March 23, 2017

April 21, 2010


We’ve Got Mail!

Yesterday I posted this. This morning… we’ve got mail!

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:38:44 -0400
From: David Virtue

Organization: VirtueOnline.org
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mary Ann Mueller

Subject: Re: SINGAPORE—GSE4: =?windows-1252?Q?+Rowan=92s_Video_Add?=
=?windows-1252?Q?ress_Gets_Icy_Reaction?=
References:

In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit More bullshit from stand firm. I was there. There was polite applause when Rowan ended. Fuckwits at stand firm wouldn’t know poop if it hit them in the face.. D Mary Ann Mueller wrote: > This is what Stand Firm is reporting on the ABC’s address. > > MAM > >———————- > > > http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/25954
Well, perhaps it’s true that I wouldn’t know if it hit me in the face, but I’m pretty sure I know it when it lands in my inbox. Thanks David!

Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

71 comments

comment deleted…poster warned…see below

[1] Posted by notworthyofthename on 4-21-2010 at 09:37 AM · [top]

Comical - he has no problem using the “f” word, but uses “poop” instead of a more colorful word.  Selective potty-mouth syndrome.

Has he ALWAYS had an issue with SF, or did he just wake up on the wrong side of the world that morning?

[2] Posted by GillianC on 4-21-2010 at 09:49 AM · [top]

It may not edify but it reminds us that “our side” has its share of sin, too.

[3] Posted by Wolf Paul on 4-21-2010 at 09:50 AM · [top]

Friends, I have just deleted the first comment. Let me remind you of our comment policy. You are free to discuss the topics we post. You are not free to discuss whether or not we should post them. We post what we post and you are free to read it or not. This is the one and only warning.

[4] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 4-21-2010 at 09:56 AM · [top]

Well, last time SF posted “We’ve Got Mail!”, it was the same sort of thing. Hundreds of comments literally poured in in a short space of time - mostly David bashing or moderator comments on David bashing. I remember getting in just under the wire, before the comments were closed.

It seems that David is a slow learner! I know flak will pour in, but I understand that the team here seeks to shine a spotlight on this kind of charitability in order to discourage it; and all may then carry on with their own ministry a little less encumbered.

Except for the slow learners.

[5] Posted by Zach on 4-21-2010 at 09:57 AM · [top]

I am saddened by the statement and the post, we do not have a choice as Christians, we must glorify Christ. Neither the email nor the post do so. I am cancelling my monthly donation to Standfirm and deleting both sites from my computers.

[6] Posted by gary on 4-21-2010 at 10:01 AM · [top]

It’s one thing to when you read that Kevin Kallsen at AnglicanTV is banned from covering an event or e-mails being sent out telling people not to donate to his ministry.  You know that’s the other side is threatened by the light he’s shining by making the processes open to all.

It’s quite another for this type of competition.  I don’t get it.  We’re all in this together.  When I see this, it’s just sad.  The language alone is beyond sad.  Does he not realize that will get out and harms him and his cause?

We all need to pray for David. And all of our “reporters” including Stand Firm.

Greg, I guess you can update the silence thread - polite applause.

[7] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 4-21-2010 at 10:07 AM · [top]

An opportunity to put Christian principles into action, declined.

[8] Posted by paradoxymoron on 4-21-2010 at 10:09 AM · [top]

To those who object to this posting:

The bloggers at SFIF have already said on previous occasions they have tried to handle this behavior privately.  Such efforts were rebuffed.  How then do they bring this kind of behavior to account without exposing it?  Far better that those inside the church publicly deal with it instead of those outside the church.  It becomes a worse scandal if those in the church don’t confront it.  It becomes an opportunity for accusations of hypocrisy.  And if DV feels free to behave this way towards those inside the church, how will he behave towards those outside?

carl

[9] Posted by carl on 4-21-2010 at 10:16 AM · [top]

Longtime readers will remember the many emails like this we’ve posted from David, and the comments surrounding the issue of posting them.

Whether or not it costs us subscribers or readers, I’m going to continue posting them when I get them.

