Monday, December 19, 2005

Liar! Liar!


Mr. Hays,

I'm going to call you out as a liar... I'm just telling you straight. You are a liar and a hypocrite.

You are completely aware that the language at the BHT is tame. None of the famous "7 words" or anything similar have ever been allowed.

You are aware that the site search at the BHT reveals exactly what language has been used.

You are aware that c.t. uses the "f-word" and other terrible language that I have never used.

You are aware that Doug Wilson uses a term I have never allowed on the BHT. (see the link in the previous post.)You are aware that Wilson and Frank Turk in Wilson's comments use the same crude terms ("a" word) that you condemn me for.

You are aware that you are lying, and you know better.

You're a common liar, Mr. Hays. I have no problem being truthful about the language at the BHT. It's considerably better than Paul's vocabulary in Galatians. You have to lie every time you post on this.

Your insinuation that I am a corruptor of the young is about 5 feet away from slander.

Bill Mackinnon at the BHT tagged this fracas perfectly: "The one common theme amongst our detractors is a pathological hatred of the unlike. That's why a truly heterogeneous group blog mystifies them. If there isn't a theoblogical hierarchy with someone at the top (iMonk) then it is beyond their ability to understand. The fact that we are allowed to disagree with Michael and each other without some sort of "correction" is outside of their experience, and they don't know what to do with it other than attack. That we have a tavern motif infuriates them. That we give Catholics and Lutherans equal time with Baptists is outrageous. That we consider them Christians is unforgivable."

Now go ahead and delete this because it's true.

You are a liar, Mr. Hays.
Posted by Michael Spencer at December 19, 2005 09:25 AM


A few elementary points:

1.I have no intention of deleting Spencer’s comments, as anyone can see. Commenters are always free to criticize me to their heart’s content. Just spend some time in the archive.

2. Due to the steady coarsening of public discourse, what used to be R-rated speech is now PG-13 rated speech.

Both Spencer and I have been around long enough to be aware of the decline.

The fact that Spencer has become so jaded that he edits out R-rated vulgarity, but allows PG-rated vulgarity to slide on by is symptomatic of personal decadence which parallels the cultural decadence.

3. In addition, Spencer also allows R-rated vulgarity to be posted as long it is thinly disguised under the transparent ploy of wink-wink abbreviations.

BTW, if I were the moderator of a group-blog, and I had to keep editing out the R-rated language of my junior bloggers, I would take that as a pretty good indication that they were too immature to be blogging on a Christian weblog in the first place.

4.In the meantime, I also notice that the Tavernistas have tried to place exclusive emphasis on the charge of vulgarity to deflect attention away from the companion charge of heterodoxy.

5.The veiled threat of legal action is an empty threat which only a sissy would make. It’s also a diversionary tactic. Spare us the bravado.

6.The charge of hypocrisy is silly on several levels.

i) Even if the charge were true, moral equivalence does nothing to justify your own conduct.

ii) There were many sins by many individuals that Jesus never singled out for attack. Does that make Jesus a hypocrite?

iii) I rarely read Wilson’s blog.

iv) As I recall, Turk only used vulgarity in quoting one of his critics. As I made clear in my original, qualified statement, my objection is not to the usage of vulgarity (obscenity/profanity) under any and all circumstances, but where it is used in a worldly, braggadocio fashion.

v) You, Mr. Spencer, chose to come over to my blog an initiate a fight with c.t. You’re welcome to post comments here, but I reserve the right to pronounce a pox on both your houses.

It is not a double standard for me to respond to comments posted on my own blog without my having to respond to what other bloggers say and do on their own blog.

vi) I never said anything about Spencer's own usage.


  1. Once again, the charge of heresy from those who define orthodoxy for the rest of us. Since you maintain a delusion that I have agreed to some imaginary confession of faith that you are in charge of enforcing, perhaps you could produce ONE example of this heterodoxy from the confession you have in mind.

    If this confession only exists in the mind of certain individuals, please tell the rest of us who they are and provide a printed copy of this confession.

    You are continuing to lie lie a junior higher and demonstrate cowardice behind your pretense-filled rhetoric, Mr. Hayes. You have refused to produce one single example of your slanderous charges that I use language similar to ct. You excuse the Wilson citation because you don't read it (how postmodern) and Mr. Turk gets a pass for reasons unknown.

    You are slandering me in a public forum, and you are refusing to either provide specifics or to provide the standard I have agree to that allows you to find the fault. I am repeatedly asking for evidence of your slanderous accusations, and none are forthcoming. Why not?

    Your attempts to reason your way to higher ground are useless. I have agree to defend the language I use and allow on the BHT, but you cannot defend the lies and slander on this blog.

    How long will this go on, Mr. Hays? How far will you go rather than admit your charge was exaggerated and inaccurate? How much of a demonstration of your deluded infallibility are we going to have to read?

  2. Show me your scriptural warrant for having higher standards of language and discourse than the Bible itself.

  3. Michael, no disrespect, but please calm down. You are just making it worse. If Steve doesn't produce the evidence, then he'll look like the idiot. But huffing and puffing just makes you look quite silly. Again, no disrespect meant to anyone. It's just getting ugly now.

  4. Strange how it always "gets ugly" when Spencer steps up to "defend" himself.

    As for who defines orthodoxy, I think a standard existed prior to the birth of Hays and the birth of Spencer. One of these two fellows adheres to that standard a lot closer than the other, and oddly the one who has veered from what ought to be recognized as orthodoxy is the one who is the first to throw the orthopractical stone.

    We could, of course, simply reduce this exchange down to "yo' momma" gags, which would level the playing field substantively. However, we wouldn't be dealing with matters of Christian conduct anymore, and if I were Steve I'd simply concede that iMonk can out-"yo' momma" anyone before it gets unseemly.