DDOS Comment on March 6

Here is a comment that TWW received on March 6, 2013. When I saw this comment, I assumed it meant Denial of Service meaning "Don't read him." 

After hearing that Tim Challies believed that he was physically threatened as well as threatened with being hacked, I went through our comments to see if anything resembled those accusations. I couldn't find any.

This evening, thanks to a helpful new commenter, I was forced to re-look at the following comment.

Challies is, very subtly, one of the worst offenders. He’s built an entire profession off of reinforcing the Calvinista worldview. He lives on his computer all day and gets speaking arrangements because of it.

I hate to ask, but… can someone just DDoS him and call it a day?

According to several readers, a DDOS means, somehow, to place a virus on someone's website. This apparently prevents readers from accessing the site. I had absolutely no idea that DDOS meant such a thing. We may be bloggers but we do not know every abbreviation out there. And some abbreviations, such as DDOS have a number of meanings as I have now discovered on Google.

Update: Now I am told it doesn't involve a virus but a bunch of computers all getting together to overwhelm a website. Yikes! I am such a technopeasant. (11:53PM)

Deb and I believe in more information, not less. We believe in freedom of access to all ideas and thoughts, even ones with which we disagree. That is why we love the internet. It opens a world of information for everyone. It is a marketplace of ideas from around the world, something we could have never dreamed possible years ago.

If we had been more tuned into current lingo, we might have picked up on the possible meaning behind these words. We would have held the comment and asked the person to clarify their meaning. 

So, all this is to say that TWW would never, ever, ever advocate stopping the flow of information from any source and we apologize if anyone thinks that we would encourage such nefarious activity.

The comment has been removed from the flow.

Comments

DDOS Comment on March 6 — 64 Comments

  1. “Yikes! I am such a technopeasant.” I’m with you on that! I have no idea what most of the acronyms mean. Usually my kids have to tell me! I do, however, know how to use Google. I don’t know if you saw this, but it may be helpful down the road:

    http://www.webacronyms.com/

  2. @ Kathi:I did Google and found denial of service as a definition.cI guess I should have read more. Thanks for the acronym list. It means MTUK (see-I visited the link!)

  3. One of the most dangerous attacks that information security professionals deal with is denial of service attacks. These attacks can destroy the strongest computer networks in an organization. It is never a good thing to suggest that kind of action because you disagree with something said on another blog. Vengeance belongs to God and he will deal with these bad shepherds. I love the blog and haven’t found anything that would be offensive. I have read the stories in the comment section and wondered at times if these leaders truly love God’s people. I keep everyone in prayer because it is not easy leaving a bad church.

  4. I initially approved this comment. My bad.

    On most of the lists and blogs I am on this would NOT be considered a real threat. It would typically be read the same as saying someone who gives out bad advice needs “splaining with a clue by 4”. But on this blog I should have realized that it was in a different context and not let it through.

  5. Never seen those definitions.

    Where I think it comes from is an old country expression. Mules are know to be stubborn. There is a saying that at times they need to have things splained to them via a 2×4. Somewhere along the way techies took up the saying and morphed it when confronted by management who just “didn’t get it” for some issue.

  6. It also occurs to me that Timmy, as a professional who makes his living blogging, certainly did know what this acronym meant. He probably had a pretty darn good idea that you ladies didn’t, as well. So as I see it, all he needed to do (and he could even have done it through a surrogate) was to comment or e-mail you and let you know. Then your response would have indicated (as it did here) that threats are indeed unacceptable on TWW. I think he preferred to add fuel to his tantrum.

    Also, this doesn’t address either his unsubstantiated accusations of actual physical threats OR his failure to answer Kris at Survivors (and others) about what TWW reported that was actually inaccurate or untrue.

    And I certainly do agree with those who believe and say that all this kerfuffle and name calling indicates that you are rattling the cages of the complacent; which is entirely good! Has anyone called you Jezebels yet?

    In anticipation of that event I’ve named my new car, which is a red Nissan Juke, Jezebel in your honor:) Jessie for short.

  7. Well done guys (including GBTC) for your willingness to go the extra mile. Paradoxically given its supposed anonymity, one has to be so careful in cyberspace!

    For what it’s worth, DDOS would have made me think of a very old operating system 😉

  8. Johnny

    I think that we “was had.” That DDOS comment came in  the middle of the night by a one time commenter with a fake email address. It is obvious to many people who are computer savvy that Deb and i are technopeasants, lurching our way through the social media. Well, we can play the conpsiracy game just as good as anyone else. I am deeply suspicious that someone slipped something through so that, down the road, someone else could claim that we are “out to destroy” them.

