Mr. Armstrong, you do realize you can forward-date this post to Tuesday so that all the new papers show up under this post? That way we'll have twice the fun.
No matter. I need to take a break on the weekend anyway.
Dave,
In the truest sense of the phrase, "Freedom of Speech" does not and should not apply here. "Freedom of Speech" regulates government intrusions and exclusions in the marketplace of ideas. The government can not sponsor a public forum unless it is open to opposing viewpoints. (i.e. HS bible study groups vs. HS condom clubs) You are not the government nor is your blog government-sponsored. While it may be laudable to make your blog a public forum, you have the right to include or exclude anyone you want for any reason whatsoever, even if such reasons are arbitrary, capricious or purely personal. your blog is the expression of your thought and your endeavors. If someone does not like the rules you make, the editorial controls you impose, or the restrictions you place on posting, they can start their own blog for free and spout vitriol all-the-day-long there instead of using yours as a their soap box.
Thus, I vote yes.
Oooh! Another combox on the Ban/Don't Ban question. Does this mean I get to vote again?
:-D
Vote early and often? LOL
Sorry. *^_^*. Have a good weekend, sir.
Strictly speaking, I'm all for banning trolls, since they contradict the purpose of a blog. However, I'm concerned as to the mode by which one will determine who a troll or flamer is.
What is the criterion of genuine trollership? Perhaps there is some post I need to read that has alreadly defined and clarified these terms.
Hence, for the time being, I say "no"- do not ban the trolls, since for all I know, I could be one of them.
Paul wrote:
In the truest sense of the phrase, "Freedom of Speech" does not and should not apply here.
JS writes:
I would think that freedom of speech applies anywhere that there are human beings, since it is a fundamental right of all human beings.
Paul writes:
"Freedom of Speech" regulates government intrusions and exclusions in the marketplace of ideas.
JS writes:
Perhaps I misunderstand, but do you mean to imply that freedom of speech is an arbitrary set of terms imposed by the government? As if outside of government, there is no freedom of speech?
Human rights are prior to government as I see it; they exist even if a government is not in place to enforce them. And, I'm not so sure that truth is a marketplace of ideas; I see ideas as common property. Intellectually, I'm some what of a communist, since ideas are not private property in the strict sense.
Paul writes:
While it may be laudable to make your blog a public forum, you have the right to include or exclude anyone you want for any reason whatsoever, even if such reasons are arbitrary, capricious or purely personal.
JS writes:
This may be true legally, but I think it would do a disservice to Dave's web site if he arbitrarily, or even capriciously, excluded people for any reason whatsoever. This would seem to imply no sincere desire to dialogue on his part.
This may sound stupid since I am new to this blog thing. What is a troll/flamer?
JS,
I don't necessarily disagree with all of your points. There are arguments both pro and con that can be made on this subject. However, I was merely looking at it from a legal perspective.
Personally, I believe that Dave (or any other blogger) should not have tie himself to the results of a poll on any issue. It his blog and he can do with it what he wants with it. By assuming the mantle and mission as an apologist and as a teacher, he takes on certain responsibilities and obligations imposed by Scripture and by the Church. He should be true to that, not to commentators that may or may share that sense of responsibility. Fortunately, many of the commentators do seem to share that sense (for example: Ken Temple) even if they may disagree with Dave on a number of issues.
For myself, I do not access his blog to read his readers' comments. I access it for the perspective and insights that he, himself, has concerning Scripture, Church teaching, moral and social issues and the knowledge, research and scholarship that he brings to bear on such subjects.
While I do enjoy the insights, viewpoints, perspectives, and discussion that comments can bring, I feel that some of the polemics and personality issues that do show up there tend to detract from the object of an apologetic blog~a search for and explanation of the Truth. Alot of the personal attacks are not motivated by a fervent love of Christ and a thirst for the Truth, but from sinful motivations, such as pride and from fear. It is not required that we agree with a person's viewpoint, but we are enjoined to always respect the person.
I do not comment as often as many of the other readers do because I generally do not believe that I should comment unless I feel that I have something to add to the discussion or I feel it necessary to ask a question. There are a few who only comment just to show off how much they think they know or just to be disputative. Of course, Dave and many of the people who comment here, both Catholic and Protestant, often demonstrate the error of those person's understanding of Scripture or doctrine. But to paraphrase Cardinal Newman, it only takes a few words to state a falsehold, but many words and much effort to demonstrate to show why such a statement is false in the first place. The time, talent and treasure of people like Dave and yourself should not be wasted like that. I guess my point in all of this is that Dave's blog represents his exercise of his "free speech" rights, not ours, and he can choose to exercise it anyway he sees fit. As I understand it, this proposed ban would only be imposed on those whose comments greatly impede, rather than promote, the things that Dave is trying to impart here.
