Dave,
Did you or did you not know that we have a strict commenting policy before entering into the discussions at EvCath? If you did not, then that's not my problem, as our guidelines are clearly given. If you did, then what are you whining about? As it is, not a single one of your comments has been deleted, so you can't rightly complain about being silenced. If you don't want to engage in discussions which attempt to avoid a combatative tone, then that is your decision, but don't complain when we say that we are going to actually enforce the rules we've set.
And, fyi, out of all the comments we've deleted at our blog thus far, only ONE has been left by someone advocating a Roman Catholic perspective, so to insinuate that this is a case of Protestants wanting to silence Roman Catholic opinions is ridiculous.
You are welcome at our blog to voice any opinion about a subject of discussion you want. What you are not welcome to do is antagonize the contributors as you did in the last couple sentences of your last response to me.
In the early 60's Dr Robert McAfee Brown and Fr Gustave Weigel proposed the following rules for ecumenical dialogue. Perhaps they might be of help to you and your dialogue partners:
The first rule established the starting point, i.e., the assumption that the other partner is speaking in good faith. Trust rather than antagonism undergirds the process of dialogue.
The second guideline was an expectation that participants enter into discussion with a clear understanding of their own faith. Dialogue does not entail the compromise of religious convictions. It does require that participants be informed.
A third norm stipulated that each partner in dialogue strive for a clear understanding of each other’s faith.
Two corollaries are derived from this rule. 1) The first corollary involves a mutual willingness to interpret “the faith of each other in its best light rather than its worst.” This maxim has been called “the principle of benevolent interpretation.” 2) A second corollary calls for participants to be disposed to revise their understanding of the positions of others. Caricatures and stereotypes die slow deaths!
The fourth rule called for accepting responsibility for the past and present fostering of and the perpetuating of divisions. Humility and repentance should be characteristic virtues of partners in dialogue.
The fifth rule acknowledged the need to face issues causing separation with candidness. Dr. Brown and Father Weigel noted that the destruction of dialogue can emanate from two extremes: a sentimentality which disguises a false charity of a cynicism which hardens separation.
The sixth and last rule was explicitly theological. The search for Christian unity is ultimately a gift of the Spirit. The outcome of ecumenical conversations must be left in the hands of God, not to the preconceived notions of the participants. Dialogue must be offered to God with the trust that God will disclose the next step in the ecumenical undertaking.
Hi Fr. Kimel,
I wholeheartedly agree with those "rules" and I believe that I applied them in my end in this latest unfortunate round of attempted dialogue.
Also, in my opinion I did not violate the guidelines, which I read. Here they are, for my readers:
http://evangelicalcatholicity.wo...for-commenting/
These state, for example:
"And any questioning of the purity of another’s motives or intentions will never be allowed, and may result in one being banned from commenting permanently if repeated."
I didn't do this at all, but Jonathan certainly did, thus violating his own rules, when he wrote:
"Your reactionary stance here is not appreciated."
"Unlike some, I don’t spend a whole lot of time figuring out what profound topics to write on next so that people can be convinced of how right I am."
The guidelines also state:
"Playful remarks will be allowed, but antagonistic sarcasm will not. If you are making a comment in good fun but this is not clearly spelled out for the moderator, your comment will be deleted without hesitation. We intend this forum to be irenic in tone and catholic in spirit."
Now, as so often on the Internet, there is a glaring double standard. Jonathan and others can take potshots at the Catholic Church but we mustn't utter a peep in protest and do a similar criticism back. Then we're threatened with deletion and it is implied that we broke the rules, whereas they did not. And so Laurence Wells can refer to an:
"unBiblical notion that proper restitution can be commuted into other actions: so many Hail Marys, so many pilgrimages, so many nocturnal visits to the Blessed Sacrament, etc. That is why the Reformation was necessary and still relevant."
Tim can write: "a million or more years off your time in Purgatory for piously viewing a certain collection of relics"
And Jonathan can take a shot at "paying a certain amount of money, or gazing at a skull," . . .