    What a pile of codswallop/ We fight with words and words alone. And now we have big, strong men who claim to be manly men pretending that they are afraid that they will be “hurt.”  This smells to high heaven and I am pretty darned mad.

  9. I love the superior integrity of our two blog hostesses in the face of the integrity poverty displayed by those who feel so threatened by the relentless pursuit of the truth.

  10. @ Phoenix:I am concerned that this comment may have been a plant. It was written by a a one time commenter and was received in the middle of the night. It also comes from a location near the US/Canadian border.

    If anyone is playing games with us, we are not amused. We fight with words, not cyberattacks (like i would know how to do it) or physical attacks (us?). Could they be playing the game of “shoot the messenger,” something that authoritarian pastors like to play?

    I am holding onto the comment, along with its IP, just in case.

    So, to those who have a vested interest in this area, up your game and fight fair. Are we doing so well on the “words” front that you have to resort to this nonsense? Act like the men that you claim to be.

  11. @ Mara:The only thing we can do is to lay this out for everyone to see. If this is a game, then someone better to clue us into the the rules. We fight with words only. Are they all a bunch of wusses?

  12. @ GuyBehindtheCurtain:
    I must admit that I feel sheepish for not commenting on this at the time. I did think it was out of line, but it didn’t occur to me that D&D wouldn’t know what it meant and figured maybe it was best just to ignore it. Such is the path that allows for evil to flourish, eh?

    It does seem to me that to make this one comment a major point of his rebuke doesn’t speak well of Challies. He makes it sound like TWW was plotting against him to ruin his website . . .

  13. @ dee:

    Yes, actually they are. I come from a family of real men, Air Force Pilots, Mining Engineers, Railroad men, etc.

    I know what a real man is.

    These men that are being exposed look nothing like real men. They look like little boys with big egos and too much authority for their own good.

    It’s time for them to look in the mirror and see what is there, not the cooked up and grandiose fantasy about what they want to be.

  14. Mara wrote:

    I love the superior integrity of our two blog hostesses in the face of the integrity poverty displayed by those who feel so threatened by the relentless pursuit of the truth.

    This.

  15. Mara wrote:

    @ dee:
    Yes, actually they are. I come from a family of real men, Air Force Pilots, Mining Engineers, Railroad men, etc.
    I know what a real man is.
    These men that are being exposed look nothing like real men. They look like little boys with big egos and too much authority for their own good.
    It’s time for them to look in the mirror and see what is there, not the cooked up and grandiose fantasy about what they want to be.

    And this.

  16. Eagle wrote:

    The reality of this situation is that this is about money for Tim and others AND not faith.

    Respectfully, I think you should be careful, here. It is highly likely that it is both about money AND faith, and that isn’t unreasonable. What IS unreasonable is when you don’t do the money part above board with at least as much exposure as the world gives.

  17. Jeff S et al

    I remember the first time Dee and I met with our tech guy (GBTC) in March 2009 about how to write a post. I’ll never forget how he described my reaction to what he was explaining to us – he said I looked like a deer caught in headlights. I NEVER thought I would understand how to do this blogging thing.

    I can’t speak for Dee, but it’s nothing short of a miracle that I’m able to do any of this.

    In the future if you ever come across something in the comments section (or even in our posts) that is of concern, would you please let us know either through a comment, a phone call, or an e-mail? We need all the help we can get! 😉

  18. @ Eagle: I do believe that these men have faith and that they are Christians. They believe that their view of the faith is correct. When they review books and theology and it must fit into their paradigm. I have no problem with that end of things.

    I also have no problem with people making money, be it as a pastor, writer or ‘teacher.” However, there is a problem when we pretend we are objective while at the same time receiving some benefit from our business. Frankly, that is very hard, if not downright impossible.

    We need to be honest even if it does not put us in the best of light. Why? Because we must all admit that we are sinners and capable of mixed motivations. By letting others know, they can hold us accountable.

    I have no idea what the motivations are behind anyone’s actions. I can only judge what I see on the surface.

    One of my purposes for a loose comment policy was to allow the Christian community to see how our actions and words can be misunderstood, perceived, or judged by those on the outside. I spent a long time on the ExChristians.Net site. I was shocked by their perceptions. That profoundly affected me, leading me to hope that, if the rest of the Christian community could hear what people truly thought about us, it might help us all in our words and actions.

    I also wanted TWW to be a place in which people who were badly hurt by the church could come and express their darkest feelings and be loved and accepted. No matter how hard they pushed, I wanted to push back with love. Sometimes the angriest people are merely saying “listen to me.”

