***QUOTE***
The BHT has a posted rule of pg-13 language. I have consistently edited according to that rule.
So put up or shut up. Where have we violated the posted rules on our blog regarding language?
# posted by Michael Spencer : 12/18/2005 7:09 PM
***END-QUOTE***
I don’t know if the Tavernistas have violated Spencer’s PG-13 rule or not. I suppose that depends on how one defines PG-13 these days.
In any event, this was never part of my original charge. I never accused the Tavernistas of violating BHT protocol.
It does, however, say quite a bit about Spencer’s moral compass that he defends BHT usage by appealing to the rating system of the Hollywood movie industry.
***QUOTE***
If you cannot see fit to withdraw this baseless charge, or show me where I am wrong, I have to ask myself if this sort of un-Christian argumentation is an inevitable, slippery slope type of result of reformed thinking.
# posted by dan : 12/19/2005 7:41 AM
***END-QUOTE***
Uh-huh.
***QUOTE***
This is a lie, Mr.Hays. And you should retract it as a matter of honor.
# posted by Michael Spencer : 12/19/2005 9:26 AM
I'm going to call you out as a liar... I'm just telling you straight. You are a liar and a hypocrite.
# posted by Michael Spencer : 12/19/2005 7:21 AM
***END-QUOTE***
Come on, Michael, why don’t you tell me how you really feel?
***QUOTE***
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.
***END-QUOTE***
Hmm.
If you Google the famous “7 words” (not something I ordinarily recommend) you’ll find the S-word and the P-word, as in the following BHT-approved examples:
And I'ma confirmed anti-antinomian... Also, that BS call for prayer really saddens me. There's no real evidence of compassion or empathy. ...
www.boarsheadtavern.com/ archives/2005/11/22/13035547.html
As you know, any mention of Wright is poison to many Calvinists, and as I have
learned, Wright's success and scholarship has so pissed off some Calvinists ...
www.boarsheadtavern.com/ archives/2005/04/15/11027963.html –
Yeah, and boy is he pissed off. I've noticed that Calvinists love to launch ...
But, then they get REALLY SUPER PISSED any time someone criticizes their ...
www.boarsheadtavern.com/ archives/2005/05/27/17029158.html
***QUOTE***
You are aware that the site search at the BHT reveals exactly what language has been used.
***END-QUOTE***
Thanks for pointing out that niffty search feature. Speaking of which:
I have just issued myself a Doctorate in Ass-kickery from the Joshua Strodtbeck
School of Awesomeness, a prestigious non-accredited institution. ...
www.boarsheadtavern.com/
***QUOTE***
You are aware that Doug Wilson uses a term I have never allowed on the BHT. (see the link in the previous post.) [http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1617]
***END-QUOTE***
See above.
***QUOTE***
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?
# posted by Michael Spencer : 12/19/2005 1:08 PM
***END-QUOTE***
Be careful what you ask for.
Now let’s watch Spencer back-peddle and furiously redefine the terms of his original challenge.
Why am I going to back peddle? BS? "P--ed off." "a-- kickery" I said it's PG, and that's exactly what it is and has been for 4 years. This is what has you furiously lying about my ct-esque language. CTs language, if you need a lesson, is not covered in any of your examples.
ReplyDeleteI've invited the readers of these comments to look at the search engines for two days. I have absolutely nothing to hide.
Now you can explain What is morally wrong with a single one of any of your citations, aside from the fact that you are offended.
You'll notice that I am not calling you a prude or a Puritan, because contrary to your vile hatred for me, I respect you as a Christian, and I respect your conscience on these matters. If allowing the terms you have listed- and others I allow such as hexx and daxx- were sinful in my reading of scripture, I would not allow them.
I am not going to ridicule your fundamentalist use of Hollywood as target for smearing me. I said, all day for two days, that it is a PG-13 rule at the BHT.
Now you can tell me why those terms are morally, Biblically wrong.
