Thanks for the ground rules Professor.
In the Autumn sky,
Wild geese align with the stars,
To find their way home.
Datza lotta rulz. Hope this blog doesn't turn into a carbon copy of Akin's. Jimmy Akin is a good man, but there's a personality difference that keeps me from doing anything more than lurking there occasionally. Too much trekkie-tittering, not enough hurly-burly. Guess I'm more the Bill Donohue type.
Not rude to call people heretics and apostates I guess? Or to talk of "fags" and "queers"?
Viele danke, as the pope would say (I overuse that line, but, you know, it's better than overusing other phrases, you know?)
Philip:
"Clarity with Charity" seems to be the order of the day. Good. May I address the specific question Fr. O'Leary presents here thusly, for possible inclusion in an updated version of the rules?
Terms which are accurate descriptions of reality (that is, are objectively true rather than mere ad hominem) are entirely welcome, even if their use may be deemed offensive in other contexts.
I'm a great believer in bloggers being able to do whatever they want on their own blogs. But I think the business of rules is a mistake. It seems to me that, with exceptions like the pastoral one where you probably SHOULD turn off the comments right from the start, people should be left to discuss, shout, go on at length, etc. Readers can sort through these things and I have never had any trouble doing so on your blog or any other. Since you've only had to ban one person, it seems that you don't really NEED any rules.
Or at least you should be very lax in enforcing them.
Heavily moderated comments tend to be DULL and full of praise for the blogger and other forms of inspidity. There is no perfection under the sun. If you don't want the hurly-burly, it's better just to turn the thing off and let people read you straight, like on Dappled Things. But I BET that a lot more people would READ Dappled Things if they got the chance to read some comments, too.
Fr. O'Leary, for example is GRAND! Wrong 90% of the time and goes on at great length, but SUCH as shame if you drove him away. Let's excommunicate him by all means (I mean it politely because seriously--I'd love to have him over for dinner, but I'm not sure if he belongs in the same Church), but let's not drive him away from the Comments Section! Let's bring on Hans Kung and Bishop Williamson, too!
Two comments, the first in response to Chris Garton-Zavesky, the second in response to Jeff:
Chris: you make an excellent point, one which C.S. Lewis once made in response to someone who protested his use of what she called his "profane" language. He responded that when he was using words like "damn" and "hell" quite seriously to say exactly what he meant, he saw nothing wrong in their use at all. In fact, he suggested, their use could be quite salutary and respectful by way of offering due warning concerning the way things really are. People really can be "damned" to "hell." Some people, if we are to believe Scripture (God knows who they are), actually do face the real prospect of becoming "damned sinners," etc. So, yes, terms that are accurate descriptions of reality rather than mere ad hominems (the latter being mere exercises in rudeness), would seem to be quite permissible.
Jeff: Your point is exceedingly well taken. I worried about this too. Despite the rules, I think you will continue to notice a considerable difference between this blog and Jimmy Akin's. Further, you may note from an examination of the rules that the really operatively significant ones are the first three, which have to do with manners -- avoiding rudeness, being concise, to-the-point, and not "dumping" -- using the comment boxes to paste large quantities of extraneous material or pursue one's own hobby horses without regard to the topic at hand, etc. I intend to monitor these things a bit more carefully. However, as in the past, I will continue to bend over backward to accommodate controversy, as long as a modicum of courtesy is observed and Fr. O'Leary doesn't fag (fatigue) our readers with his sometimes overly queer (strange) nonsense.
Cheers,
PB
Pb, have I ever accused you of spouting queer nonsense? Maybe I have, but if so I apologize for my rudeness.
I too would hate to see Fr Joe leave (although at moments I have wished for nothing more). However, I wouldn't mind seeing less of him.
Numbered comments would help a lot: I can't believe that Jeff has "never had any problem" sorting through Fr Joe's hundreds of shotgun blurts and extended orations for that one thought to which he wished to respond at the moment -- numbered quotes that were actually referred to by commenters in their responses to others would help a lot. Self-discipline (in my own case as much as anyone else's) would help even more.
On Father Joe:
I think this is a good place for him to be. If only we were better people--and I the chief of the sinners--it would be an even better one.
Ralph:
I've not taken Fr. Joe's bits as seriously as you have. He reminds me a bit of Dave Armstrong in the vast tide of words that he can produce.
I didn't mean that it was all perfectly organized and I could find my way to any quote without difficulty. I just meant that I didn't have any trouble figuring out what I wanted to skip and what I wanted to read. I never felt I needed a "moderator" to make the comments sufferable.
"Datza lotta rulz" is right. But, "datza" also the price of fame. To put it another way, professor, when you're the best, everybody wants a piece of you. And occasionally somebody's gotta have a piece over and over again, till der ain't no more pieces left, datza right?
And after all, with all those papers to grade, a man's gotta draw the line somewhere, and you have, for the right reasons.
So, datza why da resta youse bums gotsa have a lotta rulz, see???
Who let Jar-Jar Binks in here?
Commenting by HaloScan