The reason is that I know there are people out there who read us and who read David, as well as a number of other Anglican news sites. Posting these emails, when they come in as regularly as they do, and when they contain what they do, I have decided is the better of two unpleasant options, because I know there are people out there whose reaction will be along the lines of, “Good grief - I never knew this. Thank you for letting me know.” The other option is to sit on them, and at some point have it all come out elsewhere (for some reason known only to David himself, he broadcasts these emails to several people), and have people react with, “Good grief - you were getting these kinds of emails for years, and you never let us know what kind of person we were turning to for news?”

It’s not about the “reporting” - if the report I got was incorrect, that’s fine - just say so. I just reported what came to me, with the clear qualification that I didn’t know whether it was true. If David wants to offer a correction, that’s great.

But that’s the nutshell of it - I have two options. Sit on these emails and hide the truth about someone to whom a lot of readers turn for information, or keep these emails from them. Neither option is good, but I’ve chosen what I think is the better of the two.

I’d encourage everyone who’s tempted to criticize the decision to post these kinds of emails, to put themselves in our position and think very carefully about which decision they would make.

[10] Posted by Greg Griffith on 4-21-2010 at 10:17 AM · [top]

It is debatable (but not to do so in this comment! wink ) whether the unedited words should have been posted or whether some ch@r&ct;%rs should have been substituted for letters while making the actual words clear as h3[[. wink  But it is not debatable (so say I) that one’s words and actions when it seems that no one or only those who agree and will keep confidences are looking are revealing of one’s true character.

David Lack-of-Virtue is just jealous that you scooped him yet again.  Unlike his hysterical “scoops” that nearly always turned out to be full of something other than truth. Perhaps something that hit him in the face unawares! wink

[11] Posted by Milton on 4-21-2010 at 10:18 AM · [top]

When the last time this sort of thing happened, I tried to approach David personally as a fellow Christian.  It did not go well at all.  I finally asked to be removed from his list and deleted my bookmark to his site.  Never been back, although there were a couple of times I would like to have seen the source story that was linked.

This is a hard situation because it has been tried to be taken care of behind the scenes.  Bringing it out in the light here seems questionable, but where would you do it?  In some sense, this is the body of Christ.  If it were something TEC was doing, we would be bringing it here - do we have a double standard for ourselves?

This is a problem.  Someone who is close to David needs to confront David and help him see where this is wrong.  And the same is true for Stand Firm.  Is there something that SFIF ever did that was wrong and needs to be resolved?  If we don’t try to solve the situation, it becomes a bigger problem.  We L2 can vouch for that in our own lives.

SFIF and David will be in our prayers.  Remember that David has had a significant travel burden and is probably exhausted.  It doesn’t explain it away, but aids in not reining in bad judgement.

[12] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 4-21-2010 at 10:25 AM · [top]

Thanks, carl. All of that is true.

I approached David about this kind of behavior one-on-on in 2004. I confronted him on a listserv with a group audience in 2006. I have repeatedly sent emails to him about this kind of behavior. All of it was met with an escalation on his part.

As I said, we have two very unpleasant options, and I have decided to do what I think is the least unpleasant. Certainly there are things to criticize about it, but I believe there are more things to criticize about the other option.

L2 - thanks for your support, as always. I double-checked with my source, who confirms the report. If there was “polite applause,” it was isolated and inaudible to most of the attendees.

[13] Posted by Greg Griffith on 4-21-2010 at 10:35 AM · [top]

Folks like this are never made better by protecting them. They need to be brought out into the light of day and made to be responsible for their actions. I believe our Lord said something along those lines.
desert padre

[14] Posted by desertpadre on 4-21-2010 at 10:39 AM · [top]

Dear Greg:

You did the right thing!  I believe that the truth is always the best approach, and while it is painful to read David Virtue’s actual words, it is helpful to know that he made the choice to use rather disgusting language when criticizing a SFIF post. I am sure we can disagree with one another as Christians in a far more civil manner that displayed by David in the post you posted. I shall keep David Virtue in my prayers that God may grant him the gift of generosity of spirit, and discernment in composition.

