Bob Ross on Wade Burleson: Splat! Splat!!

The story of Buford Pusser, the legendary sheriff of McNairy County Tennessee, is fascinating.  Pusser's career as a wrestler came to a close so he moved his family back to his home place to run a sawmill with daddy Carl. He's shocked to discover the level of corruption going on. And after he is a victim of it, including 200 stitches he received slice-n-dice style from the Lucky Spot, he decides from then on he'd be prepared.

Pusser became well known for his four foot hickory club he used to great effect in destroying gambling-casinos and prostitution rings which dominated the small West Tennessee county.

While Buford Pusser clobbered with a hickory club Bob Ross splats with his legendary flyswat.  For three years Mr. Ross has exposed innumerable theological eccentricities found at Founders Ministries.  One of the most significant about which Southern Baptists should be aware pertains to what Ross calls "hybrid" Calvinism, which focuses on the strange doctrine of "being born again before faith," a doctrine Ross shows comes primarily from Presbyterian influence upon Founders. 

Now, however, Brother Bob hears the buzz of another fly: "Has Pastor Wade Burleson Become A Landmarker?"(link/) From Ross's post, it appears, Burleson has mutilated Ross's view of Landmarkism, skewing it in order to submarine Southwestern Baptists Theological Seminary as Landmark in Burleson's soon-to-be-released book.

And, from what Ross says, Burleson will have a hard time wiggling out of this one.  Splat...Splat! Splat! Splat!

Thank you Bob Ross for flinging your flyswat for Southern Baptists everywhere.

With that, I am...
Peter

Check out The Reformed Flyswatter

Comments

[wade burleson]

Peter,

It seems odd that you would write I have mutilated Bob Ross's view of Landmarkism when neither you nor he have never even seen a copy of my book, much less read it. I just received Bob's request for a copy today, and I'm sure you have already ordered yours, but the publisher will not mail it to you til April.

However, you may be interested in Bob Ross's email to me over two years ago, received unsolicited, dated Thursday, February 23, 2006. It is copied below in full below to illustrate how your little flyswatter, which seems absolutely infatuated with me, has missed again! In fact, it seems in the email that it is Bob who is suggesting the Southern Baptist Convention of Texas is holding to tenets of Landmarkism. In other words, I wouldn't even know of Bob Ross's position were it not for the fact he emailed me.

Oh well, the facts are pesky little things, are they not?

Interested in your comments on Bob Ross's remarks about Landmarkism in the writings of SBCT leadership, since you deem him the expert.

Grin.

[selahV]

Hey Peter, I know you've been busy battling that glucose problem and putting finishing touches on your manuscript, but did you get a chance to read my post about "Cooperation" at SBC Voices? I think I hear the sound of music coming from someone's Ipod. It's pouring out over the sound of the boombox. What is a person to do about that? selahV

[peter lumpkins]

Wade,

A) "you [wrote] I have mutilated Bob Ross's view of Landmarkism"--- Well, Wade, if you will take a look at Mr. Ross's post, "mutilated" is hardly an inappropriate description

B) "when neither you nor he have never even seen a copy of my book" ---Are you sure? I would not press that button too much

C) "much less read it" --- Ah,, Ah, Ah. I'd drop that one

D) "I'm sure you have already ordered yours"--- Don't need to

E) "you may be interested in Bob Ross's email" I am not. And here's one for you Wade---

Don't ever, ever come back here and post someone's personal email on my blog without permission. Period. No exceptions. For me it is despicable to even think about such. And I don't give two Georgia hoots about your own practice of such at your site. There you may do as you wish. But you will not do so here.

With that, I am...
Peter

[anonymous]

Peter,

Forgive me for being anonymous, but I do it only to protect myself for the following reason:

I too have seen an early copy of Wade's book. So far, I have only briefly skimmed it. I found it be as inflammatory and self serving as his blog.

Anonymous

[Larry]

Translation:
Wade, I don't care about evidence. And I don't want anyone to know that. I would rather make it look like it's some kind of ethical thing with me. But the bottom line is...Don't ever post documentation that makes me look stupid.

