What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Discuss current news and trends taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Moderator: William Thornton

What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby Wade Burleson » Tue May 26, 2009 4:28 pm

In over three years this is my first original post at Baptist Life. I would like to say thanks to BL for providing a forum for issues related to the Southern Baptist Convention. I find it refreshing that there is a place where people can disagree on the issues, but for the most part, the dialogue is civil. I have learned a great deal through reading comments here, received a few course corrections myself from wise words posted by contributors, including William Thornton, and have profited much.

I have a question that I would like some input in terms of others helping me understand the answer. My question is precipitated by my fellow Southern Baptist, Peter Lumpkins, blocking me today from posting on his website. He joins a number of Baptist Identity bloggers who delete comments that question their ideas. When Peter was confronted by another blogger about his tendency to delete comments that challenged his positions he responded:

For the record, to my recall I've never deleted your or anyone elses comments. Rather I unpublished them.


I laughed when I read that. But Peter has now gone further. He has blocked me from commenting on his site, and could soon join other Baptist Identity writers by closing the comment section down completely. What led to him blocking me from commenting?

Peter wrote on his website that the IMB had "specifically identified" the Baptist General Convention of Texas as a Convention eschrowing Lottie Moon funds. When I challenged Peter that his post was untruthful, he responded that he was simply parroting what he had read on another man's post. But when I showed him that the "other man" had emphatically denied that the IMB had specifically identifed the Baptist General Convention of Texas as eschrowing funds, Peter seemed to become irritated and has now blocked me from commenting further. Ironically, the post where Peter's outright lie about the IMB is found is entitled "Blogging With Integrity." (see http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2009/05/blogging-with-integrity-a-sincere-desire-to-maintain-it-by-peter-lumpkins.html

My question is a simple one. Why would Baptist Identity sites like SBC Today, or Peter Lumpkin's site, or Jeremy Green's site, or others who venture into writing for the blog world close their comment sections? Frankly, I am looking for some answers that are different from my opinion. Until someone can give me better reasons, it seems most logical to believe that these men close down comment their comment streams because they can't stand the heat of scrutiny. They seem to take the position, "Agree or else" or "Just trust us: Don't question us."

I remind my Baptist Identity friends that the blog world has created a new SBC. There is power in information, and those who keep their comment streams open, particularly to people who ask tough questions, are the blogs that have credibility. Like my friend Colonel Ron West said in a comment at Grace and Truth to You Today regarding last week's Lottie Moon fiasco:

We need to remember the situation that brought about the need for an apology is nothing new and has been repeated over and over for the last 30 years. The thing that makes this different is the fact that it took place in the blogging community. That is why blogs have been so frightening to the CR leaders ever since Wade began blogging about the IMB. The statements by Bart Barber and SBC Today were out in the blog world for all to see and provide feedback and comments. In the past the CR leaders could make statements like this and have no fear of accountability. They could ignore those who spoke the truth and demanded an apology just as SBC Today tried to do for several days. Ultimately they had no choice but to admit they were wrong or lose all creditability as a blog site.


I would suggest that if our Baptist Identity friends wish to continue to chart the course for the Southern Baptist Convention, they had better realize that Southern Baptists are no longer afraid to ask questions. The tired, old "liberal" epitath flung at those who disagree with certain SBC leaders does not work anymore. I challenge my Baptist Identity friends, including Peter Lumpkins, to open up their comment streams. Otherwise, you risk losing whatever credibility you have left with Southern Baptists as a whole.

Wade Burleson
The world is too dangerous to live in - not because of the people who do evil but because of the people who sit and let it happen.

Albert Einstein
User avatar
Wade Burleson
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Enid, Oklahoma

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby William Thornton » Tue May 26, 2009 4:45 pm

I don't understand this business of having a blog and shutting out comments. Seems to me that says to blog readers, "Here's our stuff. Take it and shut up. We are always right and your comments don't matter." SBC Today loses credibility by having such a policy, one which they have said is necessary and that they plan to continue. I don't get it.

I also have read on some of the individual blogs where various bloggers have singled out and have blocked others from making comments. Absent incivility and impropriety in comments, I don't get this either.