    That appears to have backfired a bit and now is being perceived as vague threats or used as a pretense to accuse others as having participated in threats. In light of this, I need to rein it in. I am going through all of our comments and trying to remove vulgar or threatening language without taking away the meaning of the comment.

    I don’t know if anyone is trying to bring TWW down. I hope not because TWW is not trying to bring anybody else down. I hope that we can all fight over words and not turn this into a game of who is offended the most.

    But there is one thing I want to stress. The church needs to understand that our words and disciplines can have long range, eternal consequences. We claim to be evangelical. But what happens to those who come in the front door and roll out the back. Do we forget them and continue on with our programs or do we seek to run after those who hurt and try to offer the love of our Lord?

  19. I remember reading that comment, but I just scrolled right by it.. I didn’t recognize the name, I didn’t know what the acronym stood for (I’m just as much as a technopeasant as you are, Dee!) so I didn’t pay much attention.

    I do find it amusing that Challies would focus on that one particular comment, out of all the other comments on that post… did someone say persecution complex? Yes, no?

  20. @ Mara:

    “It’s time for them to look in the mirror and see what is there, not the cooked up and grandiose fantasy about what they want to be.”

    Please forgive the topic change for a minute, if you would. Part of their fantasy life: Challies links to more “gospel = marriage” junk today in a post by Ordinary Pastor. Challies highlights this quote-

    “Just because you are hetero-sexual does not mean that you are reflecting God’s plan for marriage. You don’t get a pass just on marriage because you are not Gay. The basis of a marriage reflecting God’s plan is how it reflects the gospel. In other words a marriage is reflective of God’s plan in so far as it reflects the marriage between Jesus the husband and the church the bride.”

    Above we have Jesus as husband, and wife, obviously, as the church…the bride. It seems that the author pulls a switch later on in the post, or there is something I am not getting in this tiring argument about how marriage displays the gospel. The switch:

    “The Christian husband is the loving leader of his wife who willfully lays his own life down for her while serving his wife in sanctification (Eph. 5.25-33).”

    (Ok so far– still has husband as Jesus here and wife as bride.)

    “The Christian wife is to lovingly submit to her husband in a manner that reflects Christ’s willful submission to his Father (1 Cor. 11). This respectful, honoring, posture of love between joint heirs of grace is to be continually reflecting Christ’s love in the gospel.”

    So, is the husband now the Father and the bride is now reflecting Jesus? Did it switch? Just what exactly am I supposed to be? Bride, or Jesus dying? Confused as ever. Call Challies confused imo for linking to this article.

  21. @ dee:

    Dee, not to worry. Look for Challies to start encouraging you all and building you up. I mean, he linked to a post on his blog today entitled, “It’s So much Easier To Criticize”…so I assume this wealth of info will apply to him as well. He writes about the post:

    “It’s so obvious, but still bears mention: it is so much easier to criticize than to encourage. So we ought to be put extra effort into building up one another.”

    It’s obvious. So obvious. He will be putting forth extra effort, not simply ordinary effort, that is if he applies the article to himself. Well, I do hope to see much encouragement from him regarding TWW in the future.

  22. @ dee:

    I didn’t have a clue what DDOS meant either. I’m sure I breezed through that comment without paying attention, although I did notice that the commenter was a one timer. That did make me wonder what the purpose of the comment was.

    What is stranger still is the focus on that one comment by Mr. Challies and the lack of focus by Mr. Challies on the questions and concerns that were raised by TWW and SGM Survivors regarding his connections to SGM and his publishing company. Did he read through all the comments and just pick out that particular one-time comment to be concerned about (doesn’t seem likely), or did he know that particular comment would be there (don’t want to think this)? The problem is what he chose to address and what he left unsaid. It leaves a foulness in the air.

  23. “Sometimes I can find myself getting a little bit skeptical about the sheer quantity of books being produced today. If all those thousands of years ago the Sage was already lamenting “Of making many books there is no end” what would he say today? There is a book for everyone on very nearly every topic. And there are times when I find myself wondering if this is really a good thing.”

    Says book reviewer, lover of books, book promoter and book publisher Challies on his blog today. But as you read on, you discover that yes indeed, more and more books are a great thing. His skepticism was misplaced after all. 🙂

    “The lesson learned is that with good filters, more information is better than less information. Therefore, a greater number of books can be more helpful than fewer books, as long as we learn to filter effectively.”

    He wants to be our filter, I think.

  24. @ Bridget:

    “…and the lack of focus by Mr. Challies on the questions and concerns that were raised by TWW and SGM Survivors regarding his connections to SGM and his publishing company.”

