April 18, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

July 3, 2007


Comment Policy REPOST: The Beatings Will Continue until Morale Improves

[A note from certain SF Bloggers: this blog policy has been a constant now for six months.  We also remind people of the policy—with a link to this page—at the bottom of each and every post, and include these words: “No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence.”

Now that we have offered repeated reminders and warnings over a six month period, if there is sufficient offense, we will simply proceed to banning, based on the fact that now everybody knows in detail all the comment policies.  Please therefore, read and heed this comment policy below.]


Folks, it’s been a long time since I’ve been able to keep up with all the comments on this site. But lately I’ve had to pay more attention to them, as our commenatrix emails me anything she thinks need my attention, and my inbox is more full than ever. While she and the Special Subcommittee debate whether we’re seeing a full-blown funk, or just a temporary bad mojo, let me sum up what I’d like everyone to know:

Beginning… oh… yesterday, we’re going to be seeing more and more visitors to this site, as the news cycle for Tanzania ramps up. Afterwards, we’ll almost certainly be the beneficiaries of a larger audience, as people stick around to see what happens over the subsequent months. I’d like for this place to be more welcoming to newcomers, especially new commenters.

As most around here know, we don’t tolerate “elves.” We don’t have the time or the desire to edit individual comments. The commenatrix and I use much more ERRRRRR—decisive methods.

Therefore, I’d like to see no more:

1. Charges that anyone who leaves the Episcopal Church is a quitter, a coward, etc.

2. Charges that anyone who stays in the Episcopal Church is wasting their time, a heretic by association, etc.

3. Demands that we all fold up our tents and become Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/LCMS/Presbyterian or whatever; and charges that those of us who prefer not to are idiots.

Our unofficial policy on staying or leaving is this: Go where God calls you, and go with our blessings, but don’t belittle someone who has received different orders.

Three more things I’d like to see no more of:


1. Sniping on a personal level. Example:

Commenter #1: “I think it is time for the orthodox to leave the Episcopal Church and join CANA or the AMiA.”

Commenter #2: (bad): “That’s because you are a crypto-baptist with no understanding of Anglican ecclesiology.”

Commenter #2: (good): “I disagree. I do not think that our ecclesiology allows for such action. Here’s why…”


2. Attempts to derail discussion with off-topic remarks, or crazed obsession with a single topic. Example:

Commenter #1: “My love for the Anglican Communion has so far kept me waiting - I hope so much that the Primates will establish discipline.”

Commenter #2 (off-topic… bad): “HAH! You say you love the Anglican Communion.  Where is your love for true catholicity—which should be in the arms of the Roman Catholic church, where unity in Christ is *visible*, not the invisible claptrap that you folks pretend to care about.  Answer my questions—are you truly catholic?  Then why do you continue as Protestants?  Please explain to me why you have not joined the true church?”

Commenter #2 (on-topic… good): “I have to admit it - I am a Baptist, and congregationalist in my outlook - so I don’t understand why this love for the Anglican Communion.  Why is it so important to Anglicans to be in a communion?  Why not have a good local congregation with a preacher who teaches the Word? Aren’t all Christians really already unified in Jesus Christ?  That’s the unity that I am concerned about.”

3. Sneering references to our Worthy Opponents.

For example, I know Bishop Robinson’s real name is indeed “Vicki Imogene,” but I never refer to him by that in the context of opposing his episcopacy or his theology, because it’s obviously intended as a slam against him personally. It’s a juvenile, playground taunt that doesn’t belong here. Go to Google and learn why he’s named that, and my guess is that you’ll understand why it’s inappropriate in the extreme to use it. Same goes for calling Susan Russell things such as “arch-lesbian.” I know she embraces the term, but it’s like the “n” word - it’s not okay for us to use it. When she uses it, it’s funny and self-effacing; when we use it, it’s petty and derisive. To everyone’s credit, we see very little of that kind of thing here, but even a little is too much. For the best thoughts on our Worthy Opponents, read Sarah’s essay. This is not to say that you can’t call a heretic a heretic, just make sure you (respectfully) make the case for their heresy.

Mainly, though - just get out of your funk. Remember that no matter what happens to the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion, your little brown church in the vale… or even organized religion, for that matter… God is in charge. He will reform His church as He sees fit, and if we are faithful, we will emerge from this mess into His Truth - whatever, whenever, and wherever He decides that will be.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

152 comments

Well said, Greg

[1] Posted by The Duke on 1-8-2007 at 10:00 AM · [top]

Well presented, and I will take note on any posts I make.

I would like to comment, however, that as much as I love Kendall Harmon’s blog, I think Stand Firm won the “best blog” award because Stand Firm doesn’t automatically shut down comments when Kendall does. I realize he does it to put a stop to bad behavior, but if all of us adhered to the guidelines above, nobody would have to cut off comments!

Bring on Tanzania!!!!!

[2] Posted by NancyNH on 1-8-2007 at 10:02 AM · [top]

If you are in a funk, don’t come and trash the StandFirm site with inappropriate comments.  Go to Lent & Beyond   http://lent.classicalanglican.net/
and pray for the upcoming Primates meeting in Tanzania.  There is a prayer campaign leading up to it…take part!  Seeing this all in God’s hands (as Greg advises at the end of his post above) is good medicine for funks, the urge to gossip, blog flaming and other spiritual maladies.  And praying might make more of a difference, both in hearing the truth and helping it intrude into the current mess. 
Besides, Lent & Beyond was voted “Most Spiritual” in the recent Anglican Blog awards.  Shameless plug over.

[3] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 1-8-2007 at 10:17 AM · [top]

The snarkster resolves to be less snarky.

the snarkster

[4] Posted by the snarkster on 1-8-2007 at 10:17 AM · [top]

Thanks, Greg.  And agree with NancyNH - Bring on Tanzania!!!!!  (

[5] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 1-8-2007 at 10:22 AM · [top]

By God’s Grace I’ll remember each time before I click the “Submit” buttom:

“For I desire mercy and not sacrifice,  And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”

Group hug now?  (I’m sorry, I know I’m pushing it).

[6] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 1-8-2007 at 10:27 AM · [top]

Greg,
I am glad to see this.  Thanks.  I do want to clarify something about your first example, however.  Am I correct in inferring that the problem you see in your first example is connected with “you are a crypto-baptist with no understanding” and not with the challenge on the basis of Anglican ecclesiology?  I hope you are not trying to eliminate argument based on ecclesiology, because so much discussed here requires that we examine the ecclesiological assumptions we bring to the debate.  Similarly, in your second example, I note that some of our best discussions are those which do branch out from the original topic as we explore together questions on a given thread.  I hope you are not trying to eliminate the free-flowing nature of our discussions.  And I also note by analogy to football, that the same “infractions” occur again and again, demanding the repetition of the same rebuttal; does a referee have a “crazed obsession” with “illegal procedure” just because he calls it a lot?  Or does the play on the field warrant the same penalty repeatedly?  I have in mind, for example, Matt’s repeated calls on the issue of “funding heresy” or my repeated calls to consider Windsor A&B.  Are those “crazed obsessions?”

[7] Posted by Craig Uffman on 1-8-2007 at 10:50 AM · [top]

Thanks for the reminder Greg,will attempt to abide by Col.4:6 a bit more consistently.
Thanks again
Pat aka Paddy

[8] Posted by paddy on 1-8-2007 at 10:51 AM · [top]

Craig,

I understand your desire for precision; no doubt others will ask similar questions. However, I hope you understand that I’m not going to continue slicing this finer and finer. Let the spirit of the post be your guide.

[9] Posted by Greg Griffith on 1-8-2007 at 11:04 AM · [top]

Craig, we think that what Greg was referring to when he “quoted”

“you are a crypto-baptist with no understanding”

was to stay away from attacking the person by saying/writing anything that could even be perceived as a personal attack.  But fisking the agrument itself while remaining polite and non-insulting.  wink

Just our L2 cents worth.  But we think it would be good also to remind all that just because you know the definitions of the big words, many new people (and some of us “old” ones) don’t, nor do we/they know all the shades of meaning. 

