century definition, I mean) humbly submits to a Higher Power Who is Truth. The Truth can take on all comers and withstand all arguments, so there is no need for censorship; indeed, such censorship might actually serve to remove Truth from the equation. That you would resort to such severe and labor-intensive tactics reveals that you are not first and foremost committed to Truth, but rather to your own ideals. For you it is not about submission, but rather imposition. You may well be "conservatives" by today's definition, but you are, in truth, no conservatives at all. "Today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals."<BR/><BR/>I invite you and yours to become the conservatives you claim to be. Man will not be perfected, the Eschaton will not be immanentized, and the Truth will not be defeated by any argument conceived by the mind of man. Learn it and live it. <BR/><BR/>You can start out on your new paths as conservatives by restoring Dr. Tighe's posting privileges across the board (submit to Truth). Then you can cease and desist from the Herculean labor of monitoring and editing everybody's posts (dump the command and control structure). Think of the tremendous weight that will be lifted off your shoulders. By contrast, His Yoke is light. Submit. Live and let live. Let truth prevail. Let go and let God! This is the essence of true conservatism. <BR/><BR/>Come on in, the water's warm. But you must bring Bill Tighe with you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86380306855918182332007-12-06T23:08:00.000-05:002007-12-06T23:08:00.000-05:00Dr. Tighe wrote: "I would like to recommend to th...Dr. Tighe wrote: "I would like to recommend to those who are interested in the reason for my banning at Stand Firm to follow the comment thread to this item:<BR/><BR/>http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8049/<BR/><BR/>down to my comment of 12-02-2007 @ 6:44 pm which (as I can only conjecture, since I was not informed) was the reason for my banning."<BR/><BR/>Dr. Tighe, I followed the thread as you suggested and I saw the commentatrix write: "comment edited by commenatrix- off topic" on your comment.<BR/><BR/>Then I read what you said your comment was before it was edited out by the commentatrix.<BR/><BR/>I really don't see how or why the commentatrix considered it off-topic. It looks thoughtful, erudite, and on-point to me as a response to Kyounge1956.<BR/><BR/>But it was a <B>SUBJECTIVE, judgment call</B> by the commentatrix and she judged that portion of your comment as off-topic. Which given her unchecked authority as commentatrix she is allowed to do.<BR/><BR/>And as you well know, the same thing happened to me, i.e, a subjective and arbitrary judgment call was made by Sarah Hey to ban me that was not based on any factual evidence whatsoever. <BR/><BR/>Another observation. This thread topic was written by Sarah Hey and titled: <I>An Analysis of Andrew Goddard’s Latest Taxonomy</I>.<BR/><BR/>I can't help but notice that your banishment and mine are related to Sarah Hey. Coincidence?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84847371461955209432007-12-06T22:48:00.000-05:002007-12-06T22:48:00.000-05:00Laurence Wells wrote:I have been today the recipie...Laurence Wells wrote:<BR/><I>I have been today the recipient of some fairly violent e-mails from one of the lesser lights of SFIF, full of language like "public lies," etc. Has anyone else been so honored?</I><BR/><BR/>I saw the e-mail of which he speaks. He does not exaggerate. Shameful.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38660262220053640302007-12-06T22:44:00.000-05:002007-12-06T22:44:00.000-05:00LP wrote:Over on Stand Firm, W.O. got its own litt...LP wrote:<BR/><I>Over on Stand Firm, W.O. got its own little segregated thread (in which I commented extensively) and posters were told they shouldn't discuss the issue anywhere else. Any mention of an anti-WO position in the many issues to which it connects (such as poetreader points out here) was met with a "we're not discussing that here -- you have a whole thread devoted to the topic."</I><BR/><BR/>This shows that the SF people are not theologically minded at all. They cannot imagine that W "O" has any effect on other matters.<BR/><BR/>Bill Tighe ("...he is obnoxious and dislike, did you know that?") wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>My comment seemed directly relevant to the subject matter of the comment thread, and not an adventitious intrusion, which is why is was puzzled about my inability to post in response to some of the follow-up discussion there the following morning.</I><BR/><BR/>As I said, Bill was not banned because he was off topic; he was banned for making too much sense. It does not pay to debate wisely in some circles.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.com