Romans 14 makes it clear that you have no place to stand in judging me in this regard. You find these terms unacceptable. I find them mildly crude, but not wrong. I will not call you a legalist or a Pharisee, and I won't press you on why Paul can use the s word, but I can't. I won't ask why Doug Wilson isn't getting equal time from you. (You don't have permission from your gallery to hate Wilson, but you do have permission to hate me. Right?)
Do you want me to start posting scripture verses that are far cruder?
You are still lying about my language as compared to CT, and you still should retract that comparison. Do so, and I will leave this subject on the floor.
Mr. Hays,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the problem here? Honestly, I can't get what the offense is according to a Biblical standard. So what if some people other than you want to use some language that you find offensive, is that really a reason to call out Mr. Spencer and do a good ol' fashion drag-his-name-through-the-mud? And truly, that is what you are doing.
At what point did someone give you the right/authority to judge someone's "moral compass" based off of how they choose to host a group blog? It is ridiculous, petty, stupid, and very un-Christlike of you to speak as the final authority on someone's heart based upon how they choose to act in a matter that is not a clear cut, black and white Biblical issue.
Now, you can fire back, twist words, and keep upon you merry campaign. or you can let it go. Admit that you have taken this too far, apologize for how you have been willfully hurtful to a brother in Christ, and spend your time and talent witting about other things. If you want to have the discussion (key word) of "what is the Biblical standard of speech", keep at it, but without the personal attacks, slanderous speech, and crappy attitude.
Mr. Hays...
ReplyDeleteYour use of the term Taveristas is SCRIPTURALLY slandering at least 20 people who have never used a crude term at the BHT in any way, including wives and children.
Be more precise.
I am not going away. When you taunt me about "Be careful what you ask for," be sure that I will keep this going until you ban me or straighten out the ct/imonk lie.
Take this discussion to my email, and I will be happy to let it drop.
ReplyDeletemichaelATinternetmonkDOTcom
Why don't you read your own blog CT? That last entry was pretty good.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom-line is that Spencer is not a man of his word. He issued a very specific challenge. I answered him in exactly the terms he stipulated.
ReplyDeleteRemember what he said: “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.”
Get that? None of the famous “7 words” or anything similar…
When I call his bluff, his response is to prevaricate.
Spencer also has a problem with reading comprehension. I never compared his language with c.t. Rather, I faulted him, in his capacity as a moderator, for not reining in the language of his junior bloggers. Try, Michael, to read what people actually say instead of resorted to ink blot imputations.
On a related note, see how he tries to twist people’s words: “I am not going to ridicule your fundamentalist use of Hollywood as target for smearing me.”
“My” use of Hollywood?
In the next sentence he says: “I said, all day for two days, that it is a PG-13 rule at the BHT.”
“PG-13.” Hmm. Where do you suppose that comes from? Hollywood, perchance?
Are we to pretend that the rating system isn’t indexed to Hollywood values? Does that set the bar of Christian discourse?
Spencer is welcome to parse vulgarity as much as he pleases. I prefer to take Eph 5:4 & Col 3:8 rather than Hollywood movies as the standard of Christian discourse.
Explain to us how the terms you found are Biblically sinful.
ReplyDeleteI have never denied what language is used on the BHT. Why waste your time saying I did?
I want to know how the term "axx-kickery" is a sin. How is pxss a sin?
The Bible verses are next, Mr. Hays.
Saying you didn't compare me to CT is a lie of the highest order. A lie that you know is a lie. How can you claim any moral ground to fault me when you are dedicated to this lie?
Mr. Hays,
ReplyDeleteYou are a silly man.
Carlin expanded his list - Michael, there's a couple of other words you'd better not be saying.
ReplyDeleteI have never denied what language is used on the BHT. Why waste your time saying I did?
ReplyDeleteYou said the language at BHT is PG-13, but you specifically called the language there "tame" and that none of the 7 words or anything similar have ever been allowed.