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Larry,

Bob Ross refuted Wade on his blog about the email. Wade, yet again, takes something out of context to try and twist it for his personal agenda. Bob states:

Wade, I noticed on Peter's blog that you are trying to toss around the email I sent to you a few years back, as if it has some significance in relation to your views.

Actually, Wade, if you like, you can short-cut this endeavor by simply referring people to the URL where that item has been posted for at least THREE YEARS:

Select Writings of Bob Ross

If you can find one word in that item which suggests that the IMB policy is "Landmarkism," by all means let us know.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid Larry.

Ron P.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: Seriously? There was two posts with iron clad proof that you are wrong, yet you deleted them.

[Debbie Kaufman]

That should be were.

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Larry,

Two things: first, if you like to read personal emails made public, taped phone conversations, gossip and the like, I suggest you go elsewhere to get your warm fuzzies. You will be disappointed here. Second, if you really knew me, you'd know I have no grand illusions of not ever being made to look stupid. My dear wife of 36 years can vouch for the truth of such.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Anon,

Even though I sympathize with what you're saying please do not comment again anonymously. I'm just in the deleting mood tonight.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. Seriously, Anon, I usually only allow the first anon. comment to stand. Please read away but resist the logging on...

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

Whether "was" or "were" there is no ironclad anything in posting other people's email. It is despicable. And, this site will never become a) a protected haven for anonymous commenters b) a place where private emails or personal, private conversations between individuals will be strung on a public clothesline.

A perfect place for those comments along with any emails Mr. Burleson possesses is his own blog. Ya'll are welcome to discuss them all you want there.

Now, then: that wasn't so bad, was it? Can we still be friends?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Peter,

Just thinking out loud... I am curious as to how Wade will amend his book once it is actually in print. He will not be able to surreptitiously revise it as he does so often with his blog. :)

Thanks for posting this. Bob has done a good job on his blog to show that Wade has mutilated the Ross' view of Landmarkism. I have come to a point where I almost pity him. I believe his bitterness towards the IMB and especially Dr. Patterson, has caused him to lose all sense of perspective. Actually, I can not decide if he appears to be more fatuous or fallacious. I think he has deceived himself, which truly is sad. Since I have been reading the blogs, it seems that he believes everything in history is somehow an illustration of what is wrong with the SBC. I used to think that Ben was the one who was singularly obsessed. That is why every time he gets on his soapbox, I can not help but hear the words of Captain Ahab in "Moby Dick". If I happen to review his book (but someone will have to give me a copy - I will not purchase it) I think I will title the review: "Thar She Blows".

Glad you are feeling better.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Well Peter, you did do one favor by linking to Bob Ross, whose posts and reasoning are so ridiculous and out there that the average person can see it for themselves. Thanks. :)

[S. Lyons]

Peter L.

The email you claim was private was published on the Internet three years ago by Bob Ross himself here. Sounds like you need to do your research before you make reckless charges.

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

S. Lyons,

Peter is a pretty heavy lifter in the research department. He however is not omniscient. I think Peter's position is quite fair to all concerned. All parties to the email should have been made aware of it being posted here before it was posted. Since this is Peter's blog, and not Wade's, Peter should have also been privy to such consent. The burden for that rests with the person doing the posting, which was Wade. He failed to do that or cite that it was a document that the author already placed in public view.

But it appears that Wade did not even know that Ross published it. Because he ran away from Ross' blog after being graciously and civilly corrected for his misinterpretation of Ross' view of Landmarkism. Ross even mentions the posting of it here and again graciously corrects Wade's mistake.

Hopefully, Wade will correct the mistake in his book before it is actually sent to print.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[wade burleson]

Ronnie and Pete,

I'm posting this comment from a proxy server because this blog has blocked all comments from me. The greatest sign of weakness is the refusal to allow comments from a person who challenges you words. Ron, I know you are a member of Birchman and on staff part-time. Your pastor, Bob Pearle, is also Dr. Patterson's pastor and was a member of the IMB board and part of the caucus group of trustees trying to control the direction of the board in the passing of the new policies. I can confess that the idea of you proofing my book didn't even cross my mind. Grin.