I join you in calling for these bloggers and sites to open up comments.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10539
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby Wade Burleson » Tue May 26, 2009 5:12 pm

Timothy Bonney wrote:IMHO, it largely depends on why you are blogging. Many bloggers want to post ideas for discussion. But, for others they aren't intending their blog to be a place to exchange views but simply to journal their own views publicly. For that reason blogging software allows for allowing or not allowing comments.

I have a tendency to think of a blog as a place for expression of one (or a group of like persons opinions) and a discussion forum such as BL.com as a place to discuss opinions. It seems to me that if someone wants to express their opinions and put up their own blog or website they have a right to decide if they want to be argued with on their own website. You can always start your own blog or discussion forum and critique their views all you want at will.

Think of a blog as your front porch. While you may invite friends in to have a chat you also get to decide who gets to be on the porch. The porch is your property and if your neighbor wants to come over and be argumentative it is your call if he gets to stay on the porch or not. Now, if your neighbor's ideas are dumb then that may be frustrating not to be able to refute him to his face but, you can always go back to your own front porch and complain about him all you like and your friends can join you in doing so. Sounds like a free country to me. :D Just because blog software allows for comments doesn't mean you have a God given right to make them on someone's blog.


Good point, Tim. I like the porch analogy.

Maybe in a few years I will be able to see in my mind's eye the SBC as one big family drinking tea on the front porch as we chat.

Right now I have more this vision of a house on fire.
The world is too dangerous to live in - not because of the people who do evil but because of the people who sit and let it happen.

Albert Einstein
User avatar
Wade Burleson
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Enid, Oklahoma

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby peter_lumpkins » Tue May 26, 2009 11:06 pm

William, Wade, et al

I apologize for this in advance. It’s long but I think needed to set the record straight. Wade Burleson is committing falsehoods on your site. He needs to be confronted. He is marring your site by bringing his skewed conversation here. I regret it. I have enjoyed the times—even if few—I have had conversations.

What is extremely frustrating from my standpoint is the fundamental disregard your guest has for factual matters. This greatly disturbs me. And I cannot believe, given the level of intelligence this man possesses, that a large part of the disregard has jack squat to do with unintentional ignorance. If I am sadly correct, this forces one to conclude Wade Burleson is intentionally mishandling information. For what purpose, I am at a loss to know.

In Wade's current quest for "some input in terms of others helping [him] understand the answer" to a question allegedly "precipitated" by me, Burleson dives right in head first making routine charges based upon such a skewed reading of the facts at hand. One wonders how in heaven's name he bears the inward burden of so many totally awkward conclusions based on sheer fabrication. Here we go:

"My question is precipitated by my fellow Southern Baptist, Peter Lumpkins, blocking me today from posting on his website." This is an absolute fabrication (I'll show you in a moment).

"He joins a number of Baptist Identity bloggers who delete comments that question their ideas." This is an outright lie. Period. I vigorously engage any and all who comment on my blog. The only ones I've ever "deleted" (more on that in a moment) are ones who cannot keep their emotional outbursts to themselves or attempt to post questionable quotations on my site (more on that too). This simply infuriates me because Wade Burleson knows darn well this is false. I challenge anyone to pillage through my past blogs and see if I appear to hide from straightforward questions. This is deceptive, cheap and totally based in unmitigated slander.

"When Peter was confronted by another blogger about his tendency to delete comments that challenged his positions he responded: 'For the record, to my recall I've never deleted your or anyone elses comments. Rather I unpublished them.' I laughed when I read that." Wade is correct as far as he goes about what I wrote, but he simply cuts it way, way too short, making it appear that's all I said and it ending with him laughing about it. I assure you, that is not what took place. Read it for yourself. Again, Burleson only tells enough to make his point, not enough to fairly treat the document he quotes.

"But Peter has now gone further. He has blocked me from commenting on his site, and could soon join other Baptist Identity writers by closing the comment section down completely." This once again is an outright lie (I will show you the records in a moment). Furthermore, even if I did "close down" my comments, why the heck is that any business of anybody else?