They can take these shots and remark about how the "Reformation" is so necessary, yet if I say the slightest thing back, the attitude problem is supposedly mine. What I did was find points of unity and then I gave Scripture (eight related Pauline passages) to try to see how they interpreted them. Since a shot was taken at Catholicism, I offered a "playful" one back (which is permitted):
"I submit, then, that what is 'necessary' is not so much the “Reformation” but for Protestants to be more biblical and especially 'Pauline.'"
If the Protestant can claim the Reformation was so necessary, why cannot we have the right to say that maybe it was not, and that other things were necessary? Why is that supposedly disrespectful and derogatory whereas the other guys can take their boilerplate swipes at Catholic penitential practices and the inevitable derision of relics, but that is "catholic and irenic"?
I was far more respectful of the people at EvCath than Jonathan has been to me in this thread.
Nor was Jonathan the only one who has not always been "irenic in tone and catholic in spirit" -- as the Guidelines say. E.g., Gabe Martini wrote in comments for his "Truth, Tradition, and Catholicity (part two)" thread (comment #7):
----------------------
Yes, the Roman position on Tradition does shackle further exegesis and it does appear idolatrous in certain ways. As does the Eastern position.
For example, the veneration of icons, Mary, and so forth are all condemned in “plain words” by the text of Holy Scripture — yet, the Tradition of the Roman or Eastern Churches trumps those words with their own.
----------------------------------
This is "catholic"? So now iconoclasm becomes the "catholic" position, despite what the historic Church decided long ago, in the 8th century? And we (and the Orthodox: some 1.5 billion people) get to be accused of idolatry yet again? But I'm the one who has to be threatened with comment deletion . My method can be blasted, but I can't criticize presuppositional method, as I did.
How about Gabe's comment #15? Check out how "irenic and catholic" this remark is:
-------------------
This is why I’m a Protestant and could never be Roman or Eastern in my Christian life. Why? Because to return back to the Roman or Eastern view is to forsake all of the development that has taken place within Christ’s Church since the Reformation. It is to turn off my brain and follow Tradition with blinders on, to be blunt, ignoring the plain words of Scripture confirmed to me to be true by the work of the Holy Spirit in both myself and the Church as a whole.
--------------------------
Gabe knows where he will never go in the future. He may not claim to know everything but what he does know for sure is that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy are wrong!
I'm totally with you, Dave. I've visited Evangelical Catholicity and as I was reading, all I keep saying to myself was "people here." Let's just offer it up. I have no doubt that the Gospel for this Sunday is addressed personally to people like you. Thanks for your dedications in defending the Catholic faith. Every time I encounter people asking for Catholic infos, I always recommend yours.
Dave,
"If the Protestant can claim the Reformation was so necessary, why cannot we have the right to say that maybe it was not, and that other things were necessary? Why is that supposedly disrespectful and derogatory whereas the other guys can take their boilerplate swipes at Catholic penitential practices and the inevitable derision of relics, but that is "catholic and irenic"?"
This is ridiculous. I was very specific about what was unacceptable about your comments. I said it was the last paragraph of your last post, which was directed toward me:
"Lastly, I’m curious: can you direct me to a post where you actually do comparative exegesis with a Catholic? Or is this the presuppositionalist method again, where no one who does not share it can ever break through the bubble? Therefore, Bible verses are of little value and can be dismissed as irrelevant unless one presupposes the entire Reformed structure of belief, then it all makes sense . . ."
In my book, that is an antagonistic comment, not directed at a doctrinal error, but at a person. This is especially the case given that this is rehashing an old argument between us where I already explained to you that I value biblical discussion, but do not find a certain form of such discussion to be beneficial. You don't have to agree with my assessment in this regard, but to continue to complain about it is, honestly, pretty annoying. And to question whether or not I have in fact done what I said I've done is quite disrespectful to me personally.
Also, you have not once been warned about criticisms of the Protestant position on things, so your continued assertions that we are just taking potshots at the Catholic Church while wanting to silence any criticism which comes toward Protestantism is unfounded. What I warned you about specifically is antagonizing contributors, and I was very specific about the ONE PARAGRAPH that you wrote which was unacceptable. And even though I did find it unacceptable, I still let it pass through and gave you a warning about such comments. As I've said repeatedly, statements of the RC position and criticisms of the Protestant position are absolutely allowed. You and all Roman Catholic commenters there can attest to this, as all such comments, save one, have been permitted to pass.
