« When It Hurts To Pray | Main | Grosey Down Under: An Interview with Australian Baptist Pastor, Steve Grosey »

Oct 21, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Benjamin S. Cole

Lumpkin bumpkin:

Don't be upset about your comment being moderated into oblivion. Your IP address is permanently blocked from commenting at SBCOutpost. Not because we don't value your opinion. Simply because we don't like you very much.

BSC

peter

Dear Dr. Cole,

Well, I'm shocked you would comment so quickly. Dang, I haven't even finished polishing the little post I offered! Do you have me in your reader?

And, as for you guys not liking me, my good fellow, I don't blame you. I do not like me either sometimes.

Unfortunately, I cannot ban my own IP address. So I guess I'm stuck with myself.

So, my good Dr. Cole, you and the Outpost team continue right along conversing with yourselves and among yourselves. I think that's just wonderful. It surely offers the most potential in a free forum and great dialog, do you not agree?

Grace, Dr. Cole. With that, I am...

Peter

JIm Champion

Peter

I couldnt disagree more with the outposts and Wade Burelson stance to not let you post. There is nothing I like better than good back and forth between two sides that dont agree with each other. This is one reason I read publications like the Ft Worth Star Telegram and the now deceased columnist Molly Ivins - one of the most fun liberals you will ever have read - its also why I have Salon.com in my favorites and check them out on a regular basis.

Come on Outpost and Wade - lets encourage good dissent, and let the free for all be truly a free for all!

Katie

Hi Peter,

I echo your question about Ben Cole. I wonder if he has read some of the other wonderful and pithy passages from the Sermon on the Mount such as:

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies...

and...

"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

Joe

Ben Cole Said:

"Lumpkin bumpkin:

Don't be upset about your comment being moderated into oblivion. Your IP address is permanently blocked from commenting at SBCOutpost. Not because we don't value your opinion. Simply because we don't like you very much.

BSC"

I can't begin to communicate how much these words must grieve the very heart of Jesus. Shame on you, Dr. Cole.

Even if you feel that Peter has somehow wronged you through dialouge and discourse, is not the grace freely given at the cross deep enough to forgive him?

I John 2:6 "Those who say they live in God, should walk as Jesus did."

Dr. Cole, could you ever possibly imagine Jesus every saying to somebody, "I really don't like you very much?"

Shame on you, Dr. Cole.

Paul

Peter,
I have been reading your blog for a while now, and plan to continue. I applaud you for consistently allowing both sides of the discussion on your blog, even from those who "don't like you very much."
Blessings

Robin D. Foster

Peter

Don't feel too bad, I have been blocked from the Outpost also. Just keep up your good work.

God Bless

Scott S.

Peter,

I posted this at SBC Outpost in response to the Friday post, "The premise in the post is preposterous because we could apply it to any Christian who claims Scripture is inerrant, yet sins. And that is every Christian."

As I expected, there was no response from the Outpost editors.

They are certainly entitled to their views on PP, but they have been decidedly immature and un-Christian in the manner in which they communicate it.

selahV

Peter: "blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you FALSELY for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

So happy you can rejoice today as you will again rejoice when you receive your great reward, dear brother. Thanks for keeping me abreast of the reasons I should never go to the OUTPOST and waste my time. selahV

peter

All,

Well, it's been a great Lord's Day. I log on this evening and goodness continues! Thank you all for the encouragement.

Know also that I believe SBCOutpost possesses every right to control who logs on their website. They foot the bills so they may decide.

What I find that appears obviously disingenuous is the celebrated "open forum" and "discussion" of the issues they promote for their site.

For me, this duplicity reveals more than enough to conclude SBCOutpost will never be taken seriously among mainstream SBs.

Note the following response I just received from the Outpost editors as the 'official' reason I am now blocked:

"Peter Lumpkins:

You are banned from commenting at SBCOutpost.com not because we disallow different views from our own. You are banned because we exercise absolute sovereignty over the content on the site, and it's nice every now and then to remind the people out there who's wearing the pants. Take heart, our brother. You are an example to many.

Oh, and we also do not wish to allow links to your site embedded in your comment signature. We think your site is very pretty, and very silly.

The Outpost Team"

From this response the Outpost editors sent, I trust most can see we are not dealing here with a group of guys that oozes an air of either Christian courtesy or professional commitments.