For the record, I'll do with my blog I write--and for which I personally fund--whatsoever I darn well please. Who is Wade Burleson to question whether I should shut down my comments? Know, however, I don't know if I would want a blog if I could not have comments.

Furthermore, I privately mentioned to some of my friends at SBC Today I thought it a mistake to close comments. But I respect their decision. And, I recognize to them the same right I just demanded of myself: it's their blog. They can do whatever they darn well please with it.

"What led to him blocking me from commenting? Peter wrote on his website that the IMB had "specifically identified" the Baptist General Convention of Texas as a Convention eschrowing Lottie Moon funds. When I challenged Peter that his post was untruthful...when I showed him that the "other man" had emphatically denied that the IMB had specifically identifed the Baptist General Convention of Texas as eschrowing funds, Peter seemed to become irritated and has now blocked me from commenting further."

Burleson wants you to believe I blocked him because he challenged me and demonstrated I was untruthful. My response was a) become irritated and b) to now block him from commenting further.

I cannot believe what I am reading. Sadly, there is no honest way I can conclude other than Wade Burleson intentionally fabricated this load of crap. I challenge anyone to go to the thread where we had this discussion and come away with the same interpretation Wade does. (http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_ ... pkins.html)

Even more telling is Wade’s continued insistence I blocked him from commenting, this time because I was allegedly threatened by Wade’s stellar logic (see the comment and you’ll get my drift). This is a game Wade has played with others at his blog, insinuating I have blocked him from commenting. Here are the raw facts from my typepad dashboard:

My site access registry shows the following IP addresses are flagged for my blog:
124.191.96.114
3/26/07
193.200.150.167
1/8/08
193.200.150.189
1/8/08
193.200.150.45
1/8/08
201.231.103.114
10/17/07
202.98.141.200
2/13/08
216.244.56.177
3/14/09
217.12.205.68
2/13/08
222.231.8.175
11/12/07
24.30.95.227
11/22/08
62.33.12.27
11/15/07
62.33.12.77
7/10/07
62.33.12.91
11/21/07
66.90.73.113
3/14/09
67.60.185.247
3/14/09
68.221.89.138
2/15/09
71.163.173.207
11/6/08
72.54.64.102
11/22/08
74.226.121.66
2/11/08
74.235.188.28
11/25/08
74.8.97.178
6/20/08
75.66.214.104
3/14/09
76.119.41.105
4/21/08
80.66.251.159
7/30/07
81.25.53.70
11/22/07
85.195.119.14
1/8/08
85.195.119.22
1/8/08
85.195.123.29
1/8/08
87.236.199.73
3/1/09
99.187.166.222
3/14/09

The overwhelming majority of these are “spammers.” There are a few individuals there. I periodically clean out the individuals but never the “spammers.” According to typepad records, the IP which I flagged Mar. 14—66.90.73.113 has been used a total of three times in my comment registry: by Wade on Mar 11 & Mar 12 and by an S. Lyons on Mar. 12. I flagged his address because I warned him not to post a third party email on my site, a practice he routinely follows, one I never follow.

In addition, my registry history records Burleson has used, since Apr, 2007 a total of six IP addresses:
66.76.241.97
a) 66.90.73.113

70.137.13.137
71.128.87.110
b) 74.195.198.211
76.222.1.110

THE ONLY IP OUT OF SIX WADE HAS USED THAT IS FLAGGED IS THE ONE I FLAGGED MARCH 14, 2009. When he writes he has been “blocked from commenting further”—especially because I am threatened by his challenges--he simply is fabricating this assertion.

Also, the IP above marked “b” is the one Wade used on the current post. And, it is not flagged. Thus, the idea I am prohibiting him from commenting is a game at my expense. Wade knows darn well he can comment on my site.

“Why would Baptist Identity sites like SBC Today, or Peter Lumpkin's site, or Jeremy Green's site, or others who venture into writing for the blog world close their comment sections?” This is nonsense. The assumption is, I closed my comment section. This is patently false.

“it seems most logical to believe that these men close down comment their comment streams because they can't stand the heat of scrutiny. They seem to take the position, "Agree or else" or "Just trust us: Don't question us." This again is absurd. Wade simply thinks much too highly of his questions to me.