I must confess that I am pretty astounded at how you are handling this. I am absolutely fine with you not showing up for the discussion there again, as my limited exposure to the way you handle this sort of thing does not give me any confidence that much by way of productive discussion can take place between us.
There is a double standard there but they are not totally silencing Catholics. They are allowed to make dismissive comments about Catholic and we are not allowed to make similar comments about Protestant thinking. They normally do try and answer Catholics but they avoid getting into the Catholic/Protestant dialogs at any length. So you can make a quick point but you can't keep picking at a hole in their logic.
I do wonder bout it. The ideas of authority and tradition come into almost every question. Most protestants want to talk about other things. I can see that. We see it as part of the endless conflict between contradictory private judgments. When I was a protestant I saw that as a way to arrive at truth. When I got disillusioned I just gave up theology altogether. Now my instinct is to go straight for the question of whose opinion can we trust. It makes the Catholic sound like a one issue thinker. But without figuring our that issue the discussion is pointless.
I don't know if it would be good to have some threads closed to question of authority and tradition. That is they can be used to prove again what the last 500 years have proved. That is that discussion between biblical Christians does not settle differences. Then you could have other threads for people who are not afraid to ask the really offensive questions. Like have we been doing it all wrong for the last 500 years.
Ummmm...my remark about "a million years off your time in Purgatory" wasn't some irrational slur on Catholic doctrine, Dave. Regrettably, I don't have 90% of my books here in Dallas with me, so I can't look references up, but I do believe Luther was actually taught some such thing about a certain collection of relics, perhaps at Rome. I'm unsure of the details, but I recall reading that somewhere. Perhaps ferreting out the truth of the report can be your next 2 month research project.
In the meantime, you should stop complaining, because Evangelical Catholicity, like Reformed Catholicism, was NOT started to provide a forum for "same old, same old" Catholic VS. Protestant apologetics. I guess it's difficult for you to understand, having devoted your whole adult life to apologetics, but some people just really aren't all that interested in constant conflict. My post on Jerome's choice of words was in no way an apologetics post. It was a question of historical theology, nothing more, nothing less. Had you not waded in with your six guns blazing in defense of orthodox biblically evidential Catholicism, maybe things would have turned out differently.
I was very specific about what was unacceptable about your comments. I said it was the last paragraph of your last post, which was directed toward me:
"Lastly, I’m curious: can you direct me to a post where you actually do comparative exegesis with a Catholic? Or is this the presuppositionalist method again, where no one who does not share it can ever break through the bubble? Therefore, Bible verses are of little value and can be dismissed as irrelevant unless one presupposes the entire Reformed structure of belief, then it all makes sense . . ."
In my book, that is an antagonistic comment, not directed at a doctrinal error, but at a person.
That's sheer nonsense. How is it that I refer to a "method" and you somehow read that as directed towards you personally? Certainly you can grasp the distinction between method and person. My exasperation came after repeated examples of my providing biblical support for my argument, only to be met with "that proves absolutely nothing"; "unless you presuppose Catholic authority, it doesn't mean what you say at all"; "people have different interpretive grids"; "you're just prooftexting and I'm sick of that from my own fundamentalist past" and so forth and so on. Anything but actually MAKE an exegetical argument. You guys don't want to do that. If you disagree, TELL ME WHY. Use your brain that God gave you. You have the theological education. Why should that be so unappealing to you, to discuss Scripture? Who cares what stripe of Christian the pother guy is? We all have the Bible in common. So why can't we TALK about biblical passages and arguments derived therefrom, rather than talking about talking about talking about the Bible but never actually DOING it? It drives me crazy, as is obvious by now.
And so, fed up with this repeatedly expressed lack of interest in discussing Scripture, I simply wondered (trying to understand the reasoning) if this was due to presuppositionalism. That's no more offensive than all the potshots against Catholicism. Granted, I put it in a pointed way, but no more so than many other posts. It is the being singled out, with the double standard in moderation applied, that is so ridiculous.
This is especially the case given that this is rehashing an old argument between us where I already explained to you that I value biblical discussion, but do not find a certain form of such discussion to be beneficial.
