This made me chuckle. Because what Madrid did is totally different from, you know, establishing a blog on the internet and publishing on controversial topics and then requiring registration, heavily screening, and refusing to publish a significant amount of critical comments from numerous readers while choosing to remain pseudonymous and refusing to provide credentials. It’s completely different! Wholly unlike that other thing altogether, I tell you! Not even in the same ballpark. No sir.
May 19, 2009...7:17 am
Irony of ironies
Jump to Comments
11 Comments
May 19, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Turretinfan claims (as is his wont) that I missed the point of his critique. I did not.
Furthermore, who enabled comment moderation at Thoughts of Francis Turretin, the internet fairy? TF did, with perfectly understandable reason. To pretend that that’s not a “registration” requirement for posting comments is (as is becoming something of a habit with him) disingenuous.
Neither did I “miss” that TF doesn’t hide his arguments; I never suggested otherwise and indeed, take him up on those very public arguments with some frequency.
TF wants to make hay about my usage of a moniker (designed to call to mind that we are all fellow laborers in the Lord’s household) and my supposed lack of published credentials. The reasons are simple, and straight-forward: I have never made a secret of my identity, I choose to post with the moniker for the reason I just articulated, and I don’t have any credentials that matter to anyone. I never pretend to. I don’t put myself out there as an expert, and when I delve into really complex matters or technical minutiae, I cite sources and give authority/ies for my arguments. And noone who respectfully or seriously challenges my arguments gets ignored or
assigned to the memory hole. Their comments don’t wallow in the ether unseen by anyone but me while I engage in other fora, move on to other topics, or deal with less capable critics to the exclusion of more sophisticated argumentation.
And another thing: Mr. Madrid did not start hiding his light under a bushel. As evidence, one need only turn to either of the other sites he runs where he continues his public apologetics work unabated. His books are still published. His television shows still get run on EWTN and other outlets like Youtube, e.g.
May 19, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Turretinfan demonstrated better than I could have how he is guilty of that which he accused Mr. Madrid. TF stated that by restricting access to the Speak Your Mind forum (by a process remarkably similar to, but admittedly not identical with, the one TF uses to moderate potential comments to his posts) that Mr. Madrid was somehow scurrying into the darkness to avoid the light shone upon his “deceptions” by brave, bold reformed, evangelical, or otherwise non-Catholic lightbearers. (Snarky use of the term intentional.) When I pointed out to him that there were several other venues (websites, published book, radio and television) wherein Mr. Madrid still publicly engages in his apologetic work quite visibly (not to mention handily), TF chose to leave such mention (deleterious to his criticism) unpublished amidst a string of other comments which he quickly approved. It seems apparent that he would rather concentrate on trivial errors (“mediate” instead of “moderate,” “registration” as opposed to “moderation,” etc.) and appear to retain an upper hand while chastising someone for his supposed failure to admit error than address the funadmental error (and an uncharitable one at that) in his own criticism, to wit: acknowledge that Mr. Madrid was not “turtling,” nor was he being deceptive in requiring registration to view his forum. Since TF simply asserted repeated deceptions on the part of the SYM forum, and did not offer any quotations of deceptive material, one is now left to either register and hope for approval to view the archives, or depend on TF’s say-so. I am reminded of a recent episode between TF and Mr. Bellisario regarding transubstantiation in the West and metousios in the East. The meaning was the same: both East and West hold that there is a change in the reality of the elements at synaxis and/or consecration (leaving aside further clarification concerning epiclesis, etc.) which change necessitates understanding the consecrated elements as really being Christ’s Body and Blood and further necessitates understanding the reality of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. Still, TF continued to insist that since “transubstantiation” the term was not used that Bellisario was somehow being absurd, deceptive, or disingenuous.
And now TF has left things (as of this writing) thusly: “Those two comments (and perhaps one other one earlier) hit the black hole. Not because they were crushingly perceptive, but because they further exhibit that trait which I’ve already permitted you to demonstrate sufficiently above. When you are ready to separate out your own errors from your perception of errors on my part … but I don’t think that will happen (although you acknowledged the mediation/moderation thing above, so who knows?).”
The reader is left to wonder what I said in those unpublished comments, isn’t he? Feel free to email me, and I’ll give you the gist. Hint: it involved pointing out such forest-for-the-trees attitude and hypocrisy on TF’s part.
To recap, once again, before one (pseudonymously and on a blog with comment moderation severely in effect) goes about chastising one’s theological opponents for “turtling,” while neglecting to inform one’s audience that one’s target has several other very public and very accessible outlets for his apologetics, one ought to think twice. And furthermore, when it is pointed out to one that one had engaged in such inappropriate activity, one ought not metaphorically kill the messenger. Especially by concentrating on minutiae and trivia, whether technically “erroneous” according to the letter of the law (although consistent with its spirit) or not. It makes one come across as Pharisaical.
