Tag Archives: blog

I finally found a Sojourners / “God’s Politics” blog post I agree with . . .

. . . but when I went to post an affirming comment I found out I was banned!  (the post was So, Am I a Reductionist? – Aaron Taylor – God’s Politics Blog)  They didn’t even offer an explanation, but it is pretty obvious what the reason was.

The Sojourners / God’s Politics blog moderator has the thinnest skin I’ve seen.  I was amazingly polite, yet firm, in pointing out their logical fallacies and how their pro-legalized abortion views are the opposite of social justice.  I pointed out how Wallis’ definition of the Gospel (“all about” wealth redistribution) disagree with what the Bible teachers — and ironically, the post I liked had the real definition of the Gospel.

I knew they taught a false gospel, but I’m disappointed that they are so gutless as to ban people who disagree with them.  Time after time I would follow the commenting guidelines while the “tolerant” progressive would get personal, make up “facts,” etc.

Pathetic hypocrites.


Warning: Blatant self promotion coming up.

The Wintery Knight, one of my top 5 favorite blogs (maybe top 3), linked to a post of mine and noted this:

NOTE: Comments will be strictly filtered for this post. Neil is a lot more lenient than I am, so you may want to comment on his site instead if you think your comment is too harsh.

Everyone be sure to remember that Neil is lenient in his commenting policy. 

But wait, that isn’t what one of my SuperFans (TM) says:

but we do know that Simpson won’t allow contrary opinions at his blog, especially if they show him to be incontrovertibly in error.

No contrary opinions?  That is far beyond a mistake for a guy obsessed with my posts and comment threads.  When I called him on it he said this:

No, Neil, I didn’t say you don’t allow any dissent. I said you especially don’t allow dissent that is clear, precise, and shows you definitely in the wrong.

Oddly, Ed wasn’t clear or precise enough to realize that his own comments in the same thread flatly contradicted his statement and proved that he was definitely in the wrong.   

And that was quite an insult to Ryan, Racing Boo, Merkum, DJBA (when we disagree), Mizclark, Fox and more.  Seems that Ed doesn’t think you are very accurate commenters! I’d provide a link so you all could go whale on him, but I don’t feed trolls, I starve them.  More about Ed’s follies here.

Ah, the joys of blogging!

And they wonder why they got banned . . .

Update: I can’t believe I forgot to mention Ed, the unrepentant liar and vile libeler who claims to be Christian but who everyone mistakes for an atheist when they read his views.  He is the poster boy for time-wasting, bizarre commenters.

He was the first person I banned from commenting because he couldn’t stop committing logical fallacies and insisting that if you dare to question Darwinian evolution then you are like Joseph Stalin and are preventing cures for cancer (seriously, he stands behind those views).  A commenter reminded me about Ed today so I updated this. 

Apparently Ed said I was a totalitarian!  I didn’t even know I was part of the government, that my little blog was the only game in town and that by moderating bizarre commenters would be considered censorship.  Go figure!  And what is truly amazing is that Ed and other Liberals aren’t going completely insane over the truly un-Constitutional behavior of Obama & Co.

I keep pointing out how ironic it is that he pretends to be pro-science yet deliberately ignores the scientific fact that a new human life is created at conception.  He apparently likes abortion more than he likes science, logic and consistency.


I went to clean out my WordPress sp*m filter and was surprised to see that one of my “fans” has still been leaving comments.  How amusing!  The latest one was a rant about how I didn’t condemn the murder of George Tiller in my post about him.  Apparently the commenter has difficulty reading, because I specifically wrote, “As Melinda noted at Stand to Reason, Killing Abortionists Is Wrong. Period.”   I sometimes wonder if people blog while intoxicated.

I’ve deleted his other comments without reading them, along with the foreign language and other sp*m comments.  I’m used to seeing lots of links come in from these sites of former commenters but can’t see why someone would keep posting comments that no one will ever read. Seems kinda obsessive.  What is it about people who wear out their welcome here? 

The good news is that folks I’ve banned still read regularly.  It is a best case scenario: They can’t resist the wisdom here 😉 and I don’t have to read their heresies and inanities. 

I am patient to a fault with commenters but have had to ban quite a few for consistent violations of the commenting policy.  I run into them at other blogs at times, which can be awkward.  That typically sends them into even mored unhinged-ness in their comments. 

Here are a few of my (non) favorites.

The same guy from above recently mocked my use of a dictionary explain the word in question (“theologian”) at another blog.  I used a very precise definition and it matched the dictionary, but that wasn’t enough for him.  Oh, and there have been his threats of physical violence, vulgar references to female anatomy, mockery of the Bible, self-worship of his own “reason,” etc.  on other posts.  He’ll be a typical liberal preacher whom God will use as a judgment on others who don’t really want the truth but who want to feel “churchy.” 

Just so you won’t think I’m making this up, here’s the dialogue:

Neil: A theologian is simply a person versed in theology. I don’t use that term in the sense of one who has degrees and is a professional theologian, but as anyone who is claiming to think carefully about God.

Liberal Theologian: Oh. OK. Of course, you make up your own definitions. Fake!

Neil: Re. being “fake” for claiming using the term theologian means someone versed in theology:

the⋅o⋅lo⋅gian  /ˌθiəˈloʊdʒən, -dʒiən/ [thee-uh-loh-juhn, -jee-uhn] –noun – a person versed in theology

Apparently the folks at Dictionary.com are fakes as well.


Then there’s another long time fan who lied by saying I banned him for being gay.  I knew he was gay from other blogs, long before I started mine.  He bragged about such things as gay camping, what with its naked guys in a pool checking out each other’s equipment, fluid sleeping arrangements, tubes of lube on the picnic tables, etc. on his blog when he wasn’t busy pretending to be an orthodox Christian on conservative blogs.  I don’t think he liked having this inconsistency pointed out.

He wasn’t banned for being gay, but for nitpickiness.  The final straw was when I used a common definition of postmodern in a post.  He objected to it.  I showed him evidence for my view, including a book on the topic with the definition I used.  He spent a couple more rounds insisting I was wrong.  A guy named Hank (God rest his blogging soul) pointed out what I’d overlooked: This guy was a complete waste of my time. 

When they can’t even concede dictionary definitions, it is time to move on.

Another example was a lady who appeared to be an otherwise very nice person but who goes a little unhinged on certain religious and other topics and either deliberately or reflexively misstates the views of others.  I find that to be very unproductive and avoid it as best I can. 

My all time favorite comment from her was one criticizing the IRD (The Institute of Religion and Democracy) for supposedly going after churches that “objected to policies such as funding death squads that, among other things, raped and murdered three nuns and killed a Priest.” 

It was an attack the media would be proud of.  After all, you just need to link one fact (the IRD criticized some churches for something) and a completely unrelated fact (those churches opposed the raping and murdering of nuns — duh!) and you can make it look like the IRD was somehow pro-nun killing and raping.  And that even assumes that her facts were correct. That is great for productive dialogue, eh?  A few rounds of that was enough for me.

Also, she often brought up people I’ve never heard of who sounded like bad examples of Christianity and acted as if I needed to defend them.  Uh, sure, I’ll get right on that.


Perhaps the ultimate example was a guy who emailed my pastor.  I am not making this up.  He was trying to exercise Matthew 18 (resolving issues when a brother in Christ sins against you).  Of course, he completely begged the question because my alleged “sin” was my uncertainty about whether this guy was indeed my brother.  Matthew 18 was not in play.  And either way, that was just creepy of him.  I had banned him from commenting after literally 400 comments over a short period of time.  It took multiple requests for him to finally stop emailing me. 


That’s just a sample — one of the downsides of an otherwise enjoyable hobby.

If you like to spend time with multiple threads of comments rebutting inanities like that, then be my guest.  I’ve got better things to do.

With people like these folks I’m content to trust Proverbs 26:2: Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse does not come to rest.  My only regret was not banning them earlier, just like you’d ignore people at work or in your neighborhood who were beyond reason.  I hope they get saved someday but for now it is pearl holding / dust shaking time.

What do you all do to move people along when the conversations get that ridiculous?