Frankly, I don’t think Wade has ever, ever asked a question concerning which I wanted to “tuck-tail-and-run.” I’ve had some questions like that but Wade is not among the ones who’ve asked them. What I will not stand for from Burleson is a) posting third party crap on my site in order to embarrass third parties. He can post on his site all he wishes b) I will not put up with continued emotive potty mouths who spew without addressing issues. c) I won’t let but one maybe two—if they are not potty dumps—anonymous commenters comment. Nor am I required to justify my reasoning for that (I can). It’s just the way things are.

“There is power in information, and those who keep their comment streams open, particularly to people who ask tough questions, are the blogs that have credibility.”

Well, Wade, what in the world are you worried about then? If SBC Today loses credibility, is that not good for you? And, from your view, all SBs for that matter? And if I lose credibility, granting your unfounded assumption I’m clearly ready to close my comments, what is that to you? And, is it not better that blogs like yourself who allow comments to gain influence? Please, my brother, please! Do you not realize such gratuitous patronizing is thoroughly transparent?

“I challenge…Peter Lumpkins, to open up [his] comment streams.”

And, Wade Burleson, I challenge you to speak the truth, stop skewing records, and, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, stop lying about me, what I say, and how I administrate my blog.

With that, I am…
Peter Lumpkins
peter_lumpkins
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 7:18 am

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby Wade Burleson » Wed May 27, 2009 12:19 am

Peter,

I shall be brief. You wrote earlier today in your comment section at your blog, and I quote, "Burlesonian blogging tactics are no longer welcome at SBC Tomorrow." I then tried four times to post a comment, none of which were accepted. I accept that you did not block my IP address, and am grateful to hear that you did not. However, one cannot fault me for believing I was blocked by you. You have not only blocked my IP addresses before, you once blocked every IP address from Enid for several days until people pressured you to reinstate them. It has long been your pattern to either block IP addresses, "unpublish comments" that you dislike, or denigrate people who disagree with you.

I'm glad you agree with my post that those tactics are not productive for real dialogue.

Have a great evening.

Wade
The world is too dangerous to live in - not because of the people who do evil but because of the people who sit and let it happen.

Albert Einstein
User avatar
Wade Burleson
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Enid, Oklahoma

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby peter_lumpkins » Wed May 27, 2009 8:26 am

Wade Burleson wrote:Peter,

I shall be brief. You wrote earlier today in your comment section at your blog, and I quote, "Burlesonian blogging tactics are no longer welcome at SBC Tomorrow." I then tried four times to post a comment, none of which were accepted. I accept that you did not block my IP address, and am grateful to hear that you did not. However, one cannot fault me for believing I was blocked by you. You have not only blocked my IP addresses before, you once blocked every IP address from Enid for several days until people pressured you to reinstate them. It has long been your pattern to either block IP addresses, "unpublish comments" that you dislike, or denigrate people who disagree with you.

I'm glad you agree with my post that those tactics are not productive for real dialogue.


a) The reason for the brevity, Wade, is obvious. Know I will not be so brief.

b) If you tried to comment and could not get through, the problem lies in your using the single IP still in the registry I blocked from Mar 14. No other IP associated with is in my registry is blocked. I c/p the registry just as it appears on the dashboard--dates when block and IP blocked. Furthermore, if you accept I did not block you, then retract the ridiculous theory I blocked you because your questions threatened my position or me personally. Of course, you won't. Why do I know? Because then the basis of your entire conspiratorial project you've managed to bring to Baptistlife goes up in flames. "I blocked you because I cannot be questioned. Why are 'BI' and PL closing down their threads?" Remember?

c) And, why can't you be faulted for believing you were blocked by me, Wade? Especially when you concoct a theory I did it because....? If I did not do it--and you said you accepted that--there is no because! Yet you put together a theory why I did something you accept I did not do.

d) Once again, either you do not read or refuse to read. 1) to my knowledge--and my typepad dashboard affirms this--the only IP I've ever blocked is the one currently blocked, and was blocked on Mar 14 as the data indicates. 2) As for blocking all IPs from Enid for several days, Wade, that's a load of crap. Again, you think far too highly of your ability to intimidate.

