« Ergun Caner Releases Statement by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Does Southern Cooking Produce the Worst Obesity? by Peter Lumpkins »

2010.03.01

Comments

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

RazorsKiss

Mohammed's comment used that word, Peter? :) I don't give enough of a rip about your comment section to go track down the people whose comments got pulled - I do know that we were keeping track that day, and we counted a dozen that made it on, and "mysteriously disappeared", for whatever reason.

As to the "this data cannot be accepted" error, that seems to happen when something trips your filters, for whatever reason. It won't even allow the comment to made. It's prior to the captcha request, which follows pressing "post" - it won't let you press "post". Why? I don't know. Also, see here - http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/03/typepad-combox-quirk.html

peter

RazorKiss,

"Mohammed's comment used that word, Peter?" That would be negative. But you know & I know his comment is not at all the issue here, RazorKiss. I plainly stated what I did with his comment. Only I can't tell you again or you'll accuse me of cursing ;^)

"I don't give enough of a rip about your comment section to go track down the people whose comments got pulled" Then may I suggest you not take the time to implicate others with silly games of "deleting" comments, RazorKiss. If you're not going to cook the beans, don't get out the pot.

"As to the "this data cannot be accepted" error, that seems to happen when something trips your filters, for whatever reason. It won't even allow the comment to made." Nope. I think you are wrong. The filters allow the comment to pass through the "CAPTCHA" wall.

In fact, note the comment I left for Carrie above. I wrote, "And, for the record it was not an unusual word--"picxxx". It was not my filter but a default from typepad I suppose (picture being associated with pxxx, I'm thinking).

Note the emboldened words with the "Xs". Guess where I found that comment after I logged it? In the spam bucket. I retrieved it and put the "Xs" in the two words. Then published the comment. Note also that it did not kick out "picture". That's apparently because I deleted it as a filter when it pitched your comment and two of mine in the spam bucket. I just got through deleting three more filters--pictures, pic, and pix. Like I say, I suppose those filters were typepad defaults.

So, no; typepad filters does not produce the '"this data cannot be accepted" error'. I do know what does, however. If you wait too long to post a comment in the open comment box, and try to log the comment, you will get the error you mentioned. I get them alot. Why?

I type slow and my comment is usually breathy, we might say. Hence, I can only suppose again, an internal clock allows only so long to post a comment before one has to refresh the browser. I've lost lots of comments before I learned to copy my comment to my clipboard before I push "preview." As a side note, this error may well explain why White's comment did not log...

Now as for your link, thank you. It's actually a very good link and one which in some small way, at least, verifies others with commenting issues which is not about deleting comments.

With that, I am...
Peter

Mark Farnon

Oh dear Tony, when will you move on from all of this? And for the others, if you really think Tony is just so great, drop me a line and I will educate you not only regarding his "one" and "only" mission in life but how he has treated me in the past. Drop me a line.

Mark aka Tartanarmy

peter

All,

James White writes on his latest blog:

"...[I] fired up the MacBook long enough to get my mail. Not only did another loving missive from Peter Lumpkins come through, but I was directed to what can only amount to his published response of my documentation of his false accusations. Personally, I think this speaks volumes about the level of "dialogue" amongst many when it comes to the substance of their argumentation against Reformed theology" (embolden mine)

Interesting to say the least. But also quite embarrassing--at least it should be to White. How? Well, White is correct about one thing and strangely incorrect about another.

While I did send him an email after I read his blog that he "cannot post [here] anymore" as you can see below, I did not direct White to "what can only amount to [my] published response" toward his documentation of alleged false accusations against him (White links my 'Spike & Chester' cartoon indicating I directed him to this satirical funny as my official response LOL).

In fact I did not mention my latest blog ("Spike" satire) at all. Nor did I even mention the subject of the contention (Tony, Reymond, etc.). I only addressed one thing--his failed comment on my site.

Below is the full content of the email:

"So, Mr. White, you could not log on, ah? I have a few word filters. Perhaps that was it. As for any other reason, I have no idea. I most certainly did not do anything whatsoever to prohibit your logging on. But, how strange Calvinists--particularly those sympathetic with your position and are, of course, your 'minions'--are pretty much the only ones who, to my recollection, ever have these type of issues. Strange indeedy... " (ellipses original; i.e. my email ended with the ellipses. I didn't even put my name at the end but left only gmail's canned signature)

Nor did I have a link to "Spike" at the bottom of the email. Why would I? My cartoon stood on its own and had nothing to do with Tony, Reymond, or White's contention of falsehood on my and/or Byrne's behalf. Only in White's mind are the two connected.

Naughty, naughty, Mr. White. You should not tell things that are not true*. Especially after you just finished your long sermon to Tony. After all, you shouldn't be afraid to let your readers know your real reason for checking my site--you have me in your reader! :^)

What a double Georgia-hoot! James White "directs himself" to my site for my "public response" to his "irrefutable" evidence of a "discussion" (i.e. precisely one quick question and one quick answer) only to publicly portray it to his readers as me personally directing him to consider my rebuttal. Yes siree. Mr. White. You got me right where you want me, I'd say.