[15] Posted by Deacon Francie on 4-21-2010 at 10:46 AM · [top]

This is very infortunate to say the least. I would suggest at a minimum that we keep him in prayer. Not because he is either right or wrong but because this is appears to be a pattern of abuse that needs God’s help.
Intercessor

[16] Posted by Intercessor on 4-21-2010 at 10:55 AM · [top]

Okay one more post, what did our Savior say when He was being beaten and taken to the Cross? One can always take the high road. There is always a choice. If you believed you had to post it you at least could have deleted or “XXXXXX” the profanity. And this is from an ex-marine sergeant, who, at one time, was very accostomed to using such language; as noun, a verb, an adverb and an adjective. No more, I was wrong and grieved God’s heart.

[17] Posted by gary on 4-21-2010 at 11:00 AM · [top]

To quote the honorable blogger KSH
“makes the heart sad”..
Grannie Gloria

[18] Posted by Grandmother on 4-21-2010 at 11:05 AM · [top]

There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for profanity at any time for any reason on any blog, and so, David, if you happen to read my posting here, let this be a warning:  If it continues, I will cease commenting on your blog….and as you know, I’m a longtime blogger.

[19] Posted by Cennydd on 4-21-2010 at 11:11 AM · [top]

Let me remind you of our comment policy. You are free to discuss the topics we post. You are not free to discuss whether or not we should post them.

I’m curious as to why you (as in the whole Stand Firm team)made this decision.  At the Essentials blog, we are pretty strict about keeping things polite (we are Canadians, after all…), but we don’t have a problem with people questioning why we make the posts we do, and discussions that result from that sort of question.  Do the threads that result just get too long and convoluted?

[20] Posted by Kate Sanderson on 4-21-2010 at 11:12 AM · [top]

A dispute over real events (the applause) should be settled by the weight of the evidence and the trustworthiness of the witnesses.

The e-mail’s language does not help DV’s case.

I wonder if ugly language is a cultural thing, and perhaps this makes me culturally insensitive, but I do find it offensive, and I would have liked a warning on this posting.

[21] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 4-21-2010 at 11:14 AM · [top]

Go to his site once in a while, but not as user-friendly as yours.  Perhaps he should hire Greg to fix his mess.  Bwah ha ha ha ha!

[22] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 4-21-2010 at 11:14 AM · [top]

David is a very passionate guy. He’s always had problems with holding back when expressing himself.

[23] Posted by A Senior Priest on 4-21-2010 at 11:29 AM · [top]

He does have a moderator who edits postings.

[24] Posted by Cennydd on 4-21-2010 at 11:30 AM · [top]

I guess my main concern is, who is reporting the situation correctly? Was there polite applause or the stunned silence/eye rolling? If we’re to have some clue about the mind of the gathering, that’s kinda important. The language used by David is unfortunate, but hardly relevant to the important question of the reaction to Rowans message and who is giving us the correct information.
And to the poster above, the only ex-Marines are dead or dishonorably discharged. All others no longer serving are former Marines.

[25] Posted by Mike L on 4-21-2010 at 11:43 AM · [top]

#24 - I am confused.  Not that it excuses the language, but was this a post on his blog or an email where he (albeit foolishly) thought he might have expected some privacy for his colorful rant?

[26] Posted by Tami on 4-21-2010 at 11:46 AM · [top]

The language is shocking. “Bridle the tongue” comes to mind. As a surgeon and a Christian, I know that non-believers are listening and quick to charge us with hypocrisy. My New Year’s resolution is always to say no curse words for the year. Last year, I said one curse word. I made it all the way to July before I did that. This year, I have already said two words. ;^( One of these days, if the good Lord is willing, I will make it the whole year.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

[27] Posted by robroy on 4-21-2010 at 11:47 AM · [top]

Matthew 18 - if your brother who has wronged you won’t listen to you privately, take it before witnesses, then take it to the Church. Seems to me this is a perfectly biblical way of dealing with a verbally abusive brother who should know better.  And David, you should know better. Shame on you.

