Janus-Faced Lumpkinses

So Peter Lumpkins his been acting like a punk on his blog in his treatment of James White, indeed, his treatment of any Calvinist. He's a loving, nice, civil, irenic Arminian. White and other Calvinists are angry heresy hunters who comment on books without reading them (I know, demented, right?).

I called out Lumpkings at his blog and pointed out some hypocritical reasoning of his vis-a-vis his treatment of Justin Taylor &c. I tried to point out the incoherence of his position on the matter, which I detail here.

I posted at his site as Frank Rizzo, infamous "Jerky Boy," and I even called Lumpkins "sizzle chest," Rizzo's famous line. I also told him I had "recordings" out. Type in "Frank Rizzo," sizzle chest" and "recordings," and see what you find (some R-rated language, so be advised).

Anyway, everyone knows Calvinists are big meanies, most don't know they're consistent. Same behavior in public as in private---if you've earned the derision. But Arminians put on a friendly public face. They're the kind, loving, civil branch of Christianity. Especially Peter Lumpkins. He's got a book out on abstaining from alcohol. He's a squeaky clean teetotaler (IOW, a conscience-binder). But this isn't necessarily the case, for they may act worse than Calvinists in private. After posting my critique of Lumpkins I was harrassed with several emails, given Lumpkins' attacks on White &c and his questioning of their credibility, I think it's time to question Lumpkins' credibility:

*********************

From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:08 PM
To: Paul

What's the matter "Frank" can't you get anybody to read your devastating expose? Or, is it they just don't want to comment? What a hoot...


With that, I am...
Peter

----------
From: Paul
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:31 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins


Yeah, my audience usually reads more sophisticated material and is more interested in real players in philosophy and theology, which would explain the disintrerest. The post has had about 100 views so far, so they must not want to comment. Probably gave them a good laugh at your expense.

Anyway, where's my nickel, or are you a liar? What a hoot

With that, you are...
Pwned

----------
From: Paul
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:41 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins

What, couldn't let all of my comments through so your readers could "judge for themselves?" But now they're "judging" without "reading everything," something you staunchly forbid. Should you give them all the info before they judge, just like you wanted Taylor &c. to do?

With that, this is...
Too Easy


----------
From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:39 AM
To: Paul

Unfortunately, "Frank" you didn't earn a shiny new nickel. Not even close. And, speaking of "liars" I think it's you who ought to fess up on that one. Talk about moral irony! You come to my site to make me out the 'hypocrite' because I hate Calvinists and was just bent on getting Justin, et al. But you do so incognito and even flat out lied when I asked you to reveal yourself and to note my commenting policies. So, you attempt to bait me with your "one" question, all along knowing what you were there to do. And, to top it off, you were dishonest about it.

Yessirreee. You really got me where you want me, I'd say. What a double Georgia hoot, guy! Youz crackin me up~!

----------
From: Paul
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:29 AM
To: Peter Lumpkins


Yeah, but who's acting like the 5 yr old and harrassing like a school girl?

Where's my nickel?

Know your limits.

----------
From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:24 PM
To: Paul

Rather harass like a school chick than flat out lie for no substantial reason. I mean, you weren't exactly facing the Gestapo as Corrie when she lied to protect the Jews. And, in order to qualify for a shiny new nickel, you've got to produce the goods. You did not and, apparently, cannot.


----------
From: Paul
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:28 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins

You're such a goon. Frank Rizzo is one of the characters in The Jerky Boys. I though you were culturally savy anough to catch the reference; indeed, I even called you "sizzle chest" (his signature line) and told you I had several recordings out.

I produced the goods via a valid (and sound) three step argument.

Now run along, you're bugging me.

----------
From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:36 PM
To: Paul

you lied

goodbye

----------

From: Paul
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:13 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins


oh yawn.

anyway, makes it convenient to not have to deal with the arguments.

sarcasm, satire, and parady are not lies. If I had said I was Brad Pitt, would you be playing the goodie goodie, two shoes too? No. Why? Because it's obvious. Likewise, Frank Rizzo, Not my fault you're a sheltered and fragile flower who didn't get the reference.

Run along, you're losing the debate again.