More seriously, I'm beginning to think knee-jerk, emotive verbal emissions is virtually the entire repertoire in James White/and White's followers' responses to those with whom they contend. An exception to that, is David Hewett who, while posting things here to which I could not agree, nevertheless remained on this site free from the slurs, slams, and sludgy remarks characteristic of AOmin.org.

I challenge any reader who has a mind to, do the google and see. This is standard procedure with his approach. Hence, I now am one of many whom James White slurs if you happen to be on the wrong side of the issue.

And, it is for this reason, absolutely no peace between Calvinists and non-Calvinists can even be considered as long as SBC Calvinists remain supportive of James White and his ilk. I have no intentions whatsoever in stopping the resistance to this type of alliance. Period.

With that, I am...
Peter
*of course, White can claim he did not mention that I directed him to "Spike" but that he simply was directed to the site by another. Ummm...

peter

Mark aka Tartanarmy

Sorry, bro. This isn't about "how great Tony is." I'm unsure how you've come to that conclusion from reading this thread.

With that, I am...
Peter

eric opsahl

There has been a lot of talk about lies in this thread. How about the scripture below, are these words lies? I'm currently reading this Blog because I'm interested in current discussion as is all other here.
1. From my perspective, I question whether any of the persons involved in this argument do love one another.
2. From my perspective, two brothers can have a "heated" theological discussion without hating one another.
3. From my perspective this has crossed the line, I do not hear a tone of love in the discussion.

Why in the world do you Guy's: White, Limpkin, Byrne not Recognize that the current discussion has a definite UNLOVING tone, get on the phone and work this out as brothers in Christ. Not the doctrinal issues, but the obvious negative unloving tone.

Are the verses below a lie?

eric opsahl

JONh 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
Joh 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
Joh 15:12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
Ro 12:10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor;
Ga 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Eph 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forbearance to one another in love,
1Th 5:13 and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another.
2Th 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater;
Heb 10:24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,
1Pe 1:22 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,
1Pe 4:8 Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.
1Pe 5:14 Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace be to you all who are in Christ.
1Jo 3:11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another;
1Jo 3:23 And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
1Jo 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

eric opsahl

There has been a lot of talk about lies in this thread. How about the scripture below, are these words lies? I'm currently reading this Blog because I'm interested in current discussion as is all other here.
1. From my perspective, I question whether any of the persons involved in this argument do love one another.
2. From my perspective, two brothers can have a "heated" theological discussion without hating one another.
3. From my perspective this has crossed the line, I do not hear a tone of love in the discussion.
Why in the world do you Guy's: White, Limpkin, Byrne not Recognize that the current discussion has a definite UNLOVING tone, get on the phone and work this out as brothers in Christ. Not the doctrinal issues, but the obvious negative unloving tone. Are the verses below a lie?

RazorsKiss

Once again, I find it hilarious that you once again imply that the post was about you deleting comments. I only left about 5 different comments in that same thread on my site stating that this was not the point. You'll notice the Lumpkins-esque additional disclaimer on the top of the post as well, I hope. I'm losing faith in your contextual reading skills, man :)

peter

Dear RazorKiss,

I'm so sorry I failed to give you context. You need to understand how us poor poor imbeciles think, however. For example, do I take the context before logging on to your site or after I left and you placed a "update."

Note the first point in your "update", RazorKiss:

"I didn’t ‘accuse’ him [Peter] of deleting it. I noted that it *was* deleted. It was, by whatever means..."

However, note the very first interpretative commentary after you posted the "missing" comment in your original post (yep. it's still there). You assert:

"Since it seems that he has, in fact, deleted it – within 45 seconds or so...

Now if you'd care to reconcile those two statements, I'm all ears, RazorKiss. You then come over here suggesting "once again" it's not about you accusing that I deleted your comment when your original post still has "he has, in fact, deleted it"--despite your "update" denying it was me personally to which you referred.

You guys are too, too funny. You really need more interaction from critics. It could save you some needless nose-honking, I'd bet.

With that, I am...
Peter

RazorsKiss

Umm. I think it's quite obvious that the reason that site exists is due to the massive amount of critics that already exist. From Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Romanists, Unitarians, Atheists, Arminians, or the like - the list could go on for quite some time.

Once again - I wrote the post - I'm aware, I do believe, of the *point* of the post. Since that speaks of the intention of the author, who I am, I'm rather aware of what that is :) The point was to preserve a comment, and to point out the lack of response to the substance contained therein. Which still has yet to be seen :) This doesn't surprise anyone, of course; but it's rather illuminating to note that there is no answer to those points, and that there is likely no answer forthcoming.

Feel free to continue to major in the minors, however. I'm more interested in substance, not the periphery. Which you're making yourself into more and more, the more you spin.

As you seem to be consistently overlooking - the point of the post was not your deleted comment - it was the substance of my comment, and Mohammed's. Your blog's interesting 'features', as well as your own character features are only a peripheral issue, as always.

Bemused at your antics,
~RK

peter

All,

Shutting the thread up for the evening. Will open back in the A.M

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

RazorKiss,

Whatever you desired to address in the last comment, I assure you, it had zero to do with the comment I left for you. LOL

With that, I am...
Peter

RazorsKiss

What are you talking about?

peter

Not up to small talk, RK. If you cannot see the connection, let's call it quits.

With that, I am...
Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.