One last point~all freedoms, whether endowed from our Creator or granted to us by law, are subject to limits. We are obligated to use such freedoms in a responsible way. There is a point when freedom of speech become
becomes incitement to riot, treason, defamation, or worse, a sin. While there may be legal and social consequences for an abuse of our freedom of speech (jail, lawsuit, social disapproval, etc.), we also face the spiritual consequence of sin as well.
JS, thank you for your comments and for giving me the opportunity to expound further on my views.
Good discussion, guys!
Hi Brian (and also JS),
No stupid questions here!
A troll or flamer, as I define it, and as I believe is the general understanding, is a person who comes [to this blog or any blog] for the intention of being merely controversial, stirring up trouble, etc. They usually have an ax to grind and are not interested in cordial discussion, or interacting with any other viewpoint. They want to lecture or insult.
It doesn't always mean that they themselves lack a viewpoint that they could defend, but that they rule out other viewpoints in a rude, boorish manner.
-------------------
Now, I'm curious as to any "official" definitions. The one on Wikipedia is almost exactly as I just defined it:
"a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion."
". . . For many people, the characterising feature of trolling is the perception of intent to disrupt a community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The greater the reaction from the community the more likely the user is to troll again, as the person develops beliefs that certain actions achieve his/her goal to cause chaos."
[see, there is my reasoning of ignoring such people, which makes them go away]
". . . The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad hominem. When appropriately applied to purposefully disruptive online behavior, the word troll economically converts an abstract code of online manners into a concrete image.
"Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives that may be incorrect. Regardless of the writer's motives, controversial posts are likely to attract a corrective, patronizing or outraged response . . .
"In general, conventional wisdom advises users to avoid feeding trolls, and to ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll with the craved attention. . . ."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Int.../
Internet_troll
[an incredibly detailed article]
The Wikipedia article on "Flaming" is equally fascinating and informative:
"Flaming is the act of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board on the Internet. Such messages are called flames, and are sometimes posted in response to flamebait.
". . . A flame may have elements of a normal message, but is distinguished b
(cont.)
. . . by its intent. A flame is typically not intended to be constructive, to further clarify a discussion, or to persuade other people. The motive for flaming is often not dialectic, but rather social or psychological. Sometimes, flamers are attempting to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority. Occasionally, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they are trolls. Most often however, flames are angry or insulting messages transmitted by people who have strong feelings about a subject."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamer
It's amazing how accurately these definitions describe your reappearance at Crowhill and even more amazing how you don't seem to notice it.
No, Dave, I never intend to have intelligent conversation with people who clearly never intended it themselves. You yourself admitted that you knew your comments (re: Enloe) would stir things up at Crowhill. You then used the reaction to your eye-poking to pontificate once again on the Low Level Of Internet Discussion. Amazing how there wouldn't have been anything to comment on if you hadn't flamed to begin with. Crowhill has actually been relatively quiet of late. Thanks to you, however, there was a nice big knock down drag out.
You consistently wish to justify your ridicule of others while taking the greatest offense (Lies, Bearing False Witness, Etc) at anything written about you.
How anyone can not see this is beyond me. That's all I've ever had to say. The point's been made clearly enough.
So, I'm done. If there's a last word, I leave it to you.
Oh, I did forget to vote though:
YES, I think one should ban people who come to one's blog unsolicited and start trouble.
NO, I don't think I should ban people who come to my blog specifically as the result of my starting trouble somewhere else and then commenting on it on my blog.
Trolls aren't allowed to vote; sorry . . .
I won't bore everybody by showing how my temporary crowhill excursion was not trolling, but rest assured it would be quite easy to do. Even the Anglican Edwin Tait, who disagreed with what I was trying to say, and has vehemently disagreed also, in our last several dialogues, said on that board that I was not a troll.
And note that the articles from Wikipedia said that oftentimes, controversial subject matter is difficult to distinguish from a troll. The difference was in the intent,so the articles stated. Since I have explained mine over and over, that is not at issue. (note how cparks does his obligatory denying of my stated intentions: " I never intend to have intelligent conversation with people who clearly never intended it themselves.").
Again and again in this stupid controversy, cparks asked me questions, and I spent much time carefully answering, to the best of my ability, only to be mocked and have my sincerity doubted (as presently, ad nauseum).
cparks simply has an ax to grind against me, from way back. It had nothing to do then with whether I am a troll or not, and I believe that is the ultimate cause for his hostility. He had been rude and unresponsive and insulting long before this incident, and will, no doubt, be so indefinitely, barring some miracle or radical change of heart.
