There seem to be two or three groups on the other side of this controversy:
1. Most of Frank's critics have chosen to feign indignation. This is an opportunistic ploy to capture the moral high ground so that they can continue to retail false doctrine (e.g., Barthian views of Scripture) or ungodly language under the smokescreen of calculated moral outrage over the martyrdom of the Monk by mean old Frank and his mean old allies among the Truly Reformed.
We see this all the time in politics. Democrats constantly change the subject by pretending that any criticism of their geostrategic views is a personal attack on their honor and patriotism. This is just a ruse to divert attention from the real issues.
2. Then you have the afternoon talk-show types. This takes the form of absolution by Kleenex. No matter what a guest has said or done, if he breaks down in tears, then all is forgiven, and anyone who continues to comment on his rap sheet is being mean and uncharitable. The wrong-doer becomes the victim, and the DA becomes the wrong-doer.
The Ophrafication and effeminization of public discourse becomes, in turn, the standard of civil discourse which some are trying to impose on the blogdom of God—although a number of them have one set of rules for themselves (free fire zone), and another set of rules (unilateral disarmament) for the rest of us.
Actually, Spencer is pulled the rug out from this defense by his duplicitous, ex post facto disclaimer regarding the confessional essays as a literary device, in which he assumes a quasi-fictitious persona.
3. Then you have the nice guys. Unlike (1), they are quite sincere. By constitutional temperament and national character, they always wince and cringe and shudder at any public display of discord or raised voices. To them, this is sub-Christian, contrary to the Sermon on the Mount, and tantamount to sipping Earl Grey without a clean pair of white gloves.
The problem with their advice is that those who sincerely dish out this sort of counsel are not the source of the problem. If the church had more #3-types, and fewer #1-types, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with, but since they are not the bomb-throwers, their advice is simply useless. Those who need to hear it aren't listening, and those who listen don't need to hear it since they already agree with it.
4. Another problem with #3 is that it turns a blind-eye to genuine misconduct. It deems the real problem to be tonal, or the scandal of public exposure, and not the underlying problem itself.
For example, aside from whatever the iMonk has said, he is also the moderator of the BHT, and in that capacity he is responsible for what his cobloggers say as well. The issue is larger than the iMonk.
As Jus Divinum has pointed out (http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2005/11/mental-instability.html)
the whole iMonk/BHT syndicate has been a runaway train for quite some time now. It was overripe for a plainspoken man like Frank Turk to cut it down to size and put in its place. Kudos to the Turkoman.