You haven't shown ME that you value any discussion of Bible texts with a Catholic, which is precisely why I asked you if you had ever done it. But you took that as an insult. I wanted to see if you EVER did this because it seemed like you had a strong resistance to it. But you refused to direct me to any such discussions. If they exist, that would be simple enough, but if you think it is a stupid question (which it was not at all) that would explain your reaction.
You don't have to agree with my assessment in this regard, but to continue to complain about it is, honestly, pretty annoying.
You're keeping the discussion going in this combox. The title of my post is exactly descriptive of what I have experienced: " Failed Attempted Dialogue". But what I stated is no more annoying than my continued attempts to discuss Scripture, with no one over there seeming to want to do so unless it is with a fellow Protestant. That is supremely frustrating to me (though very common indeed online).
And to question whether or not I have in fact done what I said I've done is quite disrespectful to me personally.
I merely wondered if you could point me to an example where you discussed scripture with a Catholic.But you had to get angry about it and threaten deletions over vainly imagined personal attacks. You need to develop a thicker skin. The nonsense that has gone on at RefCath for months has gotten to you, I guess, and you have become oversensitive and cynical.
Also, you have not once been warned about criticisms of the Protestant position on things, so your continued assertions that we are just taking potshots at the Catholic Church while wanting to silence any criticism which comes toward Protestantism is unfounded.
I stated:
"I don't participate -- as a matter of principle -- in venues that threaten deletion at the drop of a hat."
I used to comment on two anti-Catholic sites: Beggars All and Thoughts of Turretin. Once they deleted my comments I no longer do that. It is a principle. If I'm not allowed to speak freely (as I allow folks to do here) I refuse to speak at all, out of protest. On this blog I don't have to police people and threaten to delete their comments and take things personally. There is no need to do that here; never has been. We've had intelligent, amiable discussion on this blog for almost four years now, whereas you guys are now fighting amongst yourselves, with the big controversy over RefCath.
Just because you in the so-called "Reformed Catholic" or "evangelical catholic" world can't carry on such discussions without rancor and in-fighting doesn't mean everyone else on the Internet suffers from the same shortcoming. I have posted nearly 500 debates with people of many many different beliefs. My record in discussion is clear, and documented.
I'm interested in discussing things with people who have a little thicker skin and don't have to be sensitive and legalistic just because someone disagrees with them. That just ain't happening on your blog, so I'm not interested anymore. I gave it a shot and it went nowhere. But if I have to worry about my comments being deleted because I criticize the method of my opponent (not he himself) then, to me, that is too much of a hassle and ruins what should and could have been a fun and constructive thing.
People don't do that in "real life" conversations. This is the problem. On the Internet folks often get all hung up about rudimentary politeness and perceived insults.
What I warned you about specifically is antagonizing contributors, and I was very specific about the ONE PARAGRAPH that you wrote which was unacceptable.
I deny that it is unacceptable, and it is no worse than several comments by Gabe Martini and others that I have already documented. It's a double standard. You are disallowing a criticism of presuppositional method. I and 1.5 billion other Catholics and Orthodox can be derisively referred to as idolaters (which is an issue of the heart and a very serious sin indeed) but I can't criticize presuppositional method? Good grief! Why should that be different from your criticisms of what you perceived to be my "prooftexting" method?
And even though I did find it unacceptable, I still let it pass through and gave you a warning about such comments.
How magnanimous of you. But that is beside the point. The warning itself was absurd. I believe that you warned me and have acted as you have because you have an image of me (as many do) as a certain kind of person: a rabble-rouser and trouble-maker and controversialist. Some of that comes from my history of being banned at RefCath, and my long quarrel with Tim Enloe (that is now resolved). It's a bum rap. Sure, I get into controversies, but they are rarely of my own making. People don't like what I say, and then I am in yet another controversy (as now); not by my choice at all. But I have this quality of not taking any crap, too, so I tend to get in a LOT of trouble once this begins, because I plainly speak my mind and denounce what I think is wrong (with lots of reasons and facts presented), and that gets one VERY unpopular real quick. So here I am again!
As I've said repeatedly, statements of the RC position and criticisms of the Protestant position are absolutely allowed. You and all Roman Catholic commenters there can attest to this, as all such comments, save one, have been permitted to pass.