The “rollover’ acronyms/explanations/definitions are great, but the contexts can be confusing.  And while we aren’t theologians, we are educated and WE get lost in some of these posts.

[10] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 1-8-2007 at 11:08 AM · [top]

Greg, I must confess that I do not find your first two examples quite as evil as you do, unless you are objecting to tone rather than substance.  Ecclesiology runs pretty close to the heart of the issues Anglicans are facing these days, and it is hard to see how, say, a discussion of Tanzania can avoid it.  Of course, it is tiresome to see the same arguments over and over and over again, each time repeated a little more loudly (so to speak), but I think that’s the nature of the game.

Still, it’s your blog.

[11] Posted by Id rather not say on 1-8-2007 at 11:09 AM · [top]

IRNS,

I believe that Greg was speaking of tone as well as content, and we both know that the tone has been rather harsh in the past. 

Greg,

A valid request, albeit one that should not have had to be made.  Mea maxima culpa!

[12] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 1-8-2007 at 11:16 AM · [top]

A big THANK YOU to Greg for a needed reminder.  I hereby resolve to be reminded.

[13] Posted by church lady on 1-8-2007 at 11:16 AM · [top]

The point in the example (“That’s because you are a crypto-baptist with no understanding of Anglican ecclesiology”) is that it’s not a comment on ecclesiology, but a thinly-veiled way of calling someone an idiot.

[14] Posted by Greg Griffith on 1-8-2007 at 11:19 AM · [top]

“And so it begins. . .”  ;>)

[15] Posted by John316 on 1-8-2007 at 11:25 AM · [top]

Thanks for the reminder. I think most people here are very decent. I want to add too how important it is—and I know this is obvious—to be praying about Tanzania. Wherever you are in the church (I’m still in TEC) it is important to be praying for it, that God’s truth win out.

[16] Posted by DavidSh on 1-8-2007 at 11:33 AM · [top]

On the other hand, at least as used by our worthy opponents, “Bottom-Feeder” is, as Sarah reminds us, a badge to be worn with honor.  So, please, don’t shut down the worthy opponents.

Bill (aspiring to the honorary rank of “Bottom-Feeder”) Witt

[17] Posted by William Witt on 1-8-2007 at 11:35 AM · [top]

Well done, and taken to heart on my part.

I am particularly glad you made the reference to Bishop Robinson’s name.  The misuse of his name has always appeared childish and taunting to me, and long ago caused me to quit visiting another reappraiser site.

Thank you for all that you and the others do at this remarkable site.

[18] Posted by Going Home on 1-8-2007 at 12:15 PM · [top]

Thanks,
...In all things, Charity”, as Augustine was wont to say.
Andy smile

[19] Posted by aterry on 1-8-2007 at 12:27 PM · [top]

Greg,

Can we add “and so it begins…” to the list of things we would like less of? I thought it “began” along time ago. Each day is both a new beginning AND end, of conflict AND resolution. Therefore, it means everything and nothing—at the same time. Alot like the Griswold speak. Or Aloha. Oops, am I allowed to criticize Griswold speak anymore?

Anyway, I prefer “let’s rumble” or “let’s roll” or “I expected it” rather than LOTR quotes.

Charitably, and in the spirit of your post.

[20] Posted by Capn Jack Sparrow on 1-8-2007 at 12:35 PM · [top]

I would also like to develop a drinking game, where we all take a shot of Scotch every time we see the phrase “so-called” or “self-styled”.

The self-styled Diet of So-called Worms.

[21] Posted by DietofWorms on 1-8-2007 at 12:37 PM · [top]

DietofWorms, you forgot “soi-disant”  (an uppity version of “self-styled.”

[22] Posted by Miss Sippi on 1-8-2007 at 12:46 PM · [top]

Greg, you are a dear, and have taken on a daunting task.  My hat is off to you.  If Stand Firm were a circus, you would be the lion tamer.  Instead you are trying to organize the monkey house.  Best of luck! 
(Just sign me:  HIGH CHURCH) zipper

[23] Posted by GB on 1-8-2007 at 12:52 PM · [top]

Cap’n Jack -

“And so it begins” has been on the official no-no list since December 8.

GB -

What do you mean, “if Stand Firm were a circus”?

[24] Posted by Greg Griffith on 1-8-2007 at 01:01 PM · [top]

Well said, Greg.

Personal insults and cruelty undermine one’s own cause, while responding graciously even when one’s “worthy opponents” are acting in a decidedly unworthy manner is often very effective in winning over onlookers.

Personally, and I imagine a lot of people will disagree with me, I don’t think it’s helpful to call someone a “heretic” even when they consistently say heretical things. Saying “s/he’s a heretic” instead of “what s/he’s teaching is heretical” or even “s/he consistently espouses heretical ideas,” IMO, essentializes things in a very unhelpful way; it can be seen as implying that this person is beyond God’s ability to redeem even if s/he were to change behavior and ask God’s forgiveness. IMO, that doesn’t slight the other person so much as it slights God.

[25] Posted by Sarah Dylan Breuer on 1-8-2007 at 01:07 PM · [top]

Isn’t this kinda like new years resolutions?  Oh well, we’ll try.  Surely everyone wants to communicate and convince, but some are just bitter and want to throw bombs.  The Chineese have a proverb: “In an argument, how do you tell who won?  Ans: the one who doesn’t throw the the first punch.”  Any religion that depends on force and not convincing by truth is a foolish threat and produces no righteous.

[26] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 1-8-2007 at 01:13 PM · [top]

Greg,

I make no secret of my being RC.  I understand fully the conflict many in the TEC have about whether to leave.
My prayer as always been that they find a home in a church which teaches and defends the faith.  If I have ever come across as thinking there is no reason to stay Protestant my apologies.  I do pray that the Anglican communion will grow and thrive in the US in answer to the failings of the TEC to keep and teach God’s word.

[27] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 1-8-2007 at 01:43 PM · [top]

Well, Greg, you could save a lot of megabytes IF people would refrain from making predictions about what is going to happen in the future, IF something else happens first which hasn’t happened yet. shock

[28] Posted by GB on 1-8-2007 at 01:54 PM · [top]

Greg,

Although I am a new poster I am a long-time “lurker.”  I respect the decision of those orthodox Episcopalians to “stay and fight” and I pray for your success.  Although I made my own decision to “swim the Tiber” and recommend that course of action, I do not believe it is the only available course.  There are other legitimate possibilities as well.  Of course, I think my own course is the best, but even it is not without its difficulties. (Were I in a liberal RC diocese, I might encourage someone to pursue another option).  But I remember the long-suffering faithful Anglicans in my prayers.  God bless you for all the work you do on this blog.

[29] Posted by Totus Tuus on 1-8-2007 at 02:06 PM · [top]

I think the point is that it is good to have vigorous vehement argumentation. If you think TEC is no longer a church. That is fine, but argue the point and then defend the point. If you think people should wait for the covenant. Thats fine. Argue the point and defend it. If you think Anglican ecclesiology is one way then say so but use rational argument.

Hard nosed argumentation is a plus. When it gets personal though, thats out of bounds

[30] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 1-8-2007 at 02:12 PM · [top]

So Matt if someone says I am going to hell in a handbasket for my evil ways if they describe the handbasket and use a rational argument for the ribbons used then that’s ok???  wink  LOL

[31] Posted by Rocks on 1-8-2007 at 02:33 PM · [top]

absolutely

[32] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 1-8-2007 at 02:43 PM · [top]

It’s a very nice handbasket, not one of those cheap dollar store ones, but good quality wicker, we’d not want to loose the contents before the proper destination, would we? The ribbon was the hardest choice, after all we want to be inclusive, a red ribbon might annoy the blue ribbon people, then the green ribbon folks would be upset, you could say tri-color with primary colors, but which set of primary colors, pigment or light? Better go with the rainbow ribbon, that included both sets of primaries.  raspberry

[33] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 1-8-2007 at 03:00 PM · [top]

Hosea,
NOw you’ve gone and done it!  Your post was fine until the last sentence, wherein you made a seriously perjorative observation…either stay with the primaries or use a tartan.