One just can't please everyone in this business. I do my best to not offend people, but I don't always succeed; especially concerning incidents where I felt that a biblical rebuke was absolutely deserved and called-for.
Yes, "ct" and the cowardly anti-Catholic bigot calling himself "Cardinal Neuman" are definitely "trolls."
Of course I vote NO. How else am I gonna be able to draw enough attention to my blog to get that elusive 32nd hit?
In Christ,
I guess I radically underestimated the power of the "I know you are, but what am I..." defense. Bye, Dave.
I hope I don't fit into the category of troll/flamer, even though I usually do have an opposing view. 
For what it's worth, I vote NO on the banning of trolls/flamers, and here's why. Jesus said, "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you that you may be sons of your father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good; and He sends His rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?" (Matt 5:44-47)
He also said, "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful just as your Father is merciful." (Luke 6:35-36)
And finally we're told to "Be imitators of God." (Eph 5:1a) I dare say trolls and flamers are our "enemies". On this site, they're my enemies too, because they harshly present a view that I'm trying to lovingly present. As the great Sam Malone said on Cheers, "But that's just one guy's opinion."
.
No.
I ain't gonna count Greg's vote because he is no regular here, and even if he is not a troll (which can be argued), he still is not voting with an objective mindset, as his very vote contains yet another insult.
Grubb, of course, is fully entitled to vote, as a regular visitor. Opposition views have nothing to do with being a troller. It is the attitude and the intent. Grubb and Ken Temple are both excellent examples of those who set forth a vigorous disagreement, with respect, cordiality, and classiness. I'm sure I speak for all the non-Protestant Christians here when I say that we greatly respect and admire that (and other Protestants do that here, too; I am singling these two out because they have been the most vocal and regular Protestant "dissident voices").
So that is two more "no" votes. The actual "polling booth" is in the post at the bottom of the blog. I'll record these votes there.
Gee Dave, how do you interpret my self-deprecating humor as a personal insult toward you? Are that you that obseessed with your own sense of self martyrdom? Wow!
But as long as you enjoy being the victim I, in a spirit of generosity will provide plenty of cheese to go with your whine.
Blessings,
Why don't you respond to Phil Johnson? The last link in this post:
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/200...th-
feeling.html
Why don't you respond to Phil Johnson? The last link in this post:
Who are you talking to here Dave?
Serious question, Dave: is this ignoring of me limited to this blog or does it extend to any other blogs or discussion boards we may run into one another at?
I'm just seeking clarification. Thanks very much.
Greg, Dave Armstrong. Follow the link. Phil Johnson directly referenced Dave Armstrong.
cparks,
There is always the possibility of discussion if both parties are willing. For starters, you need to drop your arrogant pretense of assuming that everything I say and argue is immediately hypocritical and insincere and that no reasonable person could possibly think otherwise.
That would be a nice development, wouldn't it? If everything I could possibly say (i.e., unless you agree with it, in which case it becomes profoundly true) is dismissed before I even express it, what conceivable reason would motivate me to play that game?
I don't know what your problem is, but I don't participate in silly, fruitless "discussion." If you can manage to put together an entire, coherent, non-insulting "critique" of something of mine and actually listen to and interact with my replies then maybe something good can happen. I'm the eternal optimist, despite all the nonsense I encounter online.
The question assumes that I remain who I am. Could you please answer whether you plan on ignoring me just here or elsewhere as well? Thanks.
No dice, cparks. I've carefully answered your questions about 20 times now only to get this juvenile nonsense back. I have only so much patience (and I am a very patient man). That was your last shot at normal, civilized discourse with me.
I've put up with your arrogant posts, asinine potshots, silly mockings and taunts and game-playing, pompous pontifications, double standards, condescension, stupid satires where I supposedly want to "kick Jesus' %#$", patronizing tripe; and despite all, you are even allowed to post here.
But I'm through with you as long as you continue to act like an ass, as you have been doing (that includes here, other blogs and websites, other planets and universes).
Is that clear enough for you?
(that includes here, other blogs and websites, other planets and universes).
See, that wasn't so hard was it? Thank you for the clarification.
stupid satires where I supposedly want to "kick Jesus' %#$",
For the record, it wasn't me who did that. It was my coadmin. I took it down as soon as I saw it because I only wanted to be held responsible for the things I was responsible for.
credit cards problems credit cards problems credit cards problems // option arm mortgage calculator option arm mortgage calculator option arm mortgage calculator
Commenting by HaloScan
