Editorial comments

We continue to welcome readers to participate by leaving their comments and engaging in discussions. However, do keep your comments to the posts or issues raised.

We appreciate your cooperation and continual participation.

Have a blessed New Year.

The Editorial Team

    Comments & Responses

  1. I am going to take this message as a gentle reminder to all of the bomb throwers, left and right, that you stay on topic.

    There are unscrupulous agenda driven types lurking about who paralyze sites with inappropriate and provocative comments that elicit outraged replies. Why do they do this?

    Simple. It stops us from discussing the subject at hand, and thus distracts the faithful. The subjects introduced by the Weg Administrator have been absolutely critical, requiring thoughtful analysis and we have too often been derailed by ridiculous totally off subject arguements or offensive personal attacks.

    If the Administrator chooses not to delete their posts, or ban them entirely, the next best thing is to NOT respond to these individuals. They will go away, believe me. I can list 7 who have abandoned their smarmy game at Stand Firm.

    Think about it, and put a sock in it.

    Teddy

    Posted by  on  12/29  at  10:11 PM

  2. Dear Teddymak,

    One of weaknesess of eMail or writing in general is, that unless you are very good at it, it can never adequately show the sincerity of the heart or express intentions or mood of the writer, but please know that I write the following not in a spirit of contention but of humility.

    I too take this message as a gentle reminder to stay on topic. However, I am not sure that I understand what you mean by: “There are unscrupulous agenda driven types lurking about who paralyze sites...”

    The “unscrupulous” commenters may make alot of inane comments, but the site itself magnificently continues to provide News, updates on important issues, and interviews with various Anglican leaders, so, in what way can this or anyother site become “paralized”?

    It is a given that the Webmaster has an absolute right to edit or remove offensive posts, or to ban offenders from the site completely, but to limit dialog or prevent challenging misleading, unorthodox, heterodox, or just downright “mean spirited” satements smacks more of censorship.

    If we do not stand up for truth or for orthodoxy when confronted by error and heresy, we will only perpetuate the mindset that has allowed the revisionists to not only remain in positions of authority and power, but which allowed them to get there in the first place.

    Pardon me, but how are we are to “contend earnestly for the faith...” when we have a “sock” stuffed in our mouths?

    “In Essentials, Unity; In Non-Essentials, Liberty; In All things, Love.”


    In Him

    Steven

    Posted by  on  12/29  at  11:47 PM

  3. Dear Teddy:
    I really don’t mind “putting a sock in it”, provided that the ones who have been able to skilfully ply their liberalist trade stop being allowed to do so.  I realize that the Web Administrator can “put a sock in all of us” but I’m not convinced that those of us who use URL’s to make a valid point or who speak our words in plain english instead of theologically correct words should be edited for speaking the truth about the Truth.

    Posted by  on  12/30  at  04:46 AM

  4. Please note that the main reason for the loss of any posts is that they were not on the topic in question.  URL’s are welcome if they are relevant to the topic, as are all comments, whether for or against ..  again as long as they are on topic.

    However personal attacks will not be tolerated.

    Posted by  on  12/30  at  07:15 AM

  5. Good points all. Difficult question best answered by insistance of webmaster that all stay on on topic. Lurking is a calculated assault on the site, and its purpose is enabled by entering into off topic arguements with the lurker that distract the legitimate posters. That is why I advocate not answering or debating with them unless their comments are on topic. Many revisionists are serious debaters and have long histories of positive contributions to the sites. Smuggs, EmilyH, Mad Potter come to mind as liberal progressives welcome on all of the conservative Anglian sites.

    Put a sock in it is rather tasteless isn’t it. Hence I withdraw it.

    Peace and Blessings

    Teddy

    Posted by  on  12/30  at  11:50 AM

  6. Thank you, Editorial Team. You certainly have your work cut out for you. May God grant you wisdom.

    Posted by Alice C. Linsley  on  01/04  at  10:32 AM
    7. Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Michael Poon asks some questions on 'The Global Anglican Future Conference'

Previous entry: The Archbishop of Sydney on the Global Anglican Future Conference

<< Back to main