That's not my beef, as is clear by now. I'm looking for intelligent, non-legalistic discussion with Protestants, and I haven't found it on your new blog. I think that's sad, and I'm disappointed, but I can't say that it surprises me.
Then the talk of deletions comes in . . . I'm sick and tired of that. This is why I stopped writing on discussion boards about four years ago. Blogs are not far behind in their silliness, when it comes to discussion between different positions.
I must confess that I am pretty astounded at how you are handling this.
Great. Maybe you'll figure out what I am protesting then, if you're so astounded.
I am absolutely fine with you not showing up for the discussion there again, as my limited exposure to the way you handle this sort of thing does not give me any confidence that much by way of productive discussion can take place between us.
That was already shown in the silly responses I received to what I thought were serious and substantive points (and ones that actually were in areas of what I thought were commonality). I've tried to build bridges with you guys but it never seems to work (excepting the reconciliation with Tim). It's in your interest to keep emphasizing differences with Catholicism (often, imaginary ones, as presently).
I've criticized shortcomings in "Internet discussion method" and moderation for years now. This is only one of a long line of such incidents that I am fed up with. It's a very minor incident in and of itself, but I'm so sick to death of double standard moderating that I wrote about it once again.
I already stated in my replies on apostolic succession:
"I’m approaching this from a perspective of, 'this is my position on this biblical text, from my Catholic perspective. What’s yours?' But if no one is interested, I won’t be here long and won’t bother you."
That has come to pass. We disagree on how Christians go about discussing differences. It's as simple as that. I want to make it a biblically-based discussion; so far you and the others there who have replied to me have shown no willingness at all to do that. So I just ain't interested.
The threatened deletion thing was just the straw that broke the camel's back (and happened to hit on one of my pet peeves about Internet discussion). That's why you're so mystified about it because you fail to see the larger picture of what I object to.
Best wishes in your endeavors, though. I won't be there, but I'm sure you'll find other Catholics to dismiss and deride and ignore (as, e.g., Bryan Cross was treated at RefCath), if they plainly express Catholic distinctives that you don't like.
Meanwhile, we engage with good discussions with Protestants on this blog every day, without having to threaten to delete comments if they criticize Catholicism (and they DO, believe me).
Why is it that we can do that here but you can't on your blog? That's what you should ask yourself, whatever you think of me.
I guess it's difficult for you to understand, having devoted your whole adult life to apologetics, but some people just really aren't all that interested in constant conflict.
Tim, why is it that all you can see is "apologetics" and supposed interest in "constant conflict" (that I detest and despise every bit as much as you do, so that you, of all people, with what you have gone through with irrational critics, should understand this) when in fact my intentions were very much ecumenical and "common ground" in my replies? I did the following:
1) Made an argument from the Latin grammar from my friend John that was extremely relevant to your post, but you and everyone else ignored it. That's common ground.
2) I admitted that "do penance" was probably an instance of Catholic bias. That ain't creating division. It is agreeing with what many Protestants would contend!
3) I noted how recent Catholic translations have "repent", which shows that we are closer to you than many might think.
4) I tried to establish that the Catholic notion of "penance" is really not all that different from the Protestant "repent."
It was not I, but you guys who insisted on accentuating essential differences in this regard when there really are a lot less than supposed, complete with boilerplate swipes at Catholic penitential beliefs ("skulls" and so forth). Yet you want to accuse me of being divisive, which is the exact opposite of the truth. I was not the one who introduced the same old polemics into the discussion. It was your good buddy Kevin Johnson and Laurence Wells, if anyone.
I only brought in the Pauline texts when the discussion was going away from common ground and into typical Catholic-Protestant territory. So I asked, "what do you do with these verses, that seem to back up what I'm saying?" But I'm a bad boy when I bring up Scripture. I mustn't do that when talking to Protestants (how ironic, huh?). No one over there seems to want to discuss Scripture, and then we're back to my befuddlement at the odd reluctance of Reformeds to talk about the Bible.
You have made it clear many times that you yourself don't want to discuss biblical exegesis. Now I'm discovering that this seems to be the case with virtually everyone at EvCath. That's your choice, but it takes me out of the discussion, because I am almost always biblically oriented in my argument, where doctrinal differences are involved.