"We think your site is very pretty and very silly"? My, Oh, my. This sounds more like a group of junior high boys than 'serious journalists' they insist upon being. Maybe their mommies need to spank their behinies! :^)

From our Dr. Cole's 'not liking me' to their "absolute sovereignty" in "wearing the pants" in the discussion forum, we are asked to support their idea of Reform for the Southern Baptist Convention? Ya just gotta laugh :^) :^)

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter


selahV

Peter: well, it's clear that maturity is sorely lacking with these weaker brothers and it is our duty to keep them ever in our prayers as I have been doing for months on end now. Sometimes I wonder how long it will be before the Lord answers and then I know that in God's sovereignty all things work together for His glory. And perhaps this is the way He chooses to expose the childish behavior of those who seek to change and lead a group of Christian Baptists who have long held our Savior in highest honor with our cooperation in giving, missions and brotherhood. my heart is particularly grieved tonite. But our Lord is so mighty, so precious, so above pettiness and guile. We must ever seek to give Him our best. I am reminded of my pastor's words in a sermon about a year ago, "If you have integrity, nothing else matters, but if you don't have integrity, nothing else matters."

I wonder if such silliness is even worthy of typespace or discussion? selahV

selahV

Hey Peter! How 'bout those Red Sox!!!! selahV

Steve

Well Peter, I gotta say those folks will be ashmaed of their demeaning behaviour one day before the judgement seat of Christ.
It is clear that anything not contributing to their personal agenda of veangeance over grievances (perceived and unperceived) has no place in their lives.
You are a gracious and godly man Peter... never let them push you into responding with the same vindictiveness apparent in their behaviour.
Ephesians 5 says expose what they do..
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

But always do God's will.

Every blessing bro,
Steve

selahV

Grosey, what a blessing you are. selahV

Mary

Peter, does Paige Patterson have insurance that kicked in when he was sued? Do we know all the parties to the suit and exactly how many inurance companies are involved? It would be up to the insurance companies as to how and when to settle. They could very well be fighting amonst themselves over who pays what. Settiling by no means is an admittance of guilt - it's cheaper to settle than go to trial. My husband and the attorney's at his office have found Wade and cronies funny in how they try to portray the process. People really don't get that their's a lot more involved and their are a lot of facts behind the scene that we don't know.

peter

SelahV & Grosey,

Thanks for the participation. The scripture never fails to satisfy.

With that, I am...

Peter

peter

Mary,

I do not know a lot of the details. There are some of the papers floating around. Enid & Outpost have seen to it that some of the court documents are uploaded to the internet.

With you, I take it premature to draw any conclusions on such sketchy evidence as we now possess. The big question is, why would anyone want to draw conclusions of either guilt or innocence without sufficient facts for such a conclusion available? I think we both know why.

Grace Mary. With that, I am...

Peter

Mary

Peter, because nobody is looking for the truth. They want a particular outcome and any sign that points to the outcome they want they celebrate. And another reason for no settlement at this point is that there is no case. But often even with no case there will be some settlement. One sigen starts with a high figure noing they won't get that and thene a counter is made which is usually low - then back and forth. The vast majority of cases settle.

selahV

such a godly way for folks to act, too. shows such faith in a sovereign Lord, doesn't it? selahV

Debbie Kaufman

So you would not call the police if your were robbed or worse? You would not go to a doctor if sick because that would not be having faith in a sovereign God? Selah, Biblically and otherwise that just makes no sense. What Paige did is wrong and with the orders the judge has been giving I disagree with Mary that there is no case.

There is definitely a case.

Paul

I'm thankful for the SelahV's of the SBC whom God has given the ability to peer into the black hearts of those of us at SBC Outpost and who can see our deep lack of faith in God. Please, our dear righteous SelahV, continue to pray for our souls as we believe that the prayers of the righteous availeth much and you are far more righteous than we. I know this to be true because all pastor's wives are more righteous than their husbands. I know that's true for me.

My dear Peter,

A forum can be open for free exchange without it being open to every comer. America guarantees free speech, but not the kind that yells "Fire" in a crowded theater. America is also a democracy, but one that limits those who have the privilege to vote to citizens over the age of 18. If I use your logic by analogy then America is no democracy at all and people should be free to shout "fire" wherever they want.