There are no mistakes in it. In fact, all I do is quote Ross's writings and make no comment on them. By the way, it is Ross himself who points out that the leadership of the SBCT holds to Landmark tenets - and both you and Peter consider him the expert! What say ye of that? Crickets.

Finally, Pete, just as S. Lyons and others have pointed out on your blog, the email from Ross was posted on the internet THREE YEARS ago. It's public.

Your sanctimonious rants are hollow.

You two guys have a great day. And, after you buy the book and actually read it, say all the critical things you desire! At least your credibility can't be challenged when you slam it.

:)

[Jim Champion]

Peter

A couple points from my perspective - if someone sends me an email, or a letter for that matter, I assume it is my prerogative to do anything with it that I want. The sender lost control of it the second he "sent" it, and it is then my property to do with as I please. If that letter/email that I sent is embarrassing to me, then I should have thought twice about sending it. there have been more than a few occasions when I composed an email or a post or even a letter, thought better of it and did not send it. There have been a few occasions when I did send - and wish that I had not!!

You are well within your right to not post the letter as it is your blog, but to me it is not that big a deal.

Second point, I think that Ross takes Wade to task for using his book. If Wade uses quotes and gives full credit to Ross, I once again do not see a problem. If Wade plagiarized Ross' writings then that would be a very big deal.

To the question of is SWBTS landmark - I dont know. Drs Yarnell and Patterson seem to lean that way, especially Yarnell. I have had some close friends teach at SWBTS over the years (conservatives all I might add), they have been concerned in the direction SWBTS has taken themselves.

Ross is the first one that I have ever read that would label Wade landmark, this side of the isle usually tries to pin the moderate label on Wade (which I think is pretty funny).

Jim

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Wade,

I was in the midst of replying to your personal email when this little critter popped up. So, since I only have time for one response not two, I think I'll choose this one.

First, you write "this blog has blocked all comments from me." That is incorrect. Instead this blog has blocked all comments with inappropriate emails attached from you. There is a difference. Nor is it enough to suggest, as you do, "the email from Ross was posted on the internet THREE YEARS ago. It's public." Neither I nor apparently you knew that at the time. The quick, knee-jerk posting of an email on this site, especially in an attempt to shock or embarrass the author, will *always* meet the same fate as did yours, Wade. And, I'll say again to you and everybody else reading--Don't ever, ever bring stuff like that here. Post it on your on blog or in a comment thread where feeding frenzies and gossip rule.

Second, you write "The greatest sign of weakness is the refusal to allow comments from a person who challenges you words." Again, you fail to make distinction between "comments" and "pasted emails." From my side of the river, I do not visualize refusing, without permission, plastered emails/recorded conversations of others, etc weakness. Furthermore, I assure you Wade, you will find more than your bucket can hold both here and places elsewhere I can think of.

Third, the undying, non-stop agenda against the IMB trustees, Dr. Patterson, and others knows no bounds. Now, Dr. Pearle, whom, so far as I know, has not been at the end of your scope, now he's "part of the caucus group of trustees trying to control the direction of the board in the passing of the new policies." Here is another one for you: don't bring up Dr. Pearle again on this site unless Dr. Pearle and/or his stated views is the subject of discussion. It is almost as if subconsciously, Wade, every interpretation which appears with your name attached somehow relates to the conspiratorial happenings at the IMB.

And, your stated concern is not belly-busting, stitch-making hilarious to all but those irreversibly glued to your girdle: "[Bob Pearle] was part of the caucus group of trustees trying to control the direction of the board in the passing of the new policies." May I ask what you were doing while you were on the board, Wade? Sitting in the corner holding hands, merrily singing Kumbaya? And, what have you been doing since? No attempt to change or even control the direction of the IMB policies?

May I also ask, what this means:

"The people in leadership who are hurting Southern Baptists by their demands for conformity must be removed from Convention leadership. Why? The Convention is built on cooperation...and demands for conformity disqualify anyone who is to lead in cooperation. I will continue to speak out until the sleeping giant we call the Southern Baptist Convention wakes up..."