I have carefully explained my reasoning in this whole stink. You can either accept it or not. But I won't stand by and have both my supposed motivation and even what I actually wrote and maintained, distorted with this asinine insinuation that my motivation was to perpetuate "constant conflict" and that my emphasis was solely apologetic and polemical or that my argument made there was simply "six guns blazing in defense of orthodox biblically evidential Catholicism."
Anyone reading the actual discussion (i.e., if one is not inclined to judge me out of hand according to the critical caricatures of what I am supposedly about), can see -- I'm quite confident -- that this was not the case.
The trouble with many Reformed folks is that they seem constitutionally unable to criticize their own methodologies. You have done a lot of this yourself, but in this instance you need to look at what happened in this thread again, and if you give me the slightest benefit of the doubt as to ecumenical (rather than polemical) motivation, I think you'd see things a bit differently. If an argument is made that I think can be defeated from scripture, I cite Scripture. I'm weird that way. I'm sorry that I value God's revelation so much. I'll have to try my best to do that less.
Just delete the Bible verses and read everything else that I argued, and I think you'll get it.
Again, I profusely apologize for introducing vigorous attempted exegetical discussion of Bible passages onto your new blog. I'm very sorry, but it won't happen again, at any rate, as my participation is at an end.
Dave,
Well... I suppose the best thing to do at this point is to admit that we are at an impasse and let our brief exchange cease. We apparently see things completely differently, both with regard to this exchange in particular and with regard to the types of discussions we see as being beneficial and/or productive uses of our time.
I'll just anwer your last question:
"Why is it that we can do that here but you can't on your blog? That's what you should ask yourself, whatever you think of me."
I can't necessarily speak for the other contributors there, but the two main reasons for me are quite simple:
I've experienced far too many internet discussions which have degenerated into full-on wars of vitriolic nonsense, and I am not willing for one second to allow that to happen at EvCath. If it does begin happening, I will immediately cease all internet activity entirely, plain and simple. This is actually my last attempt to have a venue on which to interchange thoughts over the internet with others without getting sick to my stomach over the unChristian direction which the discussions take. If the price I have to pay for this is having to hear accusations of having a "legalistic" moderation policy, and similar charges, then so be it. To me, this is a better alternative than wasting my time in meaningless pissing matches.
And, on a lighter note, I honestly don't have a whole lot of time to devote to these discussions, so I have to be very selective about the topics and types of discussions I choose to engage in.
I'm saying that directing this vigilance for enabling good discussion through moderation was entirely misplaced when directed against me. And my record of discussion here and all my online debates bear witness to that.
So do the moderation thing if you must, but don't alienate folks who want to engage in good discussion and are thoroughly ecumenical too.
I'm not the one trying to create divisions. You can look to people like Kevin Johnson and Josh Strodtbeck, your old friends at RefCath, who specialize in those things (which is why y'all decided to split from them and make your own blog.
If you want to have in-depth biblical discussion with Catholics, you know where you can come. You won't be censored or lectured or condescended to by anyone, and we don't have urinating matches here; we have solid, respectful discussion.
What is Evangelical Catholicity and Reformed Catholicism? I dont think you can hijack the name of the Church in Rome bulit on top of St.Peter tomb. The Church never went away so you dont have to reivent the wheel. There was no apotasy. There were no underground little churches that taught tulp or Calvin , Luther. 1000 years from now there will still be the Catholic Church, its a miracle it's still here.
"Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place....Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present....Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church."
Council of Ephesus,Session III (A.D. 431),in GILES,252
Mr. Bonomo says:
"I've experienced far too many internet discussions which have degenerated into full-on wars of vitriolic nonsense, and I am not willing for one second to allow that to happen at EvCath."
I would applaud him for wanting to keep things on a even tone, but I've never seen things get to such a point on Dave's blog.
From what I have seen on blogs such as Dave's and others is that the tone of the moderator sets the tone for the discussions. Dave allows and expounds upon divergent thoughts, opinions, etc. but does so in an ecumenical, but sometimes pointed tone. In this way one can maintain respect for someone even if there is disagreement. Sadly, Mr. Bunomo professes a slight lack of confidence in his ability to do the same as evidenced by the knee-jerk reaction.
In Truth,
Matthew
Commenting by HaloScan