May 19, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I am of the opinion that Russian Orthodox commentors on Turretinfan’s “Blog for Russian Speaking Peoples” have repeatedly pointed out his deceptions so often that he has been forced to turtle and requires invitation to view said blog. I have no evidence for this opinion, I proffer none, but take my word for it. He’s evil! Just go try to view that blog and you’ll see what Reformed apologetics has been reduced to!
May 19, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I think that this delicious episode is nothing but the latest in a series that raises questions about TF’s purpose with his blog, in view of his demonstrably absurd modus operandi there.
It cannot be the case that he wishes to treat Catholics respectfully as part of an effort to persuade us of our “errors.” He is too clever to be blind to the fact that he is not respectful towards us. Posts of his like the present one don’t leave much doubt that we are treated with a rather egregious double standard there, and his moderation philosophy seems to be, “whatever makes the enemies of Christ and/or their arguments look bad.” I use the word “enemies” here deliberately; I have no reason based upon his behavior to suppose that he reckons us as anything else.
All that is of course his business; it’s his blog. But I have an increasingly difficult time justifying any time keeping up with his blog given his attitude. It’s easier and less frustrating to just say, “Whatever, dude.”
Peace,
RdP
May 20, 2009 at 12:27 am
Okay, while looking for something else I happened to check TF’s profile, and when I clicked the link there for his Russian blog, you know what happened. I had to see it for myself, and I can hardly believe it.
“This blog is open to invited readers only”
Unreal. Just unreal. It’s hard to avoid the “h” word.
RdP
May 20, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Yep. See comment #3 above. Unreal is milder than my reaction. I think you have, once again, chosen the wiser course, Reginald.
May 20, 2009 at 12:31 am
It turns out that we must have been thinking the same thing, because I posted a very similar complaint as you and TF responded to me in a new post on his blog:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/05/response-to-nick-on-censorship-vs.html
I admit I didn’t see his criticism of Madrid as precisely as he stated it, I originally thought the problem was making registration difficult. However, TF is fair and correct in pointing out the editing of posts and such on Pat’s forums, that is a form of censorship and wrong in the apologetics realm. THAT SAID, my original complaint still stands, because I see moderation of posts on TF’s blog (which is focused on apologetics) on par with Madrid’s forums, though I’d go as far as to say you don’t get ‘edited’ on Pat’s forums unless you really say something out of line.
And an example of this is Art Sippo. While Art has written some good apologetics in the past, he has gone way overboard far too often to be justifiable. It makes Catholic apologetics look bad when his rants have to be edited.
May 20, 2009 at 12:47 am
Here is what I posted on TF’s blog, though I see you have already been there.
———————————————
I’d like to say first off that I DID misunderstand you, but I also think that there is more to this.
I originally thought you were focused only on the “difficult registration” aspect. It turns out you had a bigger scope than that, including editing people’s posts and such. I AGREE with you on that, such action is still wrong and has no part in apologetics discussion areas.
While I believe people like Art Sippo have written good things in the past, he has a long streak of disrespectful, slanderous and unsubstantiated rants on his record. This makes not only him look bad (as much as I hate saying this), it makes Catholic apologetics as a whole look bad. And it’s embarrassing that Pat’s forums have to “clean up” after him, resulting in this censorship issue as well.
Given that, I stand by my original claims that in apologetics outposts like your own blog, I consider it just as unfair to not allow opposing views to be immediately posted. I’m not arguing for “free speech” in general but rather in the SPECIFIC context of apologetics, especially when much of your work deals with commenting on other people. These other people should have the right to defend themself or their position on your blog. Otherwise the comment box becomes a cheer leading section rather than an apologetics tool to really prove your case.
It is very frustrating to write a response defending a given issue and then not seeing it published. This is especially offensive when posts of lesser worth/quality are allowed to be posted en masse. I don’t see the need for “moderation” at all, it simply creates an unnecessary back log of posts you must spend extra time “reviewing” as well as a delay of posting and even rejection of posting (which is a form of censorship which has no place in apologetics blogs/forums).
Lastly, this isn’t about local parishes allowing anyone to speak, because local parishes are specifically for giving their own view of the situation only. The same is not true for apologetics.
May 20, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Nick, well said.
May 23, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Here, I think, the tone of a post is a factor too. If TF had written something to the effect of, “…gosh, this doesn’t seem fair”. I think he would have gotten a more sympathetic and reasoned response from the Catholic community. When he posts things that read like, “…evil, bad, lowdown, horse stealing catholic ratface takes another breath”. It is appropriate to take him to task for the non-Christian slant of his post.
Really TF is nothing more than a rabblerouser. He has shown he has no intention to do anything more than tweak the collective Catholic noses. The best thing that could be done …for him… is to ignore him.
Hey, here’s what seems to be an intelligent (only somewhat anti-catholic) blog. I think you could have some fun, interactive conversations here.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/
May 23, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I’ll take a look, thanks!