[34] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 1-8-2007 at 03:11 PM · [top]

You say the following is improper:
“3. Demands that we all fold up our tents and become Roman Catholic/Eastern orthodox/LCMS/Presbyterian or whatever”
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that it is the Church most fully and rightly ordered and that all Christians should recognize that truth and return to the Roman Catholic Church.  It acknowledges other bodies as Christian and gives thanks for the Christianity lived out in the various denominations but still insists that they reunite with Rome. The LCMS claims to be the true Church and that all who agree with the full scope of its doctrines are also Christian Churches. 
If urging Christians to abandon Protestantism and reuniting with the Catholic Church or LCMS (politely, with reasoned arguments and respect)  is out of bounds for this blog, then the propenents of Roman Catholicism should stop crashing your party and leave you alone. 
Perhaps you really don’t intend to exclude this Catholic contention.  Perhaps it is the demanding or impolite assertions that troubles you but not the truth claim.  It would be helpful to clarify this point because your words, taken at face value, seem to rule out of bounds the most significant truth claim of Catholicism.

[35] Posted by closet catholic on 1-8-2007 at 03:20 PM · [top]

Hee—Oh but a tartan really will get the blood boiling, one clan would accuse it should be another. They my wear skirts, but they carry broadswords.  big surprise

(Note my dad’s side emigrated from the moors of Scotland, so picking on myself if your also from Scottish linage).

[36] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 1-8-2007 at 03:21 PM · [top]

Personal insults and cruelty undermine one’s own cause, while responding graciously even when one’s “worthy opponents” are acting in a decidedly unworthy manner is often very effective in winning over onlookers.

Aw, c’mon!  Personal insults and cruelty are so much fun!  We can’t spend <u>all</u> our time giggling at H6:6’s kilt…

[37] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 1-8-2007 at 03:31 PM · [top]

RE: We can’t spend all our time giggling at H6:6’s kilt…

But I’ll have you ROFL when I hit myself upside the head with my own broadsword ...

[38] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 1-8-2007 at 03:34 PM · [top]

closet catholic,

Glad you chimed in. My point is not that what you assert in your post isn’t true, or even that it’s not appropriate here. The point I’m trying to make is that we heard you (and a few others) the first 183 times.

[39] Posted by Greg Griffith on 1-8-2007 at 03:38 PM · [top]

Your response does not seem very respectful and could reasonably be interpreted to be a put down.  Perhaps you did not intend this result.  We hear lots of things 183 times on this blog but no one tells others to shut up.  We hear all about the the glory of the Anglican tradition that is worth saving and that all we need to do is read the bible individualistically and each person come to their own personal definition of biblical truth.  The fact of the matter is that the Catholic option is very much in play during this crisis.  I myself have not crossed over from TEC to Rome.  Its helpful to me to put out the Catholic arguments as best I can, and see what the response tells me.  One could argue, that the whole mess TEC is in has its roots in the errors of the Reformation and that Catholicism is the answer. 
But if y’all would not rather hear how Catholic teaching impacts the various issues you discuss, I would be glad to go elsewhere to discus.  Just let me know.  I am no party crasher.

[40] Posted by closet catholic on 1-8-2007 at 03:57 PM · [top]

Greg,
I think it is critically important that we clarify whether or not we are allowed to exchange elf recipes (as in containing) here at Stand Firm.

[41] Posted by JackieB on 1-8-2007 at 03:58 PM · [top]

Allowed? You’re encouraged! I have one whole stack of just curried elf, another for pickled… and you just wait ‘til you see the way I do elf tartare.

[42] Posted by Greg Griffith on 1-8-2007 at 04:04 PM · [top]

Now, being of elf lineage, I can safely say that encouraging elf recipe distribution is a put down and you are all going to hell in a handbasket wearing tartan!
No matter the size of your broadsword!
Covert to the RC now and you might just get purgatory.
LOL

[43] Posted by Rocks on 1-8-2007 at 04:13 PM · [top]

Just let me know.  I am no party crasher.

There are plenty of times when the RC view on things is appropriate - even at the center of the discussion. There are also plenty of times when it’s fine to do some evangelizing for Rome. But constantly demeaning Anglicanism, no matter what the core topic of conversation is, is a drag. So is (as I mentioned in the main post) the constant nagging of some people to leave ECUSA for AMiA, or anywhere else

Nobody here disagrees that Anglicanism - particularly the current American expression of it - is deeply troubled. But to go from there, to the conclusion that everyone must leave right this instant, is incorrect. We are not here to turn all Anglcans in America into Roman Catholics, or to rush them out the doors to breakaway Anglican groups. We are here to try and reform Anglicanism in North America. For some people, that involves staying and fighting. For others, it involves leaving for a splinter group. Leaving for Rome, or the Presbyterians or Methodists or Baptists or whatever, is not what we’re here for. If that’s what you want to do, fine. You have decided to remove yourself from the fight to reform this church. Go, and know that you have our blessings.

And you’re welcome to hang out here and post all you want, just stop banging the “you have to leave now” drum on every thread.

[44] Posted by Greg Griffith on 1-8-2007 at 04:20 PM · [top]

closet catholic,
A hefty percentage of Anglicans are former Roman Catholics, and many who aren’t are still aware of Pope Leo the Umpteenth’s papal bull regarding us (or disregarding us, as the case may be). We know y’all exist, we know what y’all believe, and since there’s at least one RC parish in most towns, those who are interested know where to go if they want more information.

On a personal note, I am a former RC and the few times during this crisis that I wondered if I should return were quickly dismissed by seeing Catholics at other sites relishing our troubles with comments like, “Wow, what huge RCIA classes we’re going to have!” and “what can you expect from a church founded on a king’s lust?” Salt in wounds and incessant claims of sole possession of “truth” aren’t helpful. The Anglican Communion did not glory in the RCC’s pedophilia scandal; the ABC did not send emissaries to move disaffected Catholics into the AC.
I don’t mean to sound contentious but I think you do need to be aware how what you see as a “duty” may be hurtful to others.

[45] Posted by Brit on 1-8-2007 at 04:23 PM · [top]

Closet catholic.  I for one want to hear your thoughts from the catholic point of view (the catholic in TEC point of view).  I have had many fascinating conversations with a friend of mine about the merits of the reformation vs the problems caused by it.  This is always an interesting way of examining what we are facing today in Anglicanism, (he is on the “against the reformation” side and I am “for” side of the discussion).  Please do not ever hesitate to offer your reasoned comments here.  May God bless you in your faithful quest. 

Greg, keep up the good work. . . refreshing the hearts of the saints.

[46] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 1-8-2007 at 04:37 PM · [top]

I know! Rather than be sarcastic, I’ll just put in quotes the more amusing things our worthy opponents write/say, and then add


!

[47] Posted by sophy0075 on 1-8-2007 at 04:40 PM · [top]

Closet Catholic,
  I think if we pick one word out from Greg’s Original statement it should be “Demands”. I’m RC myself, have been all my life, and I have been welcomed here. Although I may be wearing that out. wink I have also crashed quite a few parties too and I think what Greg is trying to say is party crashers are ok. It’s the ones who start acting like jerks, scream this party stinks or tell the same joke to EVERY single person that ruin things.

[48] Posted by Rocks on 1-8-2007 at 04:51 PM · [top]

Our translation of Greg’s request:

1. Respect others (which is what Jesus would do and commands us to do.  AND makes ANY site more enjoyable - thus newcomers would stay and LEARN more which is crucial.
    a. No name calling of any kind. 
    b. PROVE points right/wrong.
2. Stay on topic
3. Do everything you can to help the site to stay up:
    a.  Don’t bog it down by repetition
    b.  Don’t post unless it’s necessary or will add clarity
    c.  Be economical wordwise in your post

He’s asking us to help with every bit and byte we can—to help the site handle more traffic on the crucial days ahead.  Ask yourself:  Are my words more important than others getting the news?