    I would love to read an explanation by Challies regarding what you brought up. Instead, he seemed to be very critical of TWW in his post. I expect that will end though, now that he linked to the it’s so easy to criticize article today. Surely he will do what he expects others to do. 🙂

  25. @ Diane:

    It’s funny how the words critique and criticize are closely related. Challies critiques books yet doesn’t think people should criticize others. Criticize can mean the same thing. Our culture seems to view “criticize” mainly in the negative context. It is interesting to note that criticize also means “to form and express a sophisticated judgement.” Isn’t that what Challies does with books and their authors?” He doesn’t want the same in return though?

  26. Eagle wrote:

    So with the lack of ethics that Tim, CJ, Mark Driscoll, and Mark Dever have….I can foresee them doing anything to get their way. What could that include?

    In Scientology, this is called “The Fair Game Law”. Once an Enemy of Scientology has been defined, anything and everything is “legal” in going after them. Even rumors of assassination (“Directive R2-45 LRH”).

  27. @ Dee:

    “I am concerned that this comment may have been a plant.”

    I thought of this last night when I realized that the commenter had been a one-timer but decided not to suggest it as it might throw fuel on the fire/make me sound like a crazy. : ) But glad to see I wasn’t the only one who thought it looked funny upon closer inspection (like others, I didn’t even notice the comment in the original thread).

  28. Bridget wrote:

    @ Diane:
    It’s funny how the words critique and criticize are closely related. Challies critiques books yet doesn’t think people should criticize others. Criticize can mean the same thing. Our culture seems to view “criticize” mainly in the negative context. It is interesting to note that criticize also means “to form and express a sophisticated judgement.” Isn’t that what Challies does with books and their authors?” He doesn’t want the same in return though?

    Bridget,

    Thanks for this astute comment. Look for it in tomorrow’s post. 🙂

  29. The Wartburg Watch is not responsible for the comments left here. They are responsible for their own content.

    Any sel-respecting fool knows this.

    Add the disclaimer Wartburg, and be done with it.

  30. Thought One: Jargon

    In Tim’s defense, it is very easy, after internalizing some jargon, to assume everyone you interact with knows it as well. Especially so in this case, I think, where the acronym is Internet-related, and you’re dealing with people on the Internet, and it commonly comes up in the news (at least in the Technology news).

    Thought Two: (D)DoS explained

    To get into the specifics of things a bit more, a “DoS” is a Denial of Service attack, wherein an internet-connected computer is effectively inaccessible. The most common example of this is taking down websites. When you ask your computer to show a webpage from thewartburgwatch.com, the computer must ask for that page from D&D’s webserver (i.e. computer dedicated to giving out copies of the webpage). A DoS sends a huge amount of fake requests, making the webserver take too long to respond. This makes it hard for legitimate requests to get through in a timely manner.

    A “DDoS” is a Distributed DoS attack–that is, all of the fake requests are coming from hundreds (or thousands or millions) of computers, so it’s not as easy to protect against (it becomes very difficult to distinguish legitimate requests from fake ones). While there are mitigation techniques, they tend to be costly and employed by big organizations (Fox, Bank of America, etc.)

    Thought three: “Hacking” and cybercrime (and more jargon)

    I personally, as a computer programmer, wouldn’t necessarily call these “hacking”–I tend to reserve that term for gaining unauthorized access to a computer system via circumventing security measures. Two examples: if I were to call Dee and pretend to be from secureserver.net and needed her password to perform maintenance on thewartburgwatch.com, and she gave that to me–or if I used some software flaw–and I used that information to change thewartburgwatch.com, or copy any data they may have, etc. then I would have gained unauthorized access and be hacking.

    A DDoS is certainly an attack, and I wouldn’t object to it being called a “cybercrime”.

    More confusing jargon: “Hacking” in the sense that the public sees it is basically just “did something naughty with a computer”, but in technology circles, the word is much more nuanced, and can just mean understanding a system or optimizing something (cf. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html, lifehacker.com/about)

    Thought Four: the DDoS comment

    I think it’s very presumptive to assume that the comment in question was ‘planted’ by someone to make this site look bad. Imagine the ways it could backfire–someone takes him up on it, and he actually does get DDoS’d, and his site goes down. If he is in fact making a living from his blog, then that would be incredibly ill-advised, unless he has plans to sue two tiny bloggers for mega-bucks?

    I think what’s much more likely is that some anonymous user came by and left a comment in anger. I’m sure we’re all familiar with saying rash things or acting unwisely when riled up.

  31. @ Sopwith:

    But, Sopy, you know that “certain folks” believe that they should police the world and now, apparently, any blog that “critiques” “certain folks” should police what commenters from around the world say about “certain folks.” 🙂

    All that aside, is it possible that if a real threat was made against a blog (not that TWW would let it be published) that TWW could find themselves in the midst of a hunt for the perpetrator of such a threat? That could be a real hassle.