Let me be blunt: you simply don't have it Wade...not with me anyways. I have never--not once...not even on your home turf, possessed the slightest fear of engaging you. Zilch. Nothing. You just don't have the intellectual guns to fire, Wade. Sorry. But that's a fact. I have had some nervous moments when I wondered if I could survive the level of dialog, both at my site and elsewhere, times when at any moment, my understanding of an issue was so fragile that, if the right question were asked--and I actually knew the question!--I would have been shot to oblivion, run back to West Georgia to engage the rednecks where I could actually "feel" intelligent.

Again, Wade, don't get your hopes up. It wasn't you nor even your old bud, Ben. Frankly, you need to get over the narcissistic obsession that you are the warrior who will make things right by asking the intimidating, devastating questions. There are people who are gifted in that area. A Socrates, you are not, Wade.

e) No evidence exists whatsoever for your assertion I blocked IPs "until people pressured [me] to reinstate them." To whom are you referring Wade? Which people? What pressure? I have never more been the brunt of such baseless accusation without any attempted proof in my 55 years of life on earth. Are you nuts? Who has pressured me to do anything, Wade? Speak up. Now's your chance stick it to me. If my memory serves well, the only time I've every shut comments down and received any questions about it was back in Feb of this year while I was away on a writing Sabbatical. Two bloggers took my thread and held it for ransom. I closed the site and went back to writing--not on my blog, which would have made sense if I wanted to censor others while I spoke without accountability. Instead I wrote on my book.

f) You say it has long been my pattern to either block IP addresses, "unpublish comments" that you dislike, or denigrate people who disagree with you. You, Wade, are a liar. A despicable spreader of false statements, an accuser of the brethren. I have given correction to every charge you've made. For you to end you brief statement attempting to conclude the evidence points toward your skewed interpretation of the baseless charges seals once and for all you are purposely, intentionally ignoring some facts and skewing others. You are the divisive man Paul said shun in Titus 3:10.

With that, I am...
Peter
peter_lumpkins
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 7:18 am

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby peter_lumpkins » Wed May 27, 2009 9:03 am

William,

As I noted in my first response to Wade''s ridiculous crusade brought to BaptistLife, Though the conversations here have been few, I have thoroughly enjoyed logging on. Hardly a soul here takes positions as do I. For me, that doesn't matter when it comes to exchange. Nor have I ever felt unwelcome.

What's tragic is, Wade Burleson is categorically spreading complete untruths concerning me, my blog, and the way I run SBC Tomorrow. In essence, Wade is lying flat out. I could offer anyone the benefit of a doubt. I have more than once argued for a moral distinction between mistaken information and intentionally spreading what one knows to be false. Frankly, I can no longer even pretend Wade Burleson is making mistakes in what he says in print about me. I can conclude no other than he's intentionally publishing that concerning me which he knows he lacks any evidence whatsoever. His despicable conspiratorial theories interwoven within his attempt to be "factual" seals this conclusion airtight, for me.

I am sorry it has come here and so wish it would have at least published it on his own blog. I doubt he'd had done it though. For one thing, he knows many people read his blog who also read mine and will immediately see his concoction for what it is--baseless rhetoric. His blogging community of commenters would have had a feeding frenzy, alright. But that's about as far as it would have gotten. Here, however, there are a negligible amount of readers--if any--who really even know who I am much less follow my blog.

Even so, BaptistLife has just been pillaged, brother. Burleson has posed as a seeker, desiring to sincerely query sound advice. Nonetheless, he's the quintessential huckster who's another agenda in mind: deception. I caution you to carefully read his footnotes.

I'm done.
With that, I am...
Peter
peter_lumpkins
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 7:18 am

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby Wade Burleson » Wed May 27, 2009 9:48 am

Peter,

I'm unclear how I am attacking you personally, but I accept you feel I am. Please forgive me.

My only concern is that the untruth perpetrated on your blog, and I accept it is unintentional, is corrected. The IMB never specifically identifed the Baptist General Convention of Texas as a Convention eshcrowing Lottie Moon funds. I am quite positive that a brother in Christ with the purest possible character and the utmost integrity could place that mistatement on his blog. I found it difficult, however, when I sought to challenge the accuracy of the statement on your site.