So that new people (and the rest of us) can get in and grasp the importance of what’s going on in the best manner possible.  That they will see the best of Christ in us.  That means, in our humble opinion, putting aside our over-reactions and showering ALL with the love of Christ especially if our feelings are hurt when others don’t receive our opinions as presented.

WHY?  For the bigger picture of helping to save/salvage the most of TEC for Christ through the Anglican Communion.  Getting out the word of what’s happening is more important.  Getting people to stay long enough to READ why it’s important.  There will be plenty of time after the big days for discussions of where to go if things don’t shake out the way we want.  And besides, if it’s that important to you - you can start your own blog.

IOHO (In our humble opinion).

[49] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 1-8-2007 at 05:01 PM · [top]

Rocks: It’s not that RC part that worries us ... now elf lineage, that’s a different story ...  angry

[50] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 1-8-2007 at 05:05 PM · [top]

Hosea,
  I know…I thought I was a dwarf, but I grew out of it..wink

b.  Don’t post unless it’s necessary or will add clarity
c.  Be economical wordwise in your post

Man, am I in trouble.
ohh

[51] Posted by Rocks on 1-8-2007 at 05:11 PM · [top]

Hey, Rocks…

So are we (in trouble)!!!  cheese  We L2 have to abide on what we suggest, too!

I didn’t add that checking in multiple times a day wouldn’t be helpful…...

[52] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 1-8-2007 at 05:18 PM · [top]

Actually, it’s not the kilts or the broadswords that we have ( I’m a wee bit Scots and Irish meself, don’t ya ken?) but the secet ingredients we all carry in our sporrans.

[53] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 1-8-2007 at 05:31 PM · [top]

No, no… post away. We’re taking steps as we speak to drastically increase our capacity and prepare for what I’m convinced will be an avalanche of traffic next month.

What I want to do is what L2 mentioned in the second half of their post: Make this site more welcoming to new visitors, which means making it friendlier, making newcomers eager - not apprehensive - to participate in the debate, and to make lurkers come out of hiding.

Everybody here needs to think about this: While this site has grown from an audience of one (me), to over 30,000, we’re not “there” yet. 2007 will be a record year for all Anglican blogs, and as one of the leading ones, this one will see one of the highest increases in traffic in terms of pure numbers.

Whereas these days we get between 3,500 and 5,500 visitors a day, I’m making arrangements to accommodate between 3 and 5 times that many in the period surrounding the Tanzania meeting. I also expect our traffic to “plateau” after that, settle in at about 7,000 or so a day, and steadliy grow from there.

We all need to remember - as dorky as it sounds - that we constitute a pretty large percentage of the ambassadors for the orthodox Anglican cause. As the audience gets bigger, we need to remember that they will be less inclined to stick around and hear our case if… well, frankly, if we’re our usual ill-mannered selves. Most of us “get it” - we’re thick-skinned and don’t take things too personally when the debate gets heated, but that’s because we’re battle-hardened blog junkies. But put yourself in the shoes of a New Arrival: They will see something on the news, or hear something from their rector, and they will go home, sit down at their computer, go to Google or Yahoo, and type in a few words. Sooner or later, they will probably find themselves at this site.

Put yourself in their shoes, and ask, What do we want them to find when they get here?

[54] Posted by Greg Griffith on 1-8-2007 at 05:36 PM · [top]

Put yourself in their shoes, and ask, What do we want them to find when they get here?

The answer to that should be obvious: Elf Recipes!

the snarkster

[55] Posted by the snarkster on 1-8-2007 at 05:42 PM · [top]

Thanks, Greg! 

B of us L2 used to be a programmer before disability, so we both tend to think “worst case scenario”.

But we realize a lot could be lost without all of the flavor we all add….. LOL

[56] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 1-8-2007 at 06:06 PM · [top]

Greg, definitely DWI on a regular basis and highly recommend it!

Check out Brooklyntabernacle.org for one of the sources of my habit!
Love and blessings,

[57] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 1-8-2007 at 07:12 PM · [top]

Thanks, Greg, for this valuable post and the conversation that has ensued.  I’ve been traveling all day, so am weighing in late.

I think one issue that I see over and over, and which Greg referenced in his post, is the off-topic nature of some comments.  If the post is about, say, who is at the Camp Allen meeting, and suddenly a commenter announces “Why aren’t you all congregationalist like me?  Can’t you see that it’s the visible local church that counts and not all of this silly communion babble?” surely we can all see that that is “off-topic” of discussing who is at the Camp Allen meeting.

And leaps like that seem to take place a lot, lately.  We’re talking about the Primate prayer effort, and someone pipes up that we should all oppose WO [and yes, I do] which is clearly off-topic.  Or someone announces that we should join CANA, or become Roman Catholic, when the post is not at all about CANA, Roman Catholics, or WO.

There are other threads where the subject of staying/leaving, or other denominations/churches is discussed and it is not at all off-topic, and I don’t mind those at all [unless, again, it veers off into the personal, rather than discussing the ideas].

Finally—Paula, you are a fabulous representative of Roman Catholicism.  Please don’t stop posting here—you are a credit to your church.

[58] Posted by Sarah on 1-8-2007 at 07:14 PM · [top]

Does that mean I don’t get to call Griffith a big silly head?

[59] Posted by Christopher Johnson on 1-8-2007 at 07:55 PM · [top]

I am a self-declared Gregophile, his work is awesome. But I think L2 did a better job of summing up his angst than he did. I hope we can all abide by the rules of common courtesy and consideration as we approach this season of crucial events. The work of the Primates will be exquisitely important. Let us pray, quietly.

[60] Posted by Gulfstream on 1-8-2007 at 07:55 PM · [top]

Does that mean I don’t get to call Griffith a big silly head?

Not at all—you just have to be able to back such statements up with facts—otherwise it us just personal opinion…

By the way, I have a killer recipe for Baked Elf Alaska.

Susan

[61] Posted by Summersnow on 1-8-2007 at 08:24 PM · [top]

“...it IS just person opinion…”  (Blast, er, I mean blessed typos).

[62] Posted by Summersnow on 1-8-2007 at 08:27 PM · [top]

CJ -

I’d consider it an improvement if you’d start calling me a “big sillyhead.”

[63] Posted by Greg Griffith on 1-8-2007 at 08:30 PM · [top]

Are nicknames for the most recent PBs like Fast Eddie, Grizzy, and Dr Squiddy okay or are they out of bounds?

[64] Posted by David Wilson on 1-8-2007 at 09:07 PM · [top]

Double G,
So can I kill you off in the latest installment of my idiocy?  Actually, I’m thinking of killing myself off but you can always go first.  grin

[65] Posted by Christopher Johnson on 1-8-2007 at 10:00 PM · [top]

DDW+,

As tempting as it is to give them a thumbs-up, I’d say all those flunk the “worthy opponent” test - but just barely.

CJ,

The world needs heroes. I’ll leave it at that.  cool smirk

[66] Posted by Greg Griffith on 1-8-2007 at 10:13 PM · [top]

First of all exactly how are these elves for the recipes procured???

Second, no Squidward!?!?!? shock
Surely Luttibelle is ok!?!?!  tongue rolleye

[67] Posted by Rocks on 1-8-2007 at 10:32 PM · [top]

RE: “First of all exactly how are these elves for the recipes procured???”

There are ways to lure them in, but I prefer not to say more.

[68] Posted by Sarah on 1-8-2007 at 10:46 PM · [top]

Ha! It’s a Vast Elf Eating Conspiracy!

[69] Posted by Rocks on 1-8-2007 at 10:53 PM · [top]

OK.  I may be the only one on earth who doesn’t get it, but I’ll bite.  Have you ever been to a party where everyone is jolly, all sharing in a hilarious joke; that is, all but you, because you missed the setup?  That’s how I have felt all day long getting countless emails from Stand Firm with these elf jokes.  Will someone please explain what the dickens ya’ll are joking about?