I've seen c.t.'s colorful metaphors, and I have no dog in this race since I do not blog except in a guest capacity or in comments sections, but to me, as an observer, what I see here is Steve answering you on your own terms, and now you are complaining about it. Is your definition of "similar" with respect to c.t.'s language "identical" or "similar?" By the way your measure of comparison was "the 7 words" not c.t.'s words.
Saying you didn't compare me to CT is a lie of the highest order. A lie that you know is a lie. How can you claim any moral ground to fault me when you are dedicated to this lie?
The original quote is here:
My problem with c.t. and the Tavernistas is the way they flaunt obscenity. They go out of their way to use profanity and obscenity just too prove, I guess, how cool it is to be brazenly shameless; to prove that they are not inhibited by all those uptight Victorian hang-ups over holiness and consecration.
And where the Tavernistas are concerned, their verbal daring dovetails with their theological daring. They are constantly pushing the envelope.
Again, I have no dog in this race, but I read this several times, and I don't think Steve is equating you to c.t. he is faulting you both for using profanity--you for, in his opinion, not policing your blog as well as you should. I think we all agree, c.t.'s language is more navy blue than Carolina blue, but then, all we're discussing here is the shade of blue. Steve's point is very clearly, Michael, that the use of blue language in a gratutious, brazen manner that seems to serve no constructive purpose is what he's discussing here, and that, by your own admission does occur. He simply answered you on your own stipulated terms.
I want to know how the term "axx-kickery" is a sin. How is pxss a sin?
Well, let's see, Michael, why did you feel the need to edit the consonants if you didn't wish to offend your brethren?
Romans 14 makes it clear that you have no place to stand in judging me in this regard. Paul told the ones of "stronger conscience" who would be the ones, presumably, who, shall we say, exercise more linguistic intrepidity not to set stumbling blocks before those of weaker conscience and he essentially tells not one party but both to dial it back and quit judging one another. He further tells those of stronger conscience not to engage in that activity at all and to bear the weakness of others and not just please themselves and to accept them only to pass judgment on their opinions. Romans 14 thus cuts both ways.
Everybody who has exchanged words on this needs to dial it back. The world doesn't revolve around BHT and Triablogue or Michael Spencer, the "Tavernistas" or Steve Hays, or Frank Turk, or James White, or me. May I suggest a 2 day truce in which Steve posts nothing on this and you post nothing on this and you prohibit posting on this at the BHT since you have a group blog, if only to let people cool off and get some perspective? It's Christmas week, for goodness sakes.
Gene, I proposed that last month and was told that it was their duty to God to shut me up.
ReplyDeleteHays and company want me destroyed. They want me off the web. Out of the ministry. They want my family humiliated. They hold me as an enemy of the faith.
They are obsessed. If I were to die in an accident, they would email one another in satisfied wonderment and give God the credit for killing another emergent apostate.
They want this to be Rob Schapler II.
I would thank God in heaven every day if these guys would ban me, delink me and never talk to me again. Why they have picked my blogs to be the center of their hatred is bizarre.
Ironically I agree with them about 90% of the time. I call them Christians. I would commune with them. I find myself often agreeing with them and laughing with them. I constantly wish this were not happening. But because I speak up the other ten percent of the time, my life is dirt to them. Because the BHT is not a reformed baptist blog, it is the enemy.
This all started with Hays taunting me when I was not even commenting to or about him. Now here we are. I am a 50 year old ordained minister with my entire reputation a sentence away from being slandered by a seminary student who is young enough to be my son.
What is his mission? What is the point? That I allow someone to be crude?
Want to broker an end to this, Gene? Please do.
I am all yours. My email is michael@internetmonk.com. But these guys will never stop till my blogging is gone. And I am will not sit silently through the lies of this young man.
I wish you every success in making some kind of peace.
Michael, your mistake on this one was your use of the "seven words". He did catch you there, since two of the words are used on BHT.