  32. I’m kinda with pretzels on this one, that the commenter was spouting off. Why? The comment was made on TWW’s April 9th post, just yesterday. Challies’s post about “discernment bloggers” was made on 4/3. That’s last week.

    So, if he was claiming threats in that post, the comment here about DDOS couldn’t be something he was referencing. Unless he’s made some other mention about threats, say, yesterday on Twitter or Facebook, then he was thinking of something or someone other than that particular comment. (If he did, please tell me. I don’t have him on my Twitter or Facebook feeds.)

    I’m not saying you should have let the comment stand. It was a threat, though more than likely one without any teeth to it. Being above reproach in regards to language is a good thing. It means the commenters here have to be more deliberate in how they frame their own arguments and thoughts. But to assume that Challies was “focusing” on this one comment doesn’t make sense. As to whether or not it was a plant, I’ll let you decide.

    PS: I do think Challies was referencing TWW, among others, when he posted the original entry.

  33. @ Tikatu:

    If he wasn’t mainly concerned with those comments, then why did he not address the main points of the article? He seemed to send everyone down a rabbit trail instead of dealing with the actual article.

  34. @ Bridget:

    Wartburg Watch will aways IMHO cooperate with the authorities.

    Wartburg, you have lawyers, use them.

    Place a comment disclaimer.

    Cover your proverbial @zz.

    You can be dang sure your detractors will…

    Back ta chang’in diapers, huh Dee?

    hmmm…

  35. @ Diane:
    Quoted a pastor:
    “The Christian wife is to lovingly submit to her husband in a manner that reflects Christ’s willful submission to his Father (1 Cor. 11). This respectful, honoring, posture of love between joint heirs of grace is to be continually reflecting Christ’s love in the gospel.”
    How about, “The Christian wife is to respectfully submit to her husband in a manner that reflects the Church’s willING submission to Christ” (Eph 5:22-33) I Cor 11, NOT addressing wives and husbands, NOR mentioning Christ’s willING submission his Father, does NOT magically become relevant to those topics simply because it has the word “head”.

  36. Tikatu,

    For clarification, the comment was made on March 6 (as this post indicates), but a commenter mentioned it yesterday.

  37. @ pretzels:Let me suggest that it could be a way to contact the FBI (this is federal, I believe) and say “See what’s these folks are threatening.” Prestonwood pulled that nonsense on Chris Tyne. One of the TGC bloggers reported us for spam when I replied to a Tweet. I got a lovely note from the twitter fraud team which I promptly protested and found out who did it.

    Secondly, this was left in the middle of the night from an area that is far north and associated with a Bible college.

    Could it be a coincidence? Yes but I am not sure about this.

  38. “A  Proverbial Whirling Dervish Caught In A Religious Hurricane, Perhaps?”

    Where TimC is concerned, the blogs uncovered a conflict of interest, and apparently a type of religious fraud?

    Is TimC facing certain public fallout as a result of his que$tionable practice$?

    Is his busine$$ suffering as a result?

    Ain’t nobudy’s fault but his own?

    hmmm…

    Sopy

  39. @ Bridget:
    I agree wholeheartedly that he should have addressed the main points of the article here. He doesn’t like criticism that he can’t control. It’s why there were very few people taking him to task for his broad-brushed bashing of “discernment” blogs, and why those who did call him out did so by being excruciatingly circumspect with their language and tone. Everyone else was “you poor boy!” or “Amen, brother!” He only permits those who agree with him to dialog with him. If you don’t agree and your disagreement is less than exceedingly polite to him (to the point of ego-stroking), you’ll be left in the moderation queue

    He really needed to name names, as some asked him to do. Dee, Deb, and the commenters here would have handled it.

    @ dee:
    Still, Dee, how could he “focus on” (everyone keeps using this phrase) the DDOS comment if the suggestion hadn’t yet been written and published here. Unless he addressed it later in his blog entry responses after it had been posted here, it hadn’t happened yet. This is what I’m trying to get at.

  40. @ Bridget:

    “It is interesting to note that criticize also means “to form and express a sophisticated judgement.” Isn’t that what Challies does with books and their authors?” He doesn’t want the same in return though?”

    He sure does do that. Whether or not he wants the same in return I cannt know for certain, and I would imagine he has written about how he welcomes criticism, comments, iron sharpens iron, etc., although his recent very negatively critical post about certain discernment bloggers who remained nameless would seem to indicate that he is not pleased when others point out some glaring, imo, lack of detail and or transparency.

    From the bestest source in the world…