[70] Posted by Craig Uffman on 1-8-2007 at 10:54 PM · [top]

Since I truly like and appreciate the elves who work tirelessly to help us and keep us in line, I want to officially apologize for initiating this round of elf jokes.

[71] Posted by Bill C on 1-8-2007 at 11:01 PM · [top]

GRAANNG!!!  No on expects the Mississippi requisition.  Our weapons are but three: irony, ridicule, sarcasm, and inuendo, no four irony, ridicule, sarcasm, inuendo and a fanatical devotion to the Scripture, no five….

[72] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 1-8-2007 at 11:12 PM · [top]

Sarah ,
Perhaps you have not read Government Bulletin 66905 put out by the Gov’t Deptartment of Many Regulations You have Never Heard Of But Must Obey Anyway titled.
The Proper Procedure for Procuring and Placing Elves In Supportive Blog Reviewal Management Teams With Special Consideration of Elfin Habitat Requirements.  Includes recipe appendix and elf trading post locations.

And thanks I hope to keep posting keeping charity always in mind.

[73] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 1-9-2007 at 01:35 AM · [top]

Ok, Greg.  Whatever.

 

 

 


: )

[74] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 1-9-2007 at 02:49 AM · [top]

Hi Folks,
    I just dropped into Fr. Jake’s (Terry Brooks) blog. It seems that Terry’s father has passed away. I think we should all keep Terry & his family in our prayers for the next few days as they mourn their loss.

Bob Richenburg, Free Evangelical

[75] Posted by Bob Richenburg on 1-9-2007 at 03:54 AM · [top]

How about “So it goes…”  from Vonnegut? 

Pretty please??

[76] Posted by DHR on 1-9-2007 at 06:53 AM · [top]

Craig Uffman:

I’ll take Greg’s admonishment to remember what it’s like being new, as I’ve only joined a few months ago. Elves are the moderators at T19, some on this board, one in particular believes her posts are edited, ah hacked, into little chunks of poor grammer, so a disdain for these creatures (note T19 itself list them as “we mean, nasty, sharp-fanged, pointy-toed horrid elves”).

The Lord abhors waste ans somebody discovered they were quite tasty. So elf recipes appeared. Do not there are a few among us that like these creatures and not ashamed to voice their affection.

[77] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 1-9-2007 at 07:32 AM · [top]

Thanks, Hosea6:6.

[78] Posted by Craig Uffman on 1-9-2007 at 08:04 AM · [top]

Bob - I think his name is Terry Martin

[79] Posted by JackieB on 1-9-2007 at 08:44 AM · [top]

Marinated Elf-kabobs:

2 Elves
6 oz. Gin
1 tsp. Vermouth
Toothpicks
Ice

Skewer the elves onto the toothpick and place them into a shallow glass.  Shake the liquids over ice until very cold and strain into the glass—making certain the elves are completely submerged (this is very important).  Allow the elves to marinate for a few minutes, then dispose of the liquid in whatever manner you deem appropriate—I understand the Baptist technique differs somewhat from the Anglican method.

Remove toothpick from glass, and devour the elves while they are still very cold (this also, is very important—can’t have the little buggers waking up from their slumber).

Repeat as neccesary.

[80] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 1-9-2007 at 09:11 AM · [top]

Thank you, Greg -
We can certainly be warriors with honor!  grin

[81] Posted by ElaineF. on 1-9-2007 at 09:51 AM · [top]

HOW TO PROCURE AN ELF

It is always open season on Elves in Mississippi but a valid small game hunting license is required. Since Elves are migratory, a federal Elf Stamp is required and must be affixed to your hunting license. There is no bag limit. The most common and successful strategy for Elf procurement is as follows:
1. Elves are smart and very wily. You should be covered from head to toe by camo clothing.
2. About one hour before sunrise, find yourself a stump in a clearing with good access from all sides.
3. Have a seat, meditate on the subject of your choice, and wait until the sun comes up.
4. As soon as it is light enough to see, stand up and yell something intemperate as loud as you can.
5. Elves will come from miles around to moderate your comments.
6. Take your pick. Bag’em and be sure to tag’em.
7. They should be field dressed a.s.a.p. Mmmmmmm boy! Get ready for some good eatin’. A late breakfast of home made biscuits with Elf gravy and hot coffee will finish off your morning of “Elf Procurement”.

the snarkster

[82] Posted by the snarkster on 1-9-2007 at 09:57 AM · [top]

LOL! Thanks snarkster and all.  Looks like I missed all sorts of opportunities for clever and witty rebuttals yesterday when I was otherwise engaged and (horrors!) not reading all the SF comments!

Just wanted to let you know we’re alive and well.  Tempting to taunt: nyah nyah you can’t catch us! wink

To Craig and any others who are a bit clueless, the jokes refer to the fact that Kendall’s blog titusonenine has several moderators who review comments (though by no means all) and rarely delete, occasionally edit, more frequently warn commenters about the content of their comments in accordance with Kendall’s wishes for civility and some semblance of sticking on topic.  We tried to choose a humorous name for ourselves—the elves—to prevent both us and other commenters from taking what we do too seriously.  (We’ve also called ourselves “playground monitors”) Sarah et all claim we’re blood-thirsty, fanged, clawed evil creatures.  But really we’re much more mild-mannered and kindly souls along the lines of hobbits.  We just try and help reduce the chaos of life on a major blog from time to time. 

Anyway, once upon the time, many eons ago, as the story goes, I happened to leave a comment here to give folks an update about Titusonenine status when the blog was down.  Panic ensued here that perhaps Stand Firm was going to start using elves.  The jokes have been flowing ever since.  And we certainly hope they don’t stop as they keep us laughing when we most need it!

[83] Posted by The_Elves on 1-9-2007 at 11:02 AM · [top]

I ask you, can you realy trust someone dressed like that? (Stop giggling at my kilt!)

In any case, the above mentioned post by said elf.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/titusonenine_outreach_ministry/

[84] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 1-9-2007 at 11:14 AM · [top]

Thanks, elf-girl.  That explains a lot.  And I especially appreciate your address to me: “To Craig and any others who are a bit clueless.”  My wife sometimes calls me “clueless,” but I must confess that this is the first time that I have been publically certified as “clueless” by an elf.

Blessings to you and thanks for the work you do….

Craig

[85] Posted by Craig Uffman on 1-9-2007 at 12:02 PM · [top]

Craig U,
Elf-certification is a bit of a sticking point - at the present time.  It would seem that elfs/elves have yet to produce credentials which would demonstrate a proficiency in elf-ing (elving?).  We have researched the National Elf Data Bank and cannot locate any deleterious comments about elfs (alternate Tolkienien construction, elves).  That should not be taken as a seal of approval however, as elf payments outside the reportable process are not documented.  It is entirely possible that the elfs (nee’ elves) are buying their way out of sticky wickets and bags by passing our, err, uhm, favors in the shape of cookies, candies or other small treats to keep their machinations off the National Elf Data Bank.  We are asking the Panel of Reference to look into the matter so as to be sure that Hermione is not FORCING hats onto unwillling elves, but must admit that since the re-embodiment of the Dark Lord, communications have been, uhmm, err, difficult.  Since it took TDL more than seven years to revivify, we are not expecting an answer from the POR for another decade or so (though we are heartened by the mere 2 years it has taken for them to be sighted along a fence post for motion detection in the matter of WOFW (women’s ordination Fort Worth).  The squeals of anguish from the EverChatteringWomyn on the actual fact that the POR was, in fact, alive and not aborted or still born (as it had given every indication of in the past) can hardly be interpreted as a matter of conscious.  They have apparently been disinterested in half of the population of elfs (nee’ elves, see above).  If the female elvs (a moderate position amneable to no one in the artificial and culturally bound traditions of spelling, by the way) are in fact lording (a mysogynist term of abuse grounded in patriarchial modes of thought -whatever that is and howsoever related to reality whatever that is and whosoever it may be described which is a metaphorical construct usually conventionally described as a comparison using like or as -NOT!-) it over the aberrant half of the species (again a premodern scheme for classification which relates data such as gender, height and weight, averages and other MENsurations in a very abominable fashion) - they (the EWC, for clarity’s sake) are in fact rejoiced and happy.  However, if it ain’t their (the EWC) way, they recommend the highway (which is abhorrent to them because of ecological factors best left unexplained at this time).  So, as you can plainly see, the whole matter of elfin/elvin/elvyn certification is really not a matter we are prepared to take up at the present.