----------

From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:37 PM
To: Paul

Please. Such sheer rationalization is nonsense, "Paul" and you know it. Whatever satire you do on your site has not a single application on mine. I point blank asked you to go by my commenting policies and you a) was dishonest about it b) continued to ignore the commenting policies. It's guys doing what you did which ruin the blogging experience. You somehow think *you* do not have to play by other's rules when you're on their turf. Simply put, you, "Paul" are both dishonest and a coward. You would not come and straight up ask a question on my site. Instead you had to "hide" and do it. A sort of a literary bushwhacker. And, when your little sheet over your face was about to blow away, you did what cowards do--run for deeper cover--this time through explicit dishonesty. Imagine it--you accusing me of being dishonest about my hatred for Calvinism all the while you were dishonestly hiding behind a lying sheet. You talk about writing a blog whose readership demands intellectual acumen and more sophisticated theology and philosophy. Give me a break. Here's one--how about a blog where you own up to who you are and stand behind your words. It's called integrity, "Paul" or whoever the heck you are.

Now. I am done. I'd appreciate it if you'd go back to your make-believe world where you can you know all the sophisticated theology and philosophy your readership can handle. With good old, Rhett, I say, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a d_ _n!"


----------
From: Paul
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins


Wait, you email me and then act as if I'm harrassing you?

Here's a hint: get a life.

Maybe people wouldn't come to your site and engage in those kinds of tactics if you weren't such a pompous, self-important, overbearing, proud, arrogant jerk.

You also have not once engaged the arguments I've given you, not even the arguments undermining your charge of lying.

I also didn't run for deeper cover you didn't post my comments with the link to my blog so your readers really could "judge" for themselves. You tried to make it look like you had the last word and there was no response to your most awesome objections.

Look, you got schooled and it seems all of this outrageous and infantile behavior on your end is because your fragile ego can't take the pwneage.

Does your mom still know you're up?

---------------


From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:48 AM
To: Paul

When one is caught lying, the honorable thing to do is admit it. Cowards routinely rise up in anger...kinda like you did, jackass. Now, don't bother Emailing me again because I just flagged your email on Google as spam.

Oh, btw, I do have a life. But know I ain't wasting another moment exchanging with a hotheaded bean-brain (not to mention a cowardly liar).

Now, go back and play your I'm-a-real-intellectual-blogger pretend game. And, when you think of me, recall Rhett's words I left for you...
Tak (więc) długi (długo), nieuczciwy człowiek i lepszy wy

---------------

From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:32 PM
To: Paul

Dear "Frank" "Paul" and/or "Hiteish Ghupta"

So, what are you a stalker or something? Are you really that desperate for attention that you must continue harassing me like this? Does your readership know what a high-ranking Internet skank you are? Oh, but they don't. You sound so smart and learned on your blog. And, when unsuspecting people ask for a recommendation for a book, you sound so well read. Ah, but behind your sheet, what we have is a puny little gnat, buzzing around the Internet in disguise annoying people.

Here's the deal, Jack: Get lost. I wouldn't give you the time of day now for any thing serious because you're too darn creepy. You deny you don't lie, but then log onto my site and yet once again, lie through your sheet---
"I tried to weight the merits of the discussion between "Frank" and Peter and then I found this site, which would seem to favor Frank Rizzo as the winner."

Well liar. You know what the Apocalypse says: all liars burn in the Lake of Fire. I wish you'd remember that before you slobber down your chin with another one.

Oh brother. Talking about a mistake letting you on. You are why I have moderation. And the only reason--Internet tirds like yourself not knowing when to quit....

Now for the last time--and YELLING--I HAVE NO INTEREST IN EXCHANGING WITH YOU! NONE! PERIOD! GET LOST, CREEP!

*********************

Sorry, forgot to mention that Lumpkins' emails demand a R-rated warning too---though I confess to not knowing what a "tird" is. Also notice that he first emailed me. He then ends by demanding I quit harrassing him, as if I emailed him. Anyway, it would appear Lumpkins needs to deal with his own internal problems and demons rather than busying himself about James White, Justin Taylor, Peter Pike, etc. He wants to question White's credibility? Perhaps people should begin to question his.