[28] Posted by advocate on 4-21-2010 at 11:52 AM · [top]

Why would anyone need fecal material to hit them in the face in order to discern what it is?  Is that (as Cheech & Chong might have said,) better than not stepping in it? 

And what’s a f***wit? 

Seriously.  What is it?  As a compound word, it doesn’t seem to have a meaning.

I’m so confused.  Ah well, perhaps that’s why David is the voice for global orthodox Anglicanism, and I’m just a lowly SF regular.

[29] Posted by J Eppinga on 4-21-2010 at 11:53 AM · [top]

24.  I don’t really know, Tami, but it was unfortunate either way, and it WAS uncalled for.  He’d do us all a favor by apologizing for his remarks, though.

[30] Posted by Cennydd on 4-21-2010 at 11:59 AM · [top]

In the meantime, I’m going to try to be more watchful and circumspect in my opinions about his words.

[31] Posted by Cennydd on 4-21-2010 at 12:01 PM · [top]

I’ve seen many dogs bark and chase cars, but I have never seen one driving a car.

[32] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 4-21-2010 at 12:15 PM · [top]

And what’s a f***wit?

I think it’s a compound of ‘dimwit’ and ‘f***head.’

carl

[33] Posted by carl on 4-21-2010 at 12:18 PM · [top]

Not SORRY Dave, but VOL is no longer a bookmark or I a subscriber.

[34] Posted by Roman on 4-21-2010 at 01:09 PM · [top]

I use several blogs in order to get a variety of viewpoints, and VOL is one of them.  As I said, I don’t like profanity on ANY blog, and I will keep a weather eye on all of them.  It doesn’t mean that I disagree with his views or those of others, however.

[35] Posted by Cennydd on 4-21-2010 at 01:22 PM · [top]

#24 so when I die in a few years I will be an ex-marine, until then I am a former marine. So you are a marine or a former marine? Only then could you talk to me about it, and we could share combat stories, I could tell you about Khe Sanh in 1969, what it was ,,,  See how easy it is to forget Who we serve. g

[36] Posted by gary on 4-21-2010 at 01:36 PM · [top]

Sorry Khe Sanh in 68

[37] Posted by gary on 4-21-2010 at 01:37 PM · [top]

I know David Virtue personally and have never heard him curse at any time, so this email really surprises me. I question why MAM chose to forward this personal email to anyone ? What good comes of it ?

[38] Posted by bradhutt on 4-21-2010 at 01:51 PM · [top]

Long observation of DV’s writing tells me that he has a great deal of anger, often barely suppressed.  I have seen inappropriate language directed at revisionists and also, sadly, I am not surprised at this, directed at a fellow conservative.  In my opinion his anger and his ego occasionally get in the way of his reporting.  This is sad for him and sad for the cause he has served for a long time.

And as to the event itself, “polite applause” in some circles could also be easily combined with no applause, head-shaking and eye-rolling in others.  The point made is that the Archbishop’s speech was not enthusiastically received.  On this Greg’s sources and DV appear to agree.

[39] Posted by Katherine on 4-21-2010 at 02:01 PM · [top]

“O, Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babbling.”

David Virtue shouldn’t be profane, and I wish this blog wouldn’t reprint profane words in this fashion.

[40] Posted by Going Home on 4-21-2010 at 02:22 PM · [top]

Ditto!

[41] Posted by Cennydd on 4-21-2010 at 02:48 PM · [top]

Much better to stick to reporting the news and keep personal issues private.

[42] Posted by Cennydd on 4-21-2010 at 02:50 PM · [top]

Cennydd I agree with you.

[43] Posted by Creighton+ on 4-21-2010 at 02:57 PM · [top]

So, Stand Firm didn’t actually get mail?  This was an email that David V sent to someone, who then forwarded it to SF without David’s knowledge?

[44] Posted by Kate Sanderson on 4-21-2010 at 03:00 PM · [top]

My Mom used to say, “If you don’t have something good to say about someone, don’t say anything”

I tell my students that their lack of vocabulary shows a distinct lack of academic effort on their part and makes them look stupid and ignorant.