As it is, you have proven nothing - except that perhaps you can gain quite a following generating heat rather than light.

selahV

"...He entrusted himself to Him who judges justly." 1 Peter 2:23c. Blessed be the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. selahV

Paul

Which is exactly why we, too, entrust ourselves to Him, and not to men (or women, as the case may be).

selahV

Dear Paul, I don't recall ever saying I was righteous, but since you brought it up, I consider my righteousness as filthy rags, but I might remind you that all saints are righteous in Christ and I am indeed in Christ. Unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, I'm afraid none of us have much hope, now do we? Could I remind you that it is the statement from the Outpost to Peter in an email that I addressed regarding faith in God's sovereignty. It said to Peter, "You are banned because we exercise absolute sovereignty over the content on the site"? With that statement I find my statement completely in line with the email sent to Peter. It's rather unnecessary for anyone to need faith in the sovereignty of God when one exercises their own absolute sovereignty, isn't it? selahV

peter

Dear Paul,

Welcome. I fear you must have missed my point above. Allow me to state it here:

"Know also that I believe SBCOutpost possesses every right to control who logs on their website. They foot the bills so they may decide"

I think, if language means anything, my words explicitly affirm your right, as the blog host, to control who logs on. Thus, I haven't the faintest idea why you'd assume I believed any differently.

Unfortunately, using your logic, my Paul, I should not have been banned from commenting but thrown in jail for the criminal I would be. Better try another analogy.

The deeper problem you face, my friend, is the explicit duplicity SBCoutpost finds itself in. Your promo as a 'open forum' which 'discusses' the issues SBs face does not fit so well with the image you offered me in your desire to "exercise absolute sovereignty over the content on the site...to remind the people out there who's wearing the pants." Not to mention the juvenile reasoning of 'not liking me' or that you didn't want my link embedded in your thread.

That's interesting, Paul. The very community which criticizes the SBC leadership as being control freaks are the very ones who speak of exercising "absolute sovereignty" over the flow of information in the "discussions" that take place at their "open forum." Sweet.

Furthermore, I would not be surprised if some of your female readers took Outpost to task if they saw the "absolute sovereignty" line wrapped in sexist innuendo: "who wears the pants" is a long-standing metaphor of male-dominion--a definite no-no in your community, my Brother Paul.

One final note. As for generating more heat than light, perhaps I do. Frankly, I have never said I possessed any light. My question is, do you honestly expect the public at large to accept that Dr. Cole's "Friday-Free-For All" was posted as an attempt to offer light on the issue at hand? If so, do you really think more light than heat was spawned?

Note this particular comment allowed to stand by the Outpost boys:

"Kerygma Says: October 20th, 2007 at 9:31 am

Yes, I am saying that Paige Patterson is not a Christian. I’ve been watching and listening to him for 35 years. He is yet one more fundamentalist who seems strangely allergic to Jesus. (emphasis mine).

From my perspective, I'm afraid there's more heat in that one statement than ever I've generated.

Peace. With that, I am...

Peter

mary

no Debbie you don't disagree with me, but with an office full of attorney's with no dog in the fight who see and do this sort of thing for a living, but then I imagine you'll now tell us that you've studied law on the side and so everyone just bow to your expertise.

volfan007

peter,

control and power is exactly what that crowd is about. being famous...having pics in papers and being quoted in papers...seems to have high priority as well. but, for statements to be made that they want to show everyone who wears the pants, etc. that smacks of just plain, ole arrogance.

david

Mary

It's all about ego Volfan and watch how they attack anybody who disagrees with them. They really are cluesless as to how people in others parts of the country see this debacle. The pretend they're white knights out to save the SBC!!!!!!!!!!

Paul

SelahV,

Perhaps if you could look up the phrase "tongue-in-cheek" or the word "hyperbole" it might help in understanding anyone's claim to absolute sovereignty. If, on the other hand, you actually believe that anyone at SBC Outpost believes they have absolute sovereignty over anything then I'll just sit here completely amazed.

Peter,

I gave two analogies, did I not? One had to do with people under 18 not being able to vote. We do not throw those people in jail, do we? The analogy stands (and anyone remotely acquainted with logic knows that analogies do not have to be perfect - in fact there is no such thing - to be valid).