We regret that the Roman or Orthodox views (not to exclude the Evangelical, Independent, Pentecostal, Charismatic, or even Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit-Double-Predestinarians-any-stripe <but usually [delicate shudder] Baptist-ic>) on elvs (see above) are not available at present due to the breakdown of elvemenical discussions over the matter of elvyn orientations in matters of *ahem* making (or NOT) more elfs/elves/elvyn.  WE are referring the matter to a - currently non-existent - covenicle (center on “v” <in> elvyn nomenclature in covenant life exigencies>).  Please be patient while we process this matter over the next century or so.

Oh, and have a nice day!

[86] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 1-9-2007 at 01:21 PM · [top]

Is dwstroudmd a pseudonym for the very Rev. Frank T. Griswold?

If not, could you let us know if you are into channelling professionally? wink

[87] Posted by JackieB on 1-9-2007 at 03:40 PM · [top]

Elves with a sense of humor…  Oh…my….!  I’m having a moment of cognitive dissonance… big surprise

Ok, I’m over it.  cool smile

[88] Posted by Summersnow on 1-9-2007 at 06:36 PM · [top]

GREG:  Idea:  Could you have the news sections on one server and comments on another?  Or parts going to different servers?  Or is that just a nightmare?  I have NO experience in these matters.  (Careful, I might hear your eyes roll and you saying “Obviously”!!!)

[89] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 1-12-2007 at 09:38 AM · [top]

What we’re doing is moving to a host where we’ll be on what’s called a “load balanced array,” which uses several servers in a “striped” configuration to distribute load among them. I’ve discussed our technical and traffic demands with the new web host at length, and I’ll be in constant contact with them beginning a few days before Tanzania and continuing throughout the meeting and afterwards, until our traffic settles into its new plateau.

(Hint to everyone: If you want to drop a $5, $10, or $20 into the Paypal hat, now would be a great time wink  )

[90] Posted by Greg Griffith on 1-12-2007 at 09:46 AM · [top]

Our monthly check is in the mail as of today.  Make sure you check the mail!!!

[91] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 1-12-2007 at 10:17 AM · [top]

Drat!  Smileys are not working..just when I figured out how to use them.

[92] Posted by Summersnow on 1-13-2007 at 01:02 PM · [top]

I am sorry if I offended anyone with refering to VGR by his first name.

[93] Posted by LINEMAN21 on 1-17-2007 at 04:27 PM · [top]

LINEMAN21-

Just a caution flag, not a foul. I appreciate your chiming back in.

[94] Posted by Greg Griffith on 1-17-2007 at 05:03 PM · [top]

I am pleased to see people talk of Tartan and not Plaid!!!

Question do the elves qualify for Clergy Tartan?  the Blue one not the prebyterian green one.

Alasdair+

PS I wear both Clergy and my regimental tartan of Gordon No3.

[95] Posted by Alasdair+ on 1-17-2007 at 05:31 PM · [top]

Clergy tartan?
Elvyn tartar, perhaps,.. when not pickled or stewed.  But I think the green elves are a bit more piquant than the blue.  Then again, it is a matter of individual taste.

[96] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 1-18-2007 at 10:54 PM · [top]

Matt:  I think you have overreacted and laid down a set of rules which come dangerously close to political correctness.  It’s one thing to maintain charity and civility or to be concise and precise.  It’s another to sensor even expressions of truth which may seem uncharitable, uncivil, or uncomfortable.  That is what your rules seem to be saying.  If that is true, then I’m sorry Stand Firm will be losing its much-needed hard-hitting edge and replacing it with what seems like a cream-puff approach.

[97] Posted by PapaJ on 1-25-2007 at 10:36 AM · [top]

Dear Greg, Matt and fellow posters,

I try to always maintain a certain respectful quality to my posts. I am aware however, that at times I have been hit hard emotionally from some of the things I have read in the blogosphere (I participate in several). I generally try to step away from my computer and regain some semblance of calm before posting. If any of my posts have come across as argumentative, hostile or inappropriate I am truly sorry. Even when my stance has been different from others on assorted issues I can truly say that most of those I have come across on this blog and others like it have been respectful in their discourse even when expressing views that were diametrically opposed to mine. I have learned a lot about the traditionalists and they have helped to teach me a lot about myself. I am not a hard line traditionalist but I am finding that I can’t go all the way to the middle of the road anymore. Thank you for that. And, again I apologize if my words were not written as if I was posting a response to Jesus himself.

Your friend in Christ,
Manny Publius

[98] Posted by Manny Publius on 2-2-2007 at 01:57 AM · [top]

Manny:

I personally think you are fine. We found one topic of passion that you come close to that line, but I think you stayed inside it and speaking for myself disengaged not to push you over it. You heart for Christ really comes through for you concern and this posting. You are so correct, all our post will be accountable to Jesus Himself, a good thing to keep in mind. Bless you brother. Bless you, brother!

[99] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 2-2-2007 at 08:03 AM · [top]

(Arrgh, not a good day with my dyslexic writing style, but you hopefully get what I mean).

[100] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 2-2-2007 at 08:09 AM · [top]

I’m with Lightfoot. I think it is necessary to write the truth as you see it and am horrified at the idea of any sort of political correctness albeit I am traditionalist enough to believe that classical Anglicanism runs considerably higher church than this nest of charming evangelicals. Doing the truth in love may sometimes offend but were you entirely pleased when your mother sent you back to wash behind your ears once again?

[101] Posted by Lee Poteet on 2-3-2007 at 06:57 PM · [top]

Fr. Rick will you quit bothering us with the truth so that we can proceed with the MerseyMike sodomy blogs.
Thank you.
Intercessor

[102] Posted by Intercessor on 7-1-2007 at 04:23 PM · [top]

Intercessor :

LOL!! Shouldn’t this be on the other thread though?

[103] Posted by Eclipse on 7-1-2007 at 04:33 PM · [top]

OK, if you can’t sign on to the “SF Covenant,” out of the pool!  Posted with a friendly, slightly self-deprecating, click of the keys.

APB

[104] Posted by APB on 7-3-2007 at 04:04 PM · [top]

Greg - two suggestions: 
1.  Is there a way that you can tie into this post so that a new member must “sign off” on that they have read it (or at least are accountable for having read it)?

2.  A place on the side bar (or whatever you call it) that says The Rules - Know Them B4 U Post!

[105] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 7-3-2007 at 04:20 PM · [top]

The comments to Greg’s post/re-post are some of the best ever and therefore, I think we should be admonished periodically whether we need it or not!

[106] Posted by Miata on 7-3-2007 at 04:39 PM · [top]

I find if I re-read before I submit, it helps keep me cleannnnnnnnn

I will also admit, I have re-read and deleted a lot…....I can get kind of salty at times…...thanks Greg for the reminder…..

[107] Posted by Dee in Iowa on 7-3-2007 at 04:40 PM · [top]

On the subject of successfully arguing a point, I’m thinking many people truly don’t know how to “argue” very well (we could start with moi.)  In the spirit of brushing up on those skills, may I respectfully recommend Jay Heinrich’s “Thank You for Arguing.”  Perchance it could teach us some new techniques to get our point(s) across in a more intelligent, loving, mywayorthehighway-free manner.

[108] Posted by veritas2007 on 7-3-2007 at 04:58 PM · [top]

“The Rules - Know Them B4 U Post!”

Too wordy: D Rulz - No M B4 U Post!