How supposedly educated individuals can use this sort of language (other than when they hit their thumbs with a hammer) is beyond my limited ability.

[45] Posted by bdino on 4-21-2010 at 03:04 PM · [top]

Sometime back I served a church with a few members who were fond of sending anonymous ugly and sometimes genuinely threatening letters to their clergy. After swallowing the first one or two, I followed my bishop’s advice and posted them on the bulletin board in the parish house. Letters stopped.  People were shocked.  I don’t imagine that the war of words which has been going on for a while will be so easily stopped.  However, I will be praying for both SF & DV. 

The fields are white with harvest and the field hands need to stop fighting and get out there!

[46] Posted by Village vicar on 4-21-2010 at 03:12 PM · [top]

Kate [44] and Tami [26],

David addressed his reply to MAM, but copied me, Sarah, and Jackie on it. The messages in our inboxes say “From: David Virtue” with his address as the return. I haven’t yet checked with Matt to see if he was copied on it as well.

It’s something David pretty regularly does whenever something we do raises his ire - he releases a flame of vitriol, and cc’s us on the email.

Inexplicable, but there it is.

Not the first time he’s done it, undoubtedly won’t be the last.

[47] Posted by Greg Griffith on 4-21-2010 at 03:19 PM · [top]

I see. That puts rather a different slant on it.

[48] Posted by Kate Sanderson on 4-21-2010 at 03:24 PM · [top]

Greg, #47, call me old-fashioned, but sending something like this to two ladies used to be unacceptable.  Those two “cc” messages fully justify your making this public.  He could have simply replied to his correspondent and left it to her to object to his language if she wanted to.

[49] Posted by Katherine on 4-21-2010 at 03:37 PM · [top]

Bless his heart!

I thought I have a pretty good command of English, but he’s added a new word to my vocabulary. Let’s try it out…

Dear Bishop _______,

You are a poop-faced f-w. Please cut out the bullsh*t and start reading your Bible.

Respectfully,
Rafe

[50] Posted by Ralph on 4-21-2010 at 03:39 PM · [top]

SF can post what it wants, and I’m sorry that DV expresses himself this way and that SF is on the receiving end of it. I don’t much understand MAM’s rabble-rousing, though, in divulging the contents of private email.

[51] Posted by Anti-Harridan on 4-21-2010 at 04:00 PM · [top]

DV CC’d the world.
No ‘Divulging’ of ‘private contents’ involved.

[52] Posted by Bo on 4-21-2010 at 04:02 PM · [top]

Greg,
I can remember when I had to send E-Mails to people that I knew would tick their boss off (usually when their request for a new ‘feature’ was being delayed, or we wanted more money to do it.  I would CC the requester’s boss, my own boss, and anyone else I thought might be offended by my action, so that they knew I had taken the action.  DV MAY think he is doing the same kind of thing, making sure that you’re not ‘blind-sided’ by is actions in respect to some ‘compulsion to honesty’.

Doesn’t excuse the words used, but it might help explain the recipients list.

[53] Posted by Bo on 4-21-2010 at 04:07 PM · [top]

I think we’ve heard enough, and the point has been made, so let’s get on with other things, shall we?

[54] Posted by Cennydd on 4-21-2010 at 04:07 PM · [top]

I’ve met David on a few occasions. He’s pretty intense, and can be vitriolic in his conversation.  I used to frequent his blog, but I found that, while he might report on something of import, he often was wrong about what actually happened, so I would need to go to Stand Firm or Titus 1:9 to get an accurate report.  I just took his address off my bookmarks.

[55] Posted by AnglicanXn on 4-21-2010 at 04:25 PM · [top]

Not to lower the tone, but, I was both saddened and amused by DV’s msg and the comments.

There is a whole list of words I rarely use. Will add fu**wit to it when I establish a precise definition.

Many of you may have no reason to cut DV any slack, but he does provide a valuable service to the study of the Anglican world. Say a prayer for him? Send him $10 with a qualifying comment?