Blessings,

Wade Burleson
The world is too dangerous to live in - not because of the people who do evil but because of the people who sit and let it happen.

Albert Einstein
User avatar
Wade Burleson
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Enid, Oklahoma

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed May 27, 2009 10:08 am

Ed: Peter, I took a quick look at your blog and saw this "UPDATE: Wade Burleson took this conversation to BaptistLife.com., soliciting sympathy from them. I am not surprised, given Burleson's failure to make his point on our comment thread. "

Talk about not making ones case, over here you have let off a lot of steam here and you have made serious accusations against Wade Burleson but I for one don't see that you have made your case.

You might want to let it rest until you cool off.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11252
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby peter_lumpkins » Wed May 27, 2009 10:28 am

Wade Burleson wrote:Peter,

I'm unclear how I am attacking you personally, but I accept you feel I am. Please forgive me.

My only concern is that the untruth perpetrated on your blog, and I accept it is unintentional, is corrected. The IMB never specifically identifed the Baptist General Convention of Texas as a Convention eshcrowing Lottie Moon funds. I am quite positive that a brother in Christ with the purest possible character and the utmost integrity could place that mistatement on his blog. I found it difficult, however, when I sought to challenge the accuracy of the statement on your site.

Blessings,

Wade Burleson


Wade,

Nice try, Wade. This isn't about how I "feel." It's about truth. I don't care what you accept or not accept about how I feel. Publicly retract your baseless statements for which you have slandered me.

Furthermore, Wade, once again you come across a bit nutty. You've had every opportunity to make your point I am perpetuating a falsehood--unintentional or not--all without success. Thus, I am not correcting jack squat since there's nothing to correct.

And, I invite the readers here to log on to SBC Tomorrow--IF THEY AGREE WITH YOUR ANALYSIS--and make the case. Do it! I beg you! Oh, but wait! First, I'll have to make sure they're not all blocked from my site. That would really be embarrassing for me, I'd say.

Also, to speak to me as "a brother in Christ with the purest possible character and the utmost integrity " Wade, is plain goofy, given what you've written about me above. Please. Do you not realize others read this? Are you really that convinced people here do not possess the rhetorical skills to see though such obvious patronizing?

You "found it difficult, however, when [you] sought to challenge the accuracy of the statement on [my] site", ah? Once again I invite the readers here to examine our exchange and see if they get the impression I was running from your challenges. Oops, I'm caught. You wanted to exchange some more but I blocked you! I was getting really scared you were going to expose my "unintentional" mistake! Only in your fantasies, Wade.

Finally, do not think that I am oblivious to your possible attempt to trap me here in a conversation for which I will dearly pay. Your attempt to sound cool and collected while I come across as out-of-control. You "asking forgiveness" while I remain mad as h------.

Well know, dude, I am mad. There are times to be angry. One of those times is when a pastor, a former state convention president, an influential blogger lies about somebody else. I'd say that qualifies for one of those times when anger is justified.

I will say it again: stop lying, skewing facts, and ignoring other facts to make a point when you do not possess the legitimate but necessary skills to make your point through acceptable canons of persuasion. Stop it. In the name of the Lord Jesus, stop it, Wade. It is disgraceful.

Furthermore, I do not want to exchange "feelings" and be warm and fuzzy. Retract your conspiracies which included the lies you wrote about me, my site, and the way I operate my site.

With that, I am...
Peter
peter_lumpkins
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 7:18 am

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby William Thornton » Wed May 27, 2009 10:29 am

Peter and Wade, both of you guys are welcome here. I think I am safe in saying that I don't think many people here here wants to slog through all this stuff to see who is right and who is wrong.

It's low-tech, but why don't you guys have a telephone conversation and get this mess straight.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10539
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby peter_lumpkins » Wed May 27, 2009 10:36 am

Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: Peter, I took a quick look at your blog and saw this "UPDATE: Wade Burleson took this conversation to BaptistLife.com., soliciting sympathy from them. I am not surprised, given Burleson's failure to make his point on our comment thread. "

Talk about not making ones case, over here you have let off a lot of steam here and you have made serious accusations against Wade Burleson but I for one don't see that you have made your case.