We should both know where that is located. Do you think a public call for removal from Convention leadership fits your complaint concerning Bob Pearle's alleged "attempt to control the direction" of the IMB policies? Like I said, if one does not see unmitigated humor here, no hope remains they'll ever laugh again.

Fourth, you need to iron out your mistakes with Bob Ross's writings with Bob Ross. I understand he's invited you to his place to show you precisely how he believes your misused his works.Thus, the crickets-line makes sense only at Bob Ross' blog, Wade; he's the one with chronic-crickets, not us. So, paddle on over there and see if crickets will get you very far.

Finally whether or not my "sanctimonious rants are hollow" I leave for the readers to decide. And as I said in a former comment, Wade, do not assume neither I nor Ron have read your book.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Steve]

Wow, so emails from Wade to me can be published online? Thanks Jim, is that your permission?
Steve

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Wade,

Since you addressed me as well, I will respond.

Unfortunately, you are infamously known for deleting comments on your blog that disagree with you. So I guess you too show great weakness for not allowing anyone to challenge you, unless it is a challenge that you want to engage in. You have done it to me personally, as well as many others. I would be careful about throwing those rocks around glass houses. Be careful, because Webster might want to put your picture next to hypocrite for bringing such an accusation here against Peter while you recreantly remove comments that disagree with you on your own site.

You have incorrectly stated that I am a part time staff member at Birchman. I am not. I love my Church and will serve her in whatever capacity that the Church wants me to serve. But Birchman has never called me as a staff member. In order for anyone to serve on staff at my church, the congregation must call and vote on the person. Since I have been a member, we as a church have called four people to serve on staff. However, as I state on my blogger profile: I currently intern at my church working with Single Adults and coordinating Baptisms and video testimonies of baptismal candidates. There is a tremendous difference between serving in an intern position that assists the church staff and actually being on staff. I have had the privilege to serve on staff at other Churches, but not here. I realize that there are some Baptist pastors that would usurp the role of the congregation by hiring a staff member without bringing it before the Church, but I assure, you Birchman would not.

I was making a subtle point about your book in my statement about reviewing it. Let me be more direct. Assuming your book follows the style of your blog, I do not want to put money in the pocket of a man for writing gossip and embellishment who has consistently attacked the integrity of many godly people. Grin back at you.

Finally, I am not surprised that you have linked this as a grand conspiracy to Dr. Patterson. It has become your modis operandi. I am still waiting for you to produce a picture of him with a gun on the Grassy Knoll in Dallas at the time of the Kennedy assassination. Your obsession with conspiratorial links of everything to Dr. Patterson is untenable and is beginning to reach paranoia status.

Though you personally were tertiary in my reasons for originally being semi anonymous in the Baptist blog world, you have shown why many people do not want to fully identify themselves. I actually wrote about this on my blog and outlined my reasons for doing so: Who is Ron P. That decision was made almost two years ago and you have proved the insight of several people to be uncannily correct.

So Wade, congratulations, you have outdone yourself today:

You hypocritically call someone weak for doing what you yourself do in secret.
You see conspiracies orchestrated by Dr. Patterson around every corner.
You have tried to impugn my pastor and Dr. Patterson because of what I have written.
And/or You have tried to impugn what I write because Bob Pearle is my pastor and he was an IMB Trustee.
And the icing on the cake, Dr. Patterson is a member of my church. Aha! The missing link.

You truly are irenic unbelievable.

I do hope that you have a good day too. But I also hope that you will get off of this "Whale Hunt", otherwise, you will become as monomaniacal as Captain Ahab.

Blessings to you and your family,

Ron P.

[Jim Champion]

Steve

why couldnt emails from someone else to you be posted online. you may not chose to, but that is your choice. Emails are discoverable in a court proceeding. Emails that are sent at work can be read by your employer.

Personally, I make it a practice to never put anything in an email that I couldn't stand to see the light of day. I try, not always successfully, to not say anything on a blog that I would not say to your face.

IN fact, I can point to the last email that I should not have sent but did - cost me a couple accounts - lesson learned.

