What Good Reason Is There for Closing Comment Sections?

[Wade Burleson]

[William Thornton]

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.

[Wade Burleson]

[peter_lumpkins]

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

[Wade Burleson]

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

[peter_lumpkins]

[peter_lumpkins]

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

[Wade Burleson]

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

[Ed Pettibone]

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.

[peter_lumpkins]

[William Thornton]

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.

[peter_lumpkins]

[peter_lumpkins]

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

[Wade Burleson]

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.

[William Thornton]

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.

[Chris]

[peter_lumpkins]

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

[Gary]

[SLyons]

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."

[Teresa Stanton]

[William Thornton]

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. )

[Teresa Stanton]

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

[lespuryear]

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?

[Big Daddy Weaver]

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.

[William Thornton]