You might want to let it rest until you cool off.


Ed,

Your darn right I have. And have absolutely no regrets. There is a time to be angry and when someone totally scoffs at facts to make a point, it's time to get angry.

As for not making my case, that's fair...if I knew which case you meant--whether my accusations concerning Wade spreading falsehoods or something else. As for the accusations I make against Wade, I offered evidence to substantiate it and criticized his evidence for it. If you could be specific, I'd be delighted to engage it.

With that, I am...
Peter
peter_lumpkins
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 7:18 am

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby peter_lumpkins » Wed May 27, 2009 10:42 am

William,

I respect your decision. I'm out of it.

One final comment, if I may: if Burleson's assertions make sense to any person on this site, I encourage you to log on to SBC Tomorrow and make the case. And just in case you cannot get on (in case I may have blocked your IP), my email is the same email Burleson has had and used---peterlumpkins@gmail.com. I'll personally see to it your comments get posted.

With that, I am...
Peter
peter_lumpkins
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 7:18 am

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby Wade Burleson » Wed May 27, 2009 10:44 am

William,

I would be in whole hearted agreement. Peter's number is unlisted. I can be reached at 580-237-0602. Once the statement that the International Mission Board specifically identified the Baptist General Convention of Texas as a Convention that intentionally eschrowed Lottie Moon funds is removed from Peter's site, then my problem with Peter's post is gone. It is, of course, his perogative to leave the untruth posted. I just am attempting to get on the record at his site and here on Baptist Life that the International Mission Board at no time, in any forum, ever specifically identified the Baptist General Convention of Texas as a Convention eschrowing Lottie Moon funds.

It's that simple, and if a phone conversation would help, I am more than happy to participate.
The world is too dangerous to live in - not because of the people who do evil but because of the people who sit and let it happen.

Albert Einstein
User avatar
Wade Burleson
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Enid, Oklahoma

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby William Thornton » Wed May 27, 2009 10:50 am

Peter, I receive both your feed and Wade's and read them both. You are both intelligent and articulate and I appreciate, well, not all but some of both of your stuff and would encourage others who have an interest in things SBC to do the same.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10539
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby Chris » Wed May 27, 2009 11:12 am

Wade Burleson wrote: You have not only blocked my IP addresses before, you once blocked every IP address from Enid for several days until people pressured you to reinstate them.


To Flick: Try posting on Lumpkins' blog and see if you are able.
Jesus paid the price for me and everybody.
Chris
 
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: Newport News, VA

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby peter_lumpkins » Wed May 27, 2009 3:24 pm

William,

Thanks. I am glad you read my site. I honestly am appreciative.

Wade,

a) My number IS NOT unlisted. It is a Carrollton, GA number. It has changed over the past month or so. But the old number was NOT UNLISTED either. Virtually every time, Wade, you mention some simple factual matter pertaining to me, you inevitably get it wrong. Unless, of course, you meant my personal cell, whcih I am quite sure few have those numbers on the public airwaves.

b) Until you publicly retract your baseless accusations, I have nothing to talk personally to you about.

c). If you took the advice above and tried to log on, you would have been able to unless you used the IP I flagged Mar 14, an IP you've used a total of twice since Apr 2007, according to typepad registry The one flagged is still flagged. No other IP is or has been flagged. Those are the facts.

With that,I am...
Peter
peter_lumpkins
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 7:18 am

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby Gary » Wed May 27, 2009 3:45 pm

Would have to do an old-fashioned 'directory assistance' call for the number.

411.com returns the following:

Lumpkins, Peter F

, GA


No number given.

Gary

[Edited by wm. If someone wants to post their personal information here, fine, but let's let them do it and not someone else for them. Thanks. ]
__________________________________________________________
Gary Skaggs, Norman, OK
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
User avatar
Gary
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:49 pm
Location: Norman, Oklahoma

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby SLyons » Wed May 27, 2009 4:20 pm

Forgive me, but I can't help but think of the following:

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
SLyons
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:34 am
Location: Palatka, Florida

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby Teresa Stanton » Wed May 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Forgive me, but I can't help but think of the following:

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."