[109] Posted by Irenaeus on 7-3-2007 at 05:15 PM · [top]

It has come to our attention, as we read these threads, that some orthodox bloggers have left (or are considering leaving) TEC with their elves. We wish (but only in the spirit of compassionate reconcilliation) to point out that while individuals (for now) are still allowed to leave TEC, parishes, dioceses, southern hemispheres, buildings, computers, and of course colonies of elves belong (and will belong) to TEC forever.
Sincerely,
Irony, Sarcasm, Ridicule and Inuendo,
Attorneys at Law

[110] Posted by rkreed on 7-3-2007 at 05:29 PM · [top]

Wasn’t the ACI and others working on a Stan Firm covenant that we were all going to sign before blogging further?  Last I heard the draft had been circulated from Been There… to Merseymike for his comments and revisions.  I felt sure that this would have been wrapped up by now.

[111] Posted by Going Home on 7-3-2007 at 05:54 PM · [top]

I noticed numerous comments about Tanzania.  I thought the primates’ meeting happened in February?  Was I wrong?  Did I miss it?  What happened?  cool cheese

[112] Posted by Bill C on 7-3-2007 at 06:27 PM · [top]

Irenaeus - LOL!

Bill C - The article was originally posted before Tanzania in February, you know, to get us in line before the event.  It’s been reposted as a reminder.  So if you are joining the party late, wade through - lots of humor intertwined - but it’s a must read.

[113] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 7-3-2007 at 07:41 PM · [top]

Having been slammed today in regards to #3…I was just shocked that when someone else had used (albeit spelled incrrectly) Mr. Robinsons given name in a post it was actually a “no-no!” And I am still in somwhat of a shock over that. But this too shall pass and I will obide by the rules since they do not put my eternal salvation in any compromise! Then & only then would I draw the line! I have learned alot here on SF since I began engaging in “conversations/comments.” Before I was just a “peruser” and I know I am not the smartest duck in the pond of posters here, I promise to be on my best behavior and only contribute when necessary!

FHS
ODC

[114] Posted by TLDillon on 7-3-2007 at 08:23 PM · [top]

Dear Lakeland Two .... That was supposed to be a joke of mine…...

confused

[115] Posted by Bill C on 7-3-2007 at 09:52 PM · [top]

Bill C, perhaps you could get on the task force for the Stand Firm covenant group and get things moving.

[116] Posted by Going Home on 7-3-2007 at 10:22 PM · [top]

Most Merseyful Mike I confessed that I have blogged against thee in thought ,word and deed by what I have wrote and what I have left unwritten.
I have not loved you with my whole heart nor have I loved you as myself. I am truly sorry and I humbly repent. For the sake of our commenatrix have Mersey on me and forgive me so that I can delight at your thread and laugh at your quips to the glory of Stand Firm. Amen.
Many prayers.
Intercessor

[117] Posted by Intercessor on 7-3-2007 at 11:06 PM · [top]

Bill C- I knew I should have bought the full sarcasm/tongue in cheek upgrade. red face

[118] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 7-4-2007 at 06:56 AM · [top]

celindascott posted this yesterday:

.....None of those remarks show awareness of Matthew 5:43-45, and I don’t think they help StandFirm’s cause The person who made the derogatory remark about moderates and people in the center should perhaps take that into consideration. Some of us have a great deal of sympathy with Standfirm’s cause on basic issues, but not with the way it rivals some “liberals” in invective.

It is easy to get carried away, and I have my moments but remembering that there are many viewers, many perhaps exploring this Christian website from different viewpoints and different stages of their walk, perhaps something to bear in mind.

[119] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 7-4-2007 at 08:18 AM · [top]

Re: 1- sniping on a personal level.
I think reappraisers tend to do this in a subtle way by ascribing motivations to anyone who holds position X rather than trying to show whether position X is correct. They wouldn’t say,

Commenter #2: (bad): “That’s because you are a crypto-baptist with no understanding of Anglican ecclesiology.”

but rather:

In the past we had to oppose slavery, sexism, and now crypto-baptist CANA/AMiA fanatics who are stealing our parishes…

making vague emotional analogies and assuming by the bias in their language what needs to be demonstrated, but not doing this against a particular individual.
The question is: is it just the fact the attack is *personal* that SF objects to, or is it that the commenter is not responding on a substantive level.

[120] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 7-4-2007 at 09:12 AM · [top]

btw, if my name is in violation of #3, please tell me, I’ll gladly change
it to: IThinkLiberalTheologyIsIrrationalInTheExtremeSoMuchSoThatItFascinatesMe

[121] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 7-4-2007 at 09:24 AM · [top]

SJSP
Substantive is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. 
The part that really sets Greg’s teeth on edge - is the personal attacks.  Comments such as those mostly lead to a free for all thread which more likely than not will end up with the Commenatrix coming in and swinging wildly.  And that usually means somebody’s head will roll. 
I have to admit I questioned Greg’s Pattonesk wisdom in his selection of the Commenatrix when he brought her in but I guess those foreign ladies aren’t straddled with our American tendencies to debate the meaning of is.

[122] Posted by JackieB on 7-4-2007 at 10:24 AM · [top]

Oh and about your name.  Something tells me Greg would probably find it cleverly amusing.  One thing you can count on about Greg - he isn’t shy about expressing his opinions.  Sarah and I have worked very hard to bring Greg out of his shell.  Don’t you think we’ve done a good job?

[123] Posted by JackieB on 7-4-2007 at 10:26 AM · [top]

Sodbuster,
Thank you for your post above! I feel the same!  smile

[124] Posted by TLDillon on 7-4-2007 at 10:46 AM · [top]

Jackie, I must confess I stole the name from purgatorio1.com.

Substantive is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.


Touche - I was in a ‘funk’ when I wrote that. But you must admit… remember the clip of the debate where Spong didn’t know who Ryle was? Wouldn’t it be nice to corner a reappraiser in a formal debate setting where you could cross examine them?

[125] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 7-4-2007 at 11:19 AM · [top]

Hey SpongJohn,

In answer to your question—“. . . is it just the fact the attack is *personal* that SF objects to, or is it that the commenter is not responding on a substantive level”—it is the former, the personal nature of the attack.

If we were to wait for all the liberals to respond on a substantive level, not make category errors, and not make emotional analogies, we would have very brief arguments.

We just don’t want *personal* insults against an individual.

But if they wish to attempt to insult an entire group of orthodox Episcopalians, that’s cool—we’re not particularly insultable as a group.

[126] Posted by Sarah on 7-4-2007 at 11:58 AM · [top]

Wouldn’t it be nice to corner a reappraiser in a formal debate setting where you could cross examine them?

Be still my heart.

[127] Posted by JackieB on 7-4-2007 at 12:50 PM · [top]

Last I heard the draft had been circulated from Been There… to Merseymike for his comments and revisions.

Hmmmmmm…News to me. Who was supposed to send the original draft? Hasn’t gotten here yet. Maybe it’s lost in the e-mail.

Coming from someone at ACI, you say?

Seems to me Stan Firm gets along quite well without ACI’s help.

Greg’s covenant above is sufficient, thank you.

I promise I’ll try to be nice…slap, slap…I promise, I’ll try to be nice…slap, slap…I promise, I promise, I promise…

But, I AM weak…slap, slap…I promise, I promise

[128] Posted by Forgiven on 7-4-2007 at 03:54 PM · [top]

This is probably a silly question, but in the “Land of Blog”, who are “elves”.

[129] Posted by KJthurible on 7-4-2007 at 04:13 PM · [top]

Been There,

I apologize! In restrospect, it was crazy for me to believe that two people with completely different concepts of God and salvation would collaberate on such a covenant.

Hmmmm…is there a lesson here?

[130] Posted by Going Home on 7-4-2007 at 04:40 PM · [top]

KJthurible - not a silly question, but we are about to be bombarded with silly answers.  I think you will see the elves and the Commenatrix may define themselves, but in the interest of 7/4 here’s my quick answer (since no one else has jumped in yet)...after just one silly comment:

Tell the truth, everyone, did you not just groan and laugh at the same time?

I am only acquainted with elves on T19 and here (although calling the Commenatrix an elf may get me banned).  IMHO, an elf is in the background, helps keeps things civil, reminding commenters to be polite, editing or removing posts as they deem necessary to maintain civility.  They tend to be more forgiving of reappraisers than reasserters (which is why you see the recipies for elves here).  They have the power to edit and/or remove comments as well as to ban the commenter from posting again. 

