by peter_lumpkins » Fri Feb 12, 2010 7:34 pm
I'm reluctant to post but will offer a few thoughts...
BDW wrote "A good rule of thumb is simply not to publish an email which is presumed to be private." From my standpoint, that should rule the way we handle issues like this when we are recipients of emails presumed to be private. The tit/tat about being careful to write only those things which, were it printed as a morning paper headline, we would not fret cannot be taken seriously. Not a person on this thread writes emails with that type of generic content--emails which are presumed to be private.
I emailed a friend just yesterday which, were it posted in the morning paper, I'd be really embarrassed. Not because of something I wrote about somebody else; to the contrary, it was about me. It wasn't some dark secret I have. Nonetheless, I would feel terrible if the email I presumed to be private was made public. We may yak all we want about being careful what we say but all of us have circles where we are much more direct and open about matters presuming confidence is in tact. And, I really have little believability about a person who insists he or she never says to anyone in a conversation presumed to be private what he or she would not say precisely in the same way in an open forum. Some tators may fry in that pan but many times they do not. And, if any here insists to the contrary, well, be my guest.
In light of the BDW's worthy 'rule of thumb' I have to say it is the precise rule I attempt to go by. I don't know I've been perfect at it but I do try to honor it. Burleson appears to boast about his army of moles deeply embedded all over the SBC feeding him info, info he's fairly well demonstrated he has no intention of observing the worthy 'rule of thumb'--presumed to be private. Indeed if one has kept up with his blog over the last three years or so, I think any fair-minded person would conclude WB thrives on revealing those things presumed to be private. The unspoken but embolden irony is, Burleson fishes in the same pond of secrecy to gather his information in which he fearlessly indicts others. Oh, he has an excuse, alright. He's the ever-present Protector and Defender of all things Baptist. Why people all over the SBC--professors afraid of losing their job, missionaries on the field, top execs, you-name-it--why they turn to Wade Burleson to make things right...At least that's the sense one gets from reading what the old boy posts publicly.
Poor Les can't claim that, however. Though he thinks the belief some professors hold concerning tithing is unhealthy for Southern Baptists, that doesn't make him a Protector & Defender of Southern Baptists like Wade is. Oh, no. Instead, that makes him a lousy, no-good, legalistic, Liberal-like, raving Fundamentalist. There's no room for two Defenders and Protectors over Southern Baptists in Wade's world. What is concern to Les makes Les a nutty-butty Fundy according to Wade. But none of Wade's concerns could never be considered nutty-butty. He just wants to protect Southern Baptists from an unhealthy direction.
Why, Burleson accused SB professors of heresy not so long ago. They were teaching this strange new doctrine of Eternal Subordination. Wade to the rescue! Come to find out--though too late for Wade to take back--if ES is a strange new doctrine, somebody should have told, Boyce, Dagg, and even Mullins about it for they taught heresy too. And, Wade wanted to protect Southern Baptists. But then again, is that not what Les wanted to do? The difference is, Les wrote an email presumed to be private about his concerns. Wade plastered his concerns all over the internet--"heresy! heresy!"--and, now he's plastered an email to an administrator, an email presumed to be private.
The fact is, I think I'd be mad as you know what too if an email I presumed to be private ended up splashed on a blog. Truth be told, I'd really wonder about someone who claims they wouldn't.
So Les, here's to you: we've surely had our hot exchanges both on and off the blogs. But you have my sympathy, my brother. There is no way around it: it was a dirty, rotten low-down thing to do in posting an email presumed to be private on the internet. How anyone could think they were morally obligated to follow through with such a juvenile action not even a trained psychiatrist could explore. Again, I'm with you...
On the other hand, consider William's point a necessary evil. Once one's skirt is up, people done got their eyes full. They know. They saw. No use thinking they didn't see. Nope. They saw all. The good thing is, it really is not that bad. Burleson's notable niche for flamboyance and stretching things all out of whack to "get cha" hardly plays in his favor. The question you asked about the professors does not necessarily lend itself to your desiring satisfaction in the form of "firing." Perhaps you did not intend it that way even if it could be implied from your words. Who of us has not written words with implications which could be both positive and negative, or not too good on the one hand, and absolutely despicable on the other?
I'm reminded that while the mass media had a good point about the emails of the Environmental group being hacked, the question the activist scientists had to face from the public was, what the heck does all this conspiratorial stuff mean? Granted the emails may or may not be presumed to be private because of the nature of the organization. This was a group paid for with public money. Hence, it is a little different. Nonetheless, their skirt got lifted too, and from my standpoint, they owed the public an explanation for their actions. Instead we got from the activists, "Why aren't you angry at the meanies who lifted our skirt?"
O.K. I'm done. Sorry William for going on so long.
With that, I am...
Peter