Ron P just above me spent a good bit of time yelling at Wade, I could sense him getting hotter and hotter under the collar the longer he wrote that reply. As an aside to Ron, its tough to end and email with a blessing after you have spent six paragraphs yelling at them

Jim

[selahV]

Jim, Pardon me if I jump in here with your thoughts to Steve. But it seems to me that just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is either acceptable or ethical. I have some rather unseemly and unkind emails that have been sent to me that would shed greater light on a certain person's animosity towards me. However, I would never post them for the world to see, no matter how much that person attacks me publically. It's just not nice. It is kinda like, "do unto others as ye would that they do unto you." Ya know?

As far as "ending an email with a blessing" after they've aired how they read another's comment, I'd say that is no different then wishing fellas to "have a good day" after telling one that his words are "sanctimonious rants" that "ring hollow." selahV

[Byroniac]

SelahV, I honestly cannot imagine anyone sending you nasty emails. You're the nicest person in blogdom I know. And unlike me, you're mostly sane, to boot. ;)

[Larry]

You are ignoring the fact that Ross already published the email 3 yrs ago. Since he did it himself, there is no legal or ethical breach in using it as documentation. Just take it like a man and stop whining when you are proven wrong.

[Me]

Peter

What happened to your videos?

Dear Me

Unlike Elvis, my videos have not left the building. Now, please don't comment again without using your real name.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Larry]

And Ron P. You keep drinking whatever you are drinking. I fear Kool Aid is not all you are ingesting. Keep the sarcasm coming, I'll try to keep up.

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Jim,

Pardon me, but I never once "yelled" at Wade. If one follows "chat/blog etiquette", yelling is using ALL CAPS TO MAKE YOUR POINT. That is an example of yelling. I used italics when quoting and bold type for emphasis. I could not get the five lines near the end to format as indented text when typing in the comment box, so I used bold to delineate it from the rest of the text, but only for emphasis. But I will admit, five lines is a lot of text to place in bold text for emphasis.

I can assure you I never once lost my temper, nor did I get hotter and hotter under the collar. I was engaged with the text that Wade wrote and nothing more. I do grow weary of his incessant attacks and conspiracy theories, but decidedly vigilant in confronting his attacks on fellow believers, especially when he hypocritically accuses a brother of doing what he himself does on a regular basis.

Finally, I do sincerely hope he and his family prospers. Even though I will at times passionately disagree with him and especially his tactics, I hold no personal animosity towards him. I will not compromise when I think that he is wrong. He chose to make himself the public patriarch of his war on the SBC. I have no problem with standing up against his attempts to move the Convention away from her historical Biblical Baptist ecclesiology and theology. As a Baptist I fully support his right to not believe as we Southern Baptists confess in the BFM. But as a Baptist, I will fight for our Convention, her entities, and her employees to be faithful to these biblical doctrines that we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Jim Champion]

Let me put it this way, anyone who sends an email that could not be posted somewhere/anywhere is a fool.

Anything electronic can and often does wind up in the public sphere, especially if the sender is any sort of public figure.

Selah - I would hope that no one would or could send you any sort of nasty gram. I would submit that Ronnie's closing rang much more hollow than Wade's have a good day and dont let the door hit you on the way out - Wade just forgot to finish his sentence ...

The email that Wade tried to post here was not in anyway hateful, it stated that in Ross' opinion that the SBTC has landmark tendencies (I agree by the way).

This is all much ado about nothing...

JIm

[peter lumpkins]

Jim,

If someone sends you an email and you feel the liberty since it is now "your property" to publicize the contents at "your prerogative" remind me never, ever to email you, Jim. In fact, I can assure you I probably won't now that you've given me your personal view about such.

Also, Jim, I think you need to let your church know never to send you a letter/email since it will become "your property" to publicize the contents at "your prerogative." That is, of course, if it has absolutely anything in it whatsoever that could be embarrassing or that you did not want others to know. Lord help the poor guy who's just lost his job for shady doings that, if not handled correctly, he'll lose his family as well.