Hope this helps until the real guys show up ...

[131] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 7-4-2007 at 05:05 PM · [top]

KJthurible - about 47 posts before your asked your question (I counted, but could be a little off), you will find your answer. I had been wondering the same thing!

lizzie

[132] Posted by lizzie on 7-4-2007 at 05:08 PM · [top]

I promise not to accuse MM of BS.

[133] Posted by Tom Dupree, Jr. on 7-4-2007 at 07:56 PM · [top]

KJThurible,
Always happy to oblige those needing info, here’s the link to our January reply above to a similar question about who or what are “the elves”

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1825/#24536

Now just a bit more background.
The elves are a TitusOneNine thing.

The originator of the term “webelf” is “Binky” the founder of Classical Anglican Net.  Since he was the inspiration for my own involvement in the Anglican blogosphere, when in Jan/Feb 2005 I began to get involved behind the scenes in helping Kendall with various blog admin tasks, I chose the appellation “elfgirl” to suggest a “Binky apprentice,” or an “elf wannabe.”  (Since TitusOneNine was at the time hosted by Classical Anglican Net, the “elf reference” also seemed apt.)

My role and that of another elf who joined on in about August 2005 was originally limited to deleting comment spam, but eventually that broadened into helping monitor the comments as readership increased and occasional out-of-control comment threads ensued.  We also increasingly do a lot of the tech stuff re: blog design and trying to fix bugs, and we help commenters with questions and requests running the gamut from user registration, research to find an old blog article or other information, etc. etc. Generally we try to support and free up Kendall so he can focus on his particular gifts and expertise.

[134] Posted by The_Elves on 7-5-2007 at 04:25 AM · [top]

To hear is to obey within the diverse unity of pluriform truth and tension.

[135] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 7-5-2007 at 09:35 AM · [top]

Thanks Elves!

However, in the true Tolkien sense, your function would appear to be more “Ranger”-like.  Regardless, I trust you have excellent aim with the bow and arrow.  grin

[136] Posted by KJthurible on 7-5-2007 at 11:35 AM · [top]

I apologize! In restrospect, it was crazy for me to believe that two people with completely different concepts of God and salvation would collaberate on such a covenant.

Timothy—NAN (that’s No Apology Necessary)

Interestingly, I actually have adopted Sarah’s position on Mersey Mike. He always presents his position well (though over and over and over), he’s always quite pleasant and, he’s always, in my opinion, quite wrong. He certainly is nicer than many here, me, especially. I suspect that Mike and I could work quite well on such a project and, I suspect, that from his perspective, we could come up with a suitable compromise. But, mind you, we’re talking about civility on a blog where there are a lot of strong feelings. Mike rarely gets emotional. He just states his position clearly (over and over and over).

And his position on religion, Anglicanism, Christianity etc., is so totally different from mine that we have no common ground for discussion. We do agree, however, that orthodoxy and revisionism have no common ground. They are totally seperate and we should accept them as such.

In addition, he thinks homosexuality is normal and should be recognized as such. I think it’s abnormal, and, worse, that it is a sin as described in scripture. He rejects scripture because it doesn’t agree with his point of view.

I do not look at Mike as my enemy or, even, as a worthy opponent. We both agree that there needs to be separation of the two theological positions because they are totally incompatible.

However, I DO look at KJS and her followers, including such as Fr. Jake, as an enemy who stole my church from me and who continues to persecute the orthodox who remain in that church.

So I don’t think your suggestion was necessarily a bad one but why propose Mike and Been There…as viewers of a new covenant when there was already a good one in place. Though, albeit, one I continually have difficulty, not in accepting, but accomodating.

Nonetheless, I will try…to be kind, gentle, sweet, loving, tolerant, accepting, listening, empathetic, sympathetic, politically correct, and brief??? in my future responses to those who offend me in thought, word and deed.

[137] Posted by Forgiven on 7-7-2007 at 09:21 PM · [top]

Snarkster

Do ya know where I can buy an Elf Call. I’m pretty good at calling ducks but I don’t even know what an elf sounds like.

However, the recipes sound so appetizing that I might like to take an elf Safari and see what I can come back with. Sounds to me like bows and arrows would be the appropriate weapon since they can be skewered and captured at the same time.

H6:6: Do you use a rotisserrie for skewered elves or do you just plop them on the grill, turning them every few minutes?

Oooohoooo…all of this is making me hungry.

[138] Posted by Forgiven on 7-7-2007 at 09:31 PM · [top]

and no Latin, Greek or Hebrew.  Such usage is a put-down on all of us less literate types.  The Queen’s English should suffice for all of us.

smile

[139] Posted by Bill C on 2-8-2008 at 07:58 PM · [top]

[comment posted to another thread]

[140] Posted by MN SNAP on 2-24-2008 at 10:15 AM · [top]

[comment posted to another thread]

[141] Posted by Sarah on 2-24-2008 at 10:55 AM · [top]

Thank you Sarah. 
I realized after pushing the post button - I was in the wrong comment section.  Bob Schwiderski

[142] Posted by MN SNAP on 2-24-2008 at 11:02 AM · [top]

You’re very welcome.

It is nice to think that some commenters [ahem] actually read our comment policy prior to posting their comments.  ; < )

[143] Posted by Sarah on 2-24-2008 at 11:29 AM · [top]

Re #1, the question is not whether approval was obtained at two General Conventions, which is a requirement that applies to amendments to the constitution, not the canons.  Rather the question that has been raised is whether the canon was adopted by both Houses.  As to that question, see the article on this subject by the Rev. George Conger here.  It does seem to me that the caption at the beginning of Fr. Conger’s piece,  “Claims the Dennis Canon failed to pass both Houses of the 1979 General Convention are unfounded,” somewhat overstates the conclusions that can be derived from it.

I have begun to put some views on other aspects of the Dennis canon up at http://www.stayinanglican.com.

[144] Posted by Mike Watson on 3-30-2008 at 08:36 AM · [top]

Sorry, I was reading the comment policy before posting and wound up putting the comment in the comment policy thread.  Will try to put it in the right place later.

[145] Posted by Mike Watson on 3-30-2008 at 08:40 AM · [top]

I had no idea that using Bishop Robinson’s given name was forbidden here.  I think that rule is in the politically correct useage camp and has no place here.

[146] Posted by Josip on 7-10-2008 at 08:02 PM · [top]

Amen Josip!
For those of us Anglo-Cathlics who do not even recognize him as a priest let alone a bishop cannot in good consciense type out the word “Bishop” or the ”+” before his name. What to do….?

[147] Posted by TLDillon on 7-10-2008 at 08:06 PM · [top]

Unity (real unity) is important. One thing I have picked up on is that they need for us to become divided, so as to more easily weakened and picked off.
I am on the Sojourner’s mailing list, and Joy Carroll Wallis today posted a propaganda piece claiming that the majority of Episcopalians and Anglicans were united behind the changes. She of course tossed out her own bits of snark at those who refused to fall in line.. they are desperate and will pull anything. It’s the reason you’ll see trolls coming out of the woodwork.

[148] Posted by mari on 7-10-2008 at 08:09 PM · [top]

Josip, I understand.  However, it becomes impossible to separate the totally sincere reference to the childish snickering and we decided that our readers would agree it was better to err on the side of caution rather than slide into childish taunting.

[149] Posted by JackieB on 7-10-2008 at 08:11 PM · [top]

ODC, I have mulled that dilemna over myself and came to the conclusion that Mr. is a perfectly acceptable form of address.

[150] Posted by JackieB on 7-10-2008 at 08:13 PM · [top]

Thank you Jackie! smile

[151] Posted by TLDillon on 7-10-2008 at 08:14 PM · [top]

Mari is absolutely right. Would that we could maintain the via media, in exile if need be, despite them.

[152] Posted by oscewicee on 7-10-2008 at 08:15 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.