ReplyDeleteChildish? oh yes. When I first read Steve says, "Once again I have to step in. I was actually working on a few new short stories. But now I have to waste good time on unnecessary necessities..."
I thought, "WHY?" Michael! Did you give Steve the responsibility to police your group? Or is this *his* imagined duty that he "has to waste time on?"
At this point it seems clear that Steve has taken upon himself the imagined responsibility of wasting his time policing other people's blogs.
This site has been bookmarked as one of my "read daily" blogs - and when I read the latest "pointed finger" I just rolled my eyes.
Sometimes I say "fart" and that's been upgraded to the list too.
At this point, I'd be glad to be a tavernista - just because.
Steve if this all you can drag up on a blog that has had close to 50 people posting on it for 4 years I am awesomely unimpressed. There are about 15 to 20 posts a day from BHTers and all you can come up with is a "BS" a use of the word "pi--" and "a--".
ReplyDeleteFace it, you don't have much of a case.
I stated previously that the word had occured (courtesy of Jim) and that I had edited it, and the word returned. I stated that I left it.
ReplyDeleteThat's the example you cited. I am not going to play edit-reedit with Jim. He paid the bills at the BHT for two years and does the tech. His name is on the post. If he was going to reinsert the word after my edit, I wasn't going to waste my time.
So what are we doing? Proving that I'm a liar?
When we talk about pure hatred of me and my blogs, Jus D is exhibit A.
Exactly what are we doing here? Do you need my suicide note to make you all feel better?
I'm cryin' here over "bleepity-bleep".
ReplyDelete"Do you need my suicide note to make you all feel better?"
ReplyDeleteFear and trembling! Do you do not tremble at God's inerrant Word?
It is appointed unto man once to die then the judgment.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Will you be naked and ashamed when you appear before Him, the LORD of glory?
Adam --
ReplyDeleteI just want to make sure I follow your non-plussed reasoning. You're saying that if I "bleep" out the vowels of vulgar language (or, apparently, the consonants and leave the vowels), I have lived up to my responsibility as a Christian to guard my tongue. Is that right?
I want to read you say it before we work out the details.
>I have lived up to my responsibility as a Christian to guard my tongue.
ReplyDeleteHas a black hole opened up in the universe yet? You guys discussing guarding your tongues from "offensive language" is like the wolves discussing how you shouldn't eat sheep.
My name on a target is "guarding your tongue?"
Oh, I forgot. Heretics can be treated as needed.
centuri0n:
ReplyDeleteMy point is that no one lives up to their "Christian responsibility" in this area. Now many of you may be able to boast that no one has used colorful language on your blog, but after blogging for nearly 3 years I am sure someone with a Google search engine could find 5 or 6 uses of the same expressions on my blog--either in the posts or in the comments.
The truth is I don't swear that much. Really. I hope you believe me. I swear when I am on the road sometimes and when my computer isn't working. I generally swear when I am frustrated and angry. I sometimes have joked using such language. But is not a habit. And I hope I am growing every day in how I use my tongue. That's the hardest part of us to control.
The thing with blogs is that you have an "on-the-record" view of a person's worded thought-life: something that isn't ALAYS pretty. Now maybe you have a case that says I should not write about that stuff, but I see no real reason to keep it hidden. The Bible says that things that are hidden will be laid bare on the Day of Judgment.
And you know what? Not one of us is going to be able to leave a comment in a divine combox justifying ourselves to our Maker like we do to one another.
Steve has trapped Michael and the BHTers in their foul moments. He has also said why this kind of language and the allowance of which is heinous to the Christian conscience. I respect that enough, but I do not see it as a warrant to judge Michael. That is the problem I have with all of this-- a lot of judgmental condemnation in the name of a religion we all fall short in (that of course, doesn't excuse us either).
So while Steve may have proved something, I hardly see it as worthwhile. Moreover, I don't think it was wisest thing for Michael to get into a "prove it" contest. I knew from the start this would become a mountain out of a molehill.