Unhappily for him, he did not know your policy of "my property now to do with at my prerogative," and, spilled his guts to you hoping for guidance and support. Instead he gets a non-written, yet nonetheless legal notice that his story has just become "your property" to do with at "your prerogative." The moral thrust of such a stellar ethic makes it possible though not necessary that his heart-wrenching story could end up on the internet on one blog and 10,000 since it's "your property" and "your prerogative" to do with as you desire and you please.

I'd also say, Jim, that there is no reason whatsoever for you to make a distinction between info received via email and info received via phone. Thus, I don't think I'll be calling you anytime soon either. And, why stop there? What makes for a moral distinction between info received via email, via phone, or via person to person? It's all info that now belongs to you--"your property"--to do with at "your prerogative," is it not? I'm afraid, my brother, if we ever meet up in public, I don't think I'll be chatting very long with you either. Perhaps a hello, how are you? Great. Well see you later. Bye. You see, the older I get, the more forgetful, and I may just share something personal about myself that I would not consider public info, and therefore I'd be a bit cautious about being around you, fearing I'd forget your very clear understanding of property rights.

Now that I know offering info to you, whatever the info might be--and offering it either by email, phone, or standing in a hallway, for there's no moral distinction between them (info is info)--and that sharing the info with you becomes as it were, a legal contract of communication exchange, transferring property rights to the info I shared to you with full prerogative to do with it as you wish, I do not think, Jim we will have any successful fellowship outside this public, sometimes chilly cyberspace, brother.

And, why you followed such a revealing comment with "you are well within your right to not post the letter as it is your blog" Jim I cannot imagine a satisfying reason. If such is the case, why under the blue sky would it even be necessary to make a point of it? If I'm well within my right, then I'm well within reason, am I not? Unless I'm missing something here, unless I've breached my right, or twisted my right or misused my right or overstepped my right or my right is really an unright or a misright or an unChristian right or ungodly right, etc But then again, if any of these are so, how is it true that I am "well within [my] right to not post the letter as it is [my] blog"?

For me, sometimes from blogdom's sea surfaces from the murky deep weird creatures of uncommon sense that no marine biologist on earth has ever before studied.

Grace Jim. I trust your evening (or morning now) a good one.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: Just by your reaction the first time, I don't think you took down the email(which is posted by the author on his own website and in the piece which was posted by Larry), for any ethical reasons. Call it a hunch. :)

[selahV]

Jim, If "anyone who sends an email that could not be posted somewhere/anywhere is a fool.", then I suppose there is absolutely no hope for our world. We're all a bunch of fools. I might as well get rid of AOL now. I'm ashamed to look in the mirror. I hang my head in shame. :) selahV

[selahV]

Debbie, I'm curious and very serious. Do you happen to know what gifts of the Spirit you possess? selahV

[Jim Champion]

I leaned, and then forgot that once you are in a hole stop digging.

I admit that I went to far. But I still stand by the statement that anyone who puts anything in an email that they dont want shared again is a fool. As I said, I learned the hard way, and it cost real dollars out of my pocket through lost accounts.

I will agree that personal and private emails, conversations etc should not be shared. I think that there are caveats however, as no situation is black and white. The email that Ross wrote Wade had nothing of a private or personal nature, as has been pointed out Ross himself had that email up for 3 years.

Selah - I can not imagine anything coming out of your mouth or off your keyboard that you have not thought about and been careful with. With that said, we are all sinners and can get to those dark places all to easily.

ron if I took you wrong I apologize - the bold face statements looked like yelling to me, and it appeared to me that the longer you typed the hotter under the collar you got, seemed incongruous with your closing.

Jim

[selahV]

Jim, Oh that I was so pure, my brother. That I assure you is not the case. I struggle every moment of every day. I never know when the muse of satan will take hold of my fingertips and reveal my anger at another. I pray most earnestly about that. But God has not given us a Spirit without help to overcome and become better with each passing moment. He gives us self-control; and it is we who quench His Spirit and exert our control allowing it to spew upon others without regard to those who may be passing by. It's because of this we must be ever vigilant, to be sure, not to offend a brother or sister. I find far too much of it seemingly being done in the name of public airing and vindictive expediency to further one's agenda.