Slyons, I agree. After wasting thirty minutes reading this thread I now know why Pastor Lumpkins is out of the ministry. Wasn't it Paul who wrote that a pastor is to be "sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome"? Like you, the louder Pastor Lumpkins talked about his own integrity, while at the same time calling a fellow pastor "nutty," any credibility in Peter completely evaporated. I too went to Google to look up Peter's phone number and it is not listed, just as the other pastor said. Gary also points out that Peter is revealing personal information about someone else (IP addresses) without permission. Talk about out of control. As an I.T. professional, I would think admins at BL should delete that particular comment from Peter before he damages someone other than himself by what he writes.
Teresa Stanton
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 10:37 am

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby William Thornton » Wed May 27, 2009 9:25 pm

Welcome to BLife Teresa Stanton.

I hope that you (and any other new members) will contribute in a positive way and I would be happier if you offered some biographical information about yourself rather than you volunteering information about Peter Lumpkins. Rest assured that Wade Burleson, Peter Lumpkins (and almost everyone else here) is capable of defending themselves. Both have done so here and elsewhere followed by various allies and non-allies.

(On the IP addresses, I'm not sure of the implications of revealing that and didn't see Gary's comment on it but I will ask one of the more technosavvy moderators about it. )
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10539
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby Teresa Stanton » Wed May 27, 2009 9:48 pm

William,

Stanton is my maiden name, not the married one. Happily married for 35 years with 5 kids and 12 grandchildren, including triplets. Former SB mis, though I confess to not enjoying the experience. Now live in Delaware with a great hubbie and two cats. VP at a tech firm on the state river. Am interested in Baptist Life because of SB roots and my brother-in-law directed me to a couple of posts at BL regarding homosexuality. It answered some very personal questions. Reading BL comments at the time caused me to begin checking on what is being written about once a week since. Somebody else posted Pastor Lumpkins was a former minister, not me. Didn't realize it was a secret. He advertises that he now edits for a publishing firm on his own website. Hope the bio helps.

Teresa
Teresa Stanton
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 10:37 am

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby lespuryear » Wed May 27, 2009 10:49 pm

I don't understand how Peter knows what IP address Wade has used. How does one identify IP addresses as belonging to a specific person? I use Statcounter.com and it shows me IP addresses and cities, but it doesn't identify an individual. Is there a website that identifies IP addresses with more detail?
lespuryear
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:28 pm

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby Big Daddy Weaver » Thu May 28, 2009 1:20 am

Each time a person leaves a comment on my blog, I receive an e-mail from my blog host serve with the person's name (or alias) and their IP address. I use Blue Host to host www.thebigdaddyweave.com

I didn't read this entire thread. I do think that Wade lets Peter get the best of him. I'm sure Peter feeds off of that. Although, Peter does seem - and I've said this on numerous occasions - to have a rather unhealthy obsession with Wade Burleson.
User avatar
Big Daddy Weaver
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:15 am
Location: Waco, TX

Re: What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

Postby William Thornton » Thu May 28, 2009 9:15 am

Teresa Stanton wrote:William,

Stanton is my maiden name, not the married one. Happily married for 35 years with 5 kids and 12 grandchildren, including triplets. Former SB mis, though I confess to not enjoying the experience. Now live in Delaware with a great hubbie and two cats. VP at a tech firm on the state river. Am interested in Baptist Life because of SB roots and my brother-in-law directed me to a couple of posts at BL regarding homosexuality. It answered some very personal questions. Reading BL comments at the time caused me to begin checking on what is being written about once a week since. Somebody else posted Pastor Lumpkins was a former minister, not me. Didn't realize it was a secret. He advertises that he now edits for a publishing firm on his own website. Hope the bio helps.

Teresa


I posted hastily yesterday and it was not my intent to demand further information on you and I apologize if that is how it came across. Regardless, thanks for letting us get to know you better.
As long as we know who folks are, we are content to let people share as much or little about themselves as they wish.

It's hard to top a couple of good cats in the household.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10539
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Next

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron