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 Rather I unpublished them.'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:
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—184.108.40.206 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:220.127.116.11
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…