It's sad that we as brothers and sisters in Christ do not take heed to your caution of emailing one another and apply it to posting comments and publishing posts. We'd all be better for it.

I still believe we, as Christians, should have more than reasonable expectation, that any emails we send to one another be held with strictest of confidence. If I be "a fool", then so be it. I will have to eat the fruit of my hand.

Most pleasant talking with you, Jim. selahV

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Jim,

No problem. When you thought I was yelling, I went back and looked at it and can see where bold face could lead someone to think so. I was getting ready to walk out the door and did not want to code the html for tabs into the comment. Italics and bold are quick and easy to type out, and I could not remember if Typepad allows non breaking spaces in the comment box. I'm old school, I like command line and actually prefer to use vi (or the newer vim) as a text editor. Unless you use UNIX and/or Linux, you probably never heard of those editors before. So, it was laziness and hurriedness on my part. For that I apologize.

Hope your day is going well,

Ron P.

[Larry]

And that seems to be end of the matter. My comment, #5, is still true. All the discussion, much verbage, denial, sarcasm, even buddies coming to defend..
has not changed the truth of comment #5.

Peter, you shot mouth off before you had the facts. You were wrong. Now, you aren't the only Christian man to ever do that. But what are you going to do about it now?

And in answer your response to me:
Two things: first, I wasn't disappointed here. I actually got a warm fuzzy. And second, it now seems I didn't even need your wife's voucher. And that itself was my warm fuzzy.
It's cozy here. I think I'll stay.

[selahV]

Byron, I missed thanking you for your gracious words to me above. Thanks. Maybe you can vote for me in the SBC Blog Madness at SBC Voices. Ha. Shameless promotion, huh? selahV

[Larry]

I think that little fly swatter misfired big time and left your behind a little rosy red. Admitting it would be an honorable thing.
Just a thought...

[Mansfield Bob]

The unbelieving world is growing larger, and going to hell in a hand basket, and you people spend quality time going back and forth about e-mailing. Obviously, Galatians 2:20 means nothing to you people. Get on your knees and roughen them up again. They are too soft from lack of usage. Until then, you are Laodiceans at best, and wolves in sheep's clothing at worst. May God's piercing and convicting Holy Spirit strike Mr. "Squeaky Chair" Lumpkins and his ilk with spiritual revival before it's too late. Just because you call something your "ministry" doesn't make it so.

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Larry & Bob,

I trust your day well.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Bob,

Feeling a little holier than thou today are we?

David

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Mansfield Bob said,

"The unbelieving world is growing larger, and going to hell in a hand basket, and you people spend quality time going back and forth about e-mailing. Obviously, Galatians 2:20 means nothing to you people. Get on your knees and roughen them up again. They are too soft from lack of usage. Until then, you are Laodiceans at best, and wolves in sheep's clothing at worst. May God's piercing and convicting Holy Spirit strike Mr. "Squeaky Chair" Lumpkins and his ilk with spiritual revival before it's too late. Just because you call something your "ministry" doesn't make it so."

Peter:

I trust Mansfield Bob practices in the areas of evangelism and prayer what he says above lest he also indict himself through his own words. You may remember the old expression which warns to be careful about point a finger at someone because there are four more pointing back at you?

[volfan007]

D. Elasser,

Also, the kettle calling the pot "black" also comes to mind.

David

[Ian D. Elsasser]

David:

I have observed on blogs in the past where persons, devoid of sound argumentation, upbraided the host and commenters for engaging in what is perceived as a waste of time while so many unbelievers in need to Christ were going to hell. I often wondered if they practiced what they were preaching at others. It also struck me as paradoxical that the persons issuing these chastisements where themselves online reading the blogs rather than out sharing Christ with unbelievers about whom they claim to be so concerned.

Whether it is pot calling the kettle black, I cannot say. But it is a danger, is it not, for someone to accuse another of something in which they themselves are deficient? Hence, my words to Mansfield Bob.

[volfan007]

D. Elasser,

True. Very true.

David