Shoot if you like,
AO
Hays and company want me destroyed. They want me off the web. Out of the ministry. They want my family humiliated. They hold me as an enemy of the faith.
ReplyDeleteThey are obsessed. If I were to die in an accident, they would email one another in satisfied wonderment and give God the credit for killing another emergent apostate.
If they were obsessed, Michael, they would post incendiary material about you ad infinitum, wouldn't they? To be honest, other than Steve's recent posts here, I don't recall any of note on this blog in recent memory, and, as I pointed out, this one would not have occurred if you hadn't been making repeated attempts to go after c.t. on this blog, which is not your own anyway. James White replied to something you had written in April, so, once again, who started that fight?
Notice the pattern too. You are accusing these folks of trying to get you off the web and out of the ministry and of wanting to humiliate your family. You said this about James White: "I know how he does this. It can destroy my audience. People don't want to read the comment threads that will result from this. don't want White into my archives right now. I'll open again shortly when he's moved on to something else and when I have prepared my boss and co-workers for the fact that White's supporters may start harassing the school." How is posting on a relatively obscure blog trying to "humiliate" your family, get you out of the ministry, or harrassing your school? If they wanted to do that, wouldn't they be emailing your family, trying to send email bombs to you, calling your school and harrassing them, and hiring private detectives to find dirt on you? Michael, with all due respect, you aren't that important, and if you are so self-absorbed to think you are that important, then I respectfully suggest you need to take a vacation from the internet. You, sir, are the one with the obsession. The world of Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians is not out get you. If they were, the Reformed Baptist list would be abuzz. I'm on it, literally, and I can assure you that your name is not discussed. I'm in a church pastored by a speaker at one of the upcoming apologetics conferences put on by the Reformed community that includes some of the biggest names in internet apologetics, and they aren't calling me or emailing me and asking me my opinions about Michael Spencer. For heaven's sake, Michael, get some perspective.
Because the BHT is not a reformed baptist blog, it is the enemy.
Not all the blogs where your name is mentioned, however, are run by Reformed Baptists. When will you all at BHT learn this? This one is run by a Presbyterian. Their issues have nothing to do with your denominational affiliation.
This all started with Hays taunting me when I was not even commenting to or about him. Now here we are. I am a 50 year old ordained minister with my entire reputation a sentence away from being slandered by a seminary student who is young enough to be my son.
a. Steve is 46. Your problem isn't with his age, its with the idea of a freckled youth, some of these snotty nosed seminarians like the ones I sometimes put up with on the SBC blogs who think they know the difference between a liberal and a conservative in the SBC. Your problem here, Michael is probably from your days at SBTS when you saw a lot of that first hand. I was at SEBTS myself. I did as well. I know what it was like at SBTS, because I saw the same kind of behavior at SEBTS, okay. I get it. You and I are like Vietnam vets from those wars. I understand how you feel...But there's a difference between a 46 year old Presbyterian seminarian and a 22 year old seminarian at SBTS and SEBTS during the transition years. Could you possibly be reading Steve's words as the words of some of those snotty nosed militant seminarians who thought their theological orthodoxy gave them a right to act as trustees of the institution and not as students in the seminary? Read them for what they really are, not what your image of seminarians at SBTS in those years imputes to them.
2. One sentence from slandering your entire reputation? Please, Michael, don't be such a drama queen. If somebody wanted to slander your reputation, would they really post on an obscure blog, one of thousands, or would I try to insinuate myself into your real life and get to know the people you know or write letters to your employers and try to ruin you that way? Come now, let's be honest.
3. You were, however, picking a fight with c.t. on his blog, not from your own. You did this repeatedly. Steve probably found it rather ironic that on the one hand you would harrass c.t. and, on the other allow blue language on your own blog, with, as we have seen today, persons rehearsing new, sophomoric, and innovative ways to tread the line on your rules. So much for Romans 14. If they took it seriously, they wouldn't put stumbling blocks before their brethren and try to draw their fire and you would be there enforcing it.