And in conclusion - give thanks for the wonderful things reported happening in Singapore!

[56] Posted by off2 on 4-21-2010 at 04:38 PM · [top]

You’re right.  I also comment on Titus 1:9 on occasion, and I find the reporting more accurate, as you said.  However, I’ll keep his address for the time being.

[57] Posted by Cennydd on 4-21-2010 at 04:39 PM · [top]

To all of you who labor to keep Stand Firm a going concern,
Thank you for your hard work, your honesty, and integrity!

May God richly bless you and this ministry!!

And David, though you may have meant this for evil, God has turned it to good for I am now going to add some $ to the plate at both Stand Firm and Anglican TV.
PAX

[58] Posted by r3ussell on 4-21-2010 at 04:43 PM · [top]

#33:
RE:  “I think it’s a compound of ‘dimwit’ and ‘f***head.’ “

Yes, but grammatically it makes no sense.  ‘Dim’ is an adjective modifying a noun, ‘wit.’  The other “word” is a verb (or a noun?) modifying a noun.  By mixing and matching ala David Virtue, we’ve got a verb (or a noun??) modifying a a noun, which doesn’t make sense grammatically. 

Nor does it seem to have any plain sense, as the word, “strawl,” or “spork” or “the wit of a nit,” would have. 

So I’m lost.  It’s as if, just hearing the “word” (sic) spoken or reading it, makes me stupider-er;  simply from the passive acts of hearing / reading.

[59] Posted by J Eppinga on 4-21-2010 at 04:52 PM · [top]

Well, who’s right - was there any applause or not?

[60] Posted by RoyIII on 4-21-2010 at 04:56 PM · [top]

Standfirm got a report from someone and reported it.
Stand firm got new information from the DV email that there was polite applause.
Stand firm should find out what happened and update their reporting accordingly.
The tone or language in DV’s email doesn’t seem to be news. I agree with the invocation of Matthew 18. Please don’t air your grievances publically until you have sought to reconcile privately.

[61] Posted by Philotheos on 4-21-2010 at 05:07 PM · [top]

#61 Go and read Greg’s #13.  He has tried, so your last comment errs in assuming he hasn’t.

[62] Posted by Lakeland 2 on 4-21-2010 at 05:13 PM · [top]

OK, this is a real memory stretch for me because it goes way way back to the early years of Stand Firm and I have killed off a lot of brain cells and had a triple bypass operation since then but here is what I vaguely remember. Virtue always had a little low level animosity (jealousy) for StandFirm because he felt that StandFirm was stealing his thunder. There was a picture posted on StandFirm of Virtue in a bathing suit (along with several other people) taken at a Primates meeting (Dar es Salaam?) that Virtue took umbrage at. Greg removed the post but Virtue’s real vitriol started at about that time. It was a very innocuous picture and the whole thing was a tempest in a teapot. I think Greg may even have apologised for posting the picture. Maybe someone with a better memory than I can fill in the details. There was nothing in that incident that even remotely excuses Virtue’s subsequent behavior but there may be more to it than I remember.

the snarkster™

[63] Posted by the snarkster on 4-21-2010 at 05:15 PM · [top]

Quite an interesting little volume published by Random House, Inc., in 1995, edited by Jesse Sheidlower, The F Word </i. (with a Foreword by Roy Blount, Jr.)does not, to the best of my searching ability in an alphabetically arranged presentation lacking an index, contain the word in question.  This text, which lexicographically traces the ancestry and development of the F-word, is now 15 years old and may not be current in all its usages.  It would appear, however, that the combination word is a neologism.  English is always evolving… .

The expression does not appear in <i> FUBAR: Soldier Slang of World War II in the American, Tommy, Aussie, Canuck, Kiwi, German Japanese or Red Army sections of that entertaining exposition of colorful (or, colourful) language(s) used by soldiers.  It does not address Naval or Air Force slang. (That tome remains, to my knowledge, yet to be assembled for publicaton.  Though those more in the know are free to PM me to the correction of my ignorance.)  Gordon L Rottman has produced, of course, an historical work dated by its intention, even if published in 2007 by Osprey Publishing Ltd (Oxford and New York).  This would suggest that the 1995 work cited above had not missed a Greatest Generation usage in its compilation.