What is odd is that you affirm our right to make such a determination, but when one of us does with reference to you our "credibility is shot" (as if that is what shot it in the first place ;-) ) and nothing we have to say is valid.

I'll tell you what...you quit viewing us as objective journalists and my feelings won't be hurt one bit. Micah wrote that statement quite independently of the rest of us who only discovered that was our purpose after we read it for ourselves. I haven't even looked at the statement lately, but I can tell you we've talked about changing it. If we haven't yet it is most likely due to laziness, a lack of motivation, or business. Take your pick. But as of now you are duly authorized to ignore it completely.

As for "absolute sovereignty," please see my note to SelahV. The fact that you use irony in your own writing on an almost constant basis gives me the hope that you will actually get what was meant by that comment from one of us.

The comment from Kerygma was sufficiently addressed by a number of others. Please don't choose to ignore those corrections just to try to make a point. However, regarding those sort of comments I find it amazing that you will criticize us for allowing things that you similarly allow (note, I wrote "similarly"). Our dear volfan finds no trouble assigning improper motives to us and mary has not problem calling us clueless. Apparently you have no problem with those things as well.

Now, I don't mind. I grew up in public school and I've been called much worse. But it is glaringly inconsistent of you to allow those sort of things and decry it when we do the same. But, hey - this is your blog and you can let people call us whatever you want and you can be as inconsistent as you want. Why should I care?

Paul

Mary,

Did you study law on the side or does being married to an attorney make you uniquely qualified? I just found your comment a little ironic. That's all.

Mary

Sorry for all my typos today - too much Ambien.

Debbie Kaufman

Well if you will read the documents Mary, the judge in this case evidently disagrees with you and your room full of lawyers who have no dog in this fight. and Mary, it's not about ego, which if you were as up on the facts as you claim would be evident to you. It's about a woman professor of Hebrew, who knew her craft well and was fired for her gender. She was the only bread winner in her family because her husband has serious heart problems. He could not even get the care available to him initially because of the loss of income. Now if that is about ego, give me more people with her type of ego by your definition.

Paul: I am thankful for the Sherri Klouda's.

Peter: It doesn't take a rocket scientist. The evidence has been made public both in document form and in Sherri and her colleagues words. It's not that difficult.

Debbie Kaufman

Selah: You can give the bogus argument that I am attacking those who disagree. You can disagree if you wish. I am more attacking the lack of compassion and sense of justice. Paige Patterson was wrong in doing what he did and then he lied on top of it by saying that he did not say or do what is documented fact.

selahV

Paul...why don't you just say what you want to say without tongue in cheek. one could bite their tongue with it stuck in their cheek ya know? And why didn't you just say you were using hyperbole? How much of the statement was real? was it all just in fun? are ya'll just funnin' with Peter? or are you simply afraid to have a dissenting voice of reason? Bare in mind, I don't read your blog, so it really doesn't matter to me whether you allow Peter or anyone else to comment for that matter. it could be closed comments for all I care. I'm just commenting on Peter's post. selahV

Debbie Kaufman

Paul: BTW I got your tongue in cheek, maybe it's because I read so much of what you write. :)

selahV

Debbie: thus far I haven't addressed a single comment to you. So for you to say I've given a bogus comment saying you are attacking someone is without merit. Now, I recall another time you assumed I had addressed a comment to Volfan regarding you regarding whether or not he was going to ban people on his new blog and you sent me an email charging me with bogus accusations. Perhaps this is another one of those situations. If so, I forgive you again. selahV

Debbie Kaufman

Say that ten times real fast Selah. :)

Debbie Kaufman

OK Selah, I'll bite. Next time you talk about third parties addressing it to someone else, no wait, I'll still correct you.

Debbie Kaufman

And the next time you want to falsely call SBCOutpost names and down them with your own self righteous attitude, remember that they gave to Sherri Klouda in her time of need. I have given to help people that I didn't even agree with. Did any of you give to help her? If not, then I wonder where you have room to even say a word.

selahV

forewarned is forearmed. thankyou selahV

selahV

now who is being self-righteous? right hand letting the left know what it is doing come to mind? selahV

you have no idea what I have done with my money, debbie. nor do you know what anyone else has done. and until you reach the foot of Jesus in heaven, you will not know what I have done with any of my earthly belongings unless I happen to share something in one of my blogs. selahV

peter

Dear Paul,

Unfortunately for your point(s), it falls completely upon the rock of your own purpose statement. As for changing it, be my guest. Don't forget to change the "News and Commentary" from your banner as well. After all, Outpost is the 'premier' journal for things Baptist. Like, for example, bashing Dr. Patterson.