Adam --
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer my question. No sense in talking about things we're not actually talking about -- like things someone might have said in another context and set of circumctances.
Nothing like being a straight shooter. Nice work.
I want to start an e-mail campaign against Gene M. Bridges hi-jacking the comments of other blogs rather than starting his own blog like any reasonably fair-minded person would do.
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody read the KJV anymore?
ReplyDelete"But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?"
Isaiah 36:12
More uses of "the P-word."
It is really quite funny that the blogger here has a problem with a word that is used numerous times in the most widely used and respected Bible translation for over 300 years. I wonder if this comment, unedited, will see the light of day.
For the record, work_book_blogger is me -- I was working on my template in a blogger account that I share with my css helpers and I forgot to sign out and in again. Sorry for the confusio.
ReplyDeleteFrank:
ReplyDeleteI e-mailed you.
Frank, this is how I read things between you and I:
You interpreted my objection to Steve's investigation as possibly being rooted in an idea that one has fulfilled Christian obedience by "bleeping" out letters in swear words, correct? You then asked me if that was "right." So I exlplaine that that wasn't my point which is why I spent as many words as I did trying to describe where I was coming from. I also did this in response to your last sentence, "I want to read you say it before we work out the details." This made no sense to me, and obviously was a typo. Were you meaning "I want to read what you have to say before we work out the details" (the details meaning your question about bleeping)? I thought you were trying to understand my position.
I'm trying to think of a time when I typed the words "bl-e" or "or-nge" or "ch-rming", but I can't -- maybe you can come up with an example where we bleep-type words that are not offensive.
ReplyDeleteHere's a thought - a lot of folks bleep letter or misspell words - even when used very appropriately in a Christians setting (such as talking about "seckual" things in terms of Christianity) for a very simple and very real reason.
content blockers block out the site.
For a long time, when I tried to read thinklings at work, the content blocker wouldn't let me - they had some spammers that advertised gambling sites - and that's a no-no to the blocker that we run.
Back in the "olden days" when I had AOL, I thought that nobody needed any more than a teen setting, so I set mine there as well. The parental control wouldn't let me look at a site titled, "sexy summer sandals" shoes!
When folks use language that may be blocked on their own site, that's their deal. When they go to other peoples' sites, you might consider it courtesy.
Or you might consider it yet another nit to pick.
you choose.
I worked in an inner city public high school and the language at BHT doesn't really impress me one way or the other.
I remember my dad getting all worked up because my mom slipped and said "poop". In common usage today, "ass" more or less often simply means "behind". Big deal. My dad (see example above) calls baby wipes "butt wipes). Is that really any better?
Then again, if you call them butt wipes, and a bald guy uses them on his head, does that make them butthead wipes? (another one of my dad's little funnies)
Centurion:
ReplyDeleteMy comment was an exercise in snarkiness. I thought Steve writing “the S-word and the P-word” was just too funny. I mean, it sounds like something I would have said in elementary school. “Hey, Stevey. Did you know that Mikey used the S-word around teacher? He got in BIG trouble.”
This whole controversy over “bad words” is just stupid. It reminds me of some immature, oversensitive fundamentalists I know. Who cares if they use PG-13 language over at BHT? This is just one more example of the inflated egos running the Reformed watchblogs. They are the reason I never seriously considered Calvinism when leaving Pentecostalism. It seems like the Reformed types are always chewing on each other. It pisses me off.
“Hey, Stevey. Did you know that Mikey used the S-word around teacher? He got in BIG trouble.”
ReplyDeleteoh! (Those autistic tattlers again)
A few years ago we had a "Stevey" that came in from recess and tattled on a teacher. "Mrs. Mikey called me the S-word!" ummmm....
after further questioning, we understood..."Stevey" said, "my last name is "wood" and she called me "woodSSSS"
that nasty old s-word.