A quick search of several slang dictionary sites accessible on-line failed to reveal the term in its full glory.  This points strongly toward neologism peculiar to the author in question.  Again, English is always evolving.

I trust that this lexicographical assessment has not diminished anyone’s enjoyment of this thread nor of the author’s neologism.  It has, I must admit, given me a great deal of entertainment in the attempted elucidation of its provenance this afternoon.  I submit that, while not a recorded usage in any of my resources, it is lucid enough that it does what all communication intends - conveys information or emotional states from one person to others.  In that, I would say success has been achieved.

We now return you to regular programming.

[64] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 4-21-2010 at 05:32 PM · [top]

#63, it’s not just that photo, and it’s not just Stand Firm.  Sadly, quite a number of other orthodox Anglican bloggers, myself included (and I know of at least 4 others), have received hateful, profane, vitriolic emails from David.

[65] Posted by Karen B. on 4-21-2010 at 05:36 PM · [top]

That said, can I issue a plea?  Can we not let this become the big story of the GS Encounter?  It troubles me that this thread has gotten way more comments than the threads with the presentations of the GS leaders, and I am now guilty of doing the same as I’ve not yet commented on the presentations as I’ve not had any significant time until now this week to spend online. 

But please, let’s remember what the GSE4 in Singapore is really about and focus on that!

[66] Posted by Karen B. on 4-21-2010 at 05:38 PM · [top]

“tempest in a teapot” is a good description. I to dropped Virtue several years ago because of his inaccurate reporting which I considered biased to a fault….and often an embarrassment to the orthodox. My daddy, God rest his soul, had another syaing: “never get in a **ssing match with a skunk.” Appropo here? I agree with those who suggest SF & Greg would have been better served to redact the profanity. The point would have still been made. I suspect the ‘Ancient Enemy’ helped you make the decision to include everything for effect, eh Greg? I met all the SF hierarchy at GC ‘06 except Jackie…..I think you are better then this+

[67] Posted by Doubting Thomas on 4-21-2010 at 05:50 PM · [top]

Karen B., you’re right.  We’ve had enough of this, so folks, let’s get back to talking about the GS Encounter, shall we?  Please?

[68] Posted by Cennydd on 4-21-2010 at 06:02 PM · [top]

[59] Moot

I actually think the term is quite precise.  It’s a contraction of ‘f***-headed dimwit’ and conveys the following impression:

One who is so stupid he should be beaten senseless for the indignity he inflicts on his betters by his mere existence.

Intentional profanity is verbal violence.  It proposes to strip the target of respect in order to remove any necessity for engagement on an equal level.  I don’t think this word was pulled out of the air.  I think it was carefully chosen - like a weapon from a scabbard. 

This from one who struggles with profanity.  The guilty explain the guilty, for what it is worth.

carl

[69] Posted by carl on 4-21-2010 at 06:04 PM · [top]

Oh, ok, I didn’t have time to read all the posts and did not realize that DV had copied SFers on his crass statements.

[70] Posted by Anti-Harridan on 4-21-2010 at 06:15 PM · [top]

Doubting Thomas [67],

I can certainly understand why some people would prefer that I had redacted the profanity.

The reason I chose not to was because, as I suspected, plenty of people would read the post and make incorrect assumptions about its circumstances, or get some of the facts wrong; the questions about whether this was sent directly to us is a perfect example (although, to be clear, I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to wade through all the comments).

I didn’t want to leave open the possibility that others might think we were getting worked up over a blob of asterisks and ampersands, so I left the profanity in to make it clear what the author decided to include in it.

All that said, I agree with KarenB - our point has been made here, and there are better things to focus on in Singapore than David Virtue’s shenanigans, so I’m closing the thread.

[71] Posted by Greg Griffith on 4-21-2010 at 06:23 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.