In the meantime, poor Micah gets the wrap for you guys falling off your own wagon. That's really funny, Paul. You should create a cartoon about it.

As for me, I'll leave my alleged hypocrisy in the hands of the reading public. Know though you'll have a hard time convincing many who frequent this forum that I: a) ban someone out of personal dislike b) ban someone 'as an example of my 'absolute sovereignty' c) ban commenters in order to display exactly 'who wears the pants' at SBCTomorrow. If I may be candid: I know who wears the pants here. My wife does. She allows me only so much time to blog.

You never answered, Paul, about whether or not you think Dr. Cole's post was published to shine great new light onto Dr. Patterson and SWBTS or whether it pretty much produced a lot of heat.
I'd like a response.

With that, I am...

Peter

peter

Dear Debbie,

I think you should get permission to defend Outpost.


With that, I am...

Peter

Paul

SelahV wrote:

"it's clear that maturity is sorely lacking with these weaker brothers and it is our duty to keep them ever in our prayers as I have been doing for months on end now."

and this: "perhaps this is the way He chooses to expose the childish behavior of those who seek to change and lead a group of Christian Baptists who have long held our Savior in highest honor with our cooperation in giving, missions and brotherhood."

And then her own bit of unannounced tongue-in-cheek (though apparently she expects others to announce theirs): "such a godly way for folks to act, too. shows such faith in a sovereign Lord, doesn't it?"

To the last I would simply reply with your own words: "SehalV...why don't you just say what you want to say without tongue in cheek. one could bite their tongue with it stuck in their cheek ya know?"

And to the first two I quote this snippet: "Bare in mind, I don't read your blog," and then ask how you can make the sort of judgments against us that you make when you profess that you have no first-hand knowledge of anything we actually do say? On what basis do you call us weaker brothers and immature? On a partial quote from Peter that you apparently didn't even understand to be tongue-in-cheek?

Keep in mind that the measure with which you judge others will be the measure by which you will be judged. It seems rather unbecoming of a "stronger sister" to judge a weaker brother on hearsay, does it not?

Paul

Peter,

Micah is not getting any wrap. Micah wrote the statement and abided by his own statement. I'm saying that when I was asked to contribute it was without any preconceived ideas about what Outpost would be. I was asked what I wanted to post and was told when it would appear. Anything more detailed about the purpose of Outpost was not discussed.

Today it is a truly collaborative blog where each poster determines the rules of their own post (read the rules, though I'm sure you already have). If Ben wants to ban you then he will ban you. This is how we have mutually agreed Outpost 3.0 will operate. It bothers me not if you disagree with it. I found your link to us on our admin site and thought it sort-of funny that you were over here whining about your comment being moderated. Let me tell you what I do for blogs that have moderated my comments. I don't return. Ask Jeremy Green. Ask Robin Foster. But that's just me. I'm not in any way telling you what to do. But I'm telling you I won't override Ben. It's not my job.

As to the Friday Free-For-All, my answer is: both. I think the question is valid. I know that most people want to dismiss issues because of the messenger, but I've been trained in logic and I know that logic does not allow me to dismiss an argument based upon the one making it nor on whatever I may perceive their motives to be. That's called both an ad hominem and a non sequitur. So I both believe that Ben's question has validity and I also believe that Ben probably wanted to rile a few with the question.

However, your heat, to which I referred earlier, was based primarily on an argument that was logically invalid which is why I do not believe it contained any light.

Kathryn Scheibmeir

Don't feel so bad Peter, I have my comments moderated and not posted as well and I'm Ben's sister!

peter

Paul,

If I may, your comment to SelahV is a bit of a stretch. The first two strung together makes little sense. Perhaps you can make it clearer what you wish to say. The third comment quoted from her, unfortunately, you extracted what is not necessarily there.

To jump from "I don't read your blog" to "you profess that you have no first-hand knowledge of anything we actually do say" is unwarranted. Just because I do not read someone's blog does not necessarily imply I have no first-hand knowledge of what he/she actually says. Perhaps I have gained alot by following comment threads in other venues. Or, perhaps I used to read it but no longer do.

Thus, to tie SelahV to the public stock and flog her is, in my view, hasty.

As for your running to safety in the arms of hyperbole or "tongue-in-cheek" when it comes to the response, know I surely did not take it that way nor is there anything in the response that tips it in that direction including Dr. Cole's comment here(#1 above).

As for caring that I am now blocked from commenting there, I do not know strong enough language to pen that, as far as I am concerned, that is your business. I do not feel censored one iota. I am here speaking my piece. For that, the internet is a wonderful tool.

What does become a burr under my blanket is the perception promoted by the Outpost team themselves that they are not prone to control the information flow, that they invite open and free debate, when, in fact, they do not. They arbitrarily ban people evidently a) out of personal dislike b)to make an example for others c) in order to display 'who wears the pants' at Outpost. This stands as the very core of criticism Outpost offers toward current SBC leadership: powermongering.

I say to you as I said to Dr. Cole: Continue on conversing with yourselves and among yourselves. I think that is just wonderful.

With that, I am...

Peter

selahV

Paul, I'm sorry. I need to explain. I read Peter's blog and he posts what you fellas say over there. Like the anonymous letter from Luter and the thing Ben Cole wrote today. Was that tongue-and-cheek too? those are the things which I am addressing. I don't even know you. I clicked on your name because the only Paul I know is Paul Burleson and you certainly didn't sound like him, so I was curious. But when I saw I was correct, I didn't bother reading your blog either. Even now, I don't know who you are. Now, perhaps if I were as well-read as our sister, Debbie, I would have recognized your tongue-and-cheek was tongue-and-cheek. But given that you have immediately without knowing one iota of who I am (to my knowledge) accused me of being self-righteous and presuming to be able to peer into the blackness of your hearts, I can only guess you have a higher discernment of what self-righteous people are like. I suppose that isn't what Ben Cole is with his continual barrage and vendetta against Dr. Paige Patterson, is it?

I know only too well about judging, Paul. That is why I say we must pray for the weaker brothers who do the judging. I am not judging. I am calling a spade a spade. and if you call that judging then I leave it up to my Savior to strike my fingers with palsy so I can no longer type or exhort, or reprove. You do not have a license on what is clearly divisive and leading to discord among the brethren, sir. And I comment frequently here and give my very biased opinion of what I am grieved about. You can call it self-righteous if you want, but I am saddened and heartsick over the need for people to continue to tear down rather than build up. Check my blogs, sir. Count for me and the readers here how many I have written that tear down anyone. Please, do that. Count how many I have written that judge others and point out every flaw in brothers and sisters in Christ. Then come back to me and tell us all what a depraved individual I am. Please. I welcome the inspection.

I don't read Outpost. DISCLAIMER: I once did--when Marty Duren had it and a couple of times when I'm directed there from another blog. Unless someone I am reading in another blog tells me to go "here" and I find myself "there", I don't go there. A couple of paragraphs suffices to turn me back from whence I came.

I do hope I haven't left the impression of any tongue-and-cheek with the above comment; if so, I just didn't know how funny I am. selahV

Mary

Debbie, some judge thought a man suing a dry cleaner over losing his pants was a worthy case. As far as reading court documents - I think I'll stick with the experts. It puts food on my table.

peter

Paul,

Thanks for the Logic 101. I enjoyed that in college.

As for whining about losing my commenting privileges, you are too funny, my friend. Even more humorous is somehow you think I'm supposed to be embarrassed that I visited your site after I have been banned from commenting. Check it again. I think I've been over there several times today.

If you never frequent a site just because you cannot comment on it, I think that's great, Paul. As for me, since SBCOutpost is the premier 'news and commentary' site for SBs, I do not feel I can forego what's going on over there even if I cannot comment. Understand, Paul. All SBs need to know what Dr. Patterson is up to along with his despicable leading of SWBTS. Not return to SBCOutpost? Not on your life, Brother.

Besides, you just flogged SelahV for making remarks about SBCOutpost when she admitted she did not keep up with you guys over there. Heck, now you're telling me to not come back since I can't comment. SelahV flogged for not reading; me flogged for returning. I am so confused.

Grace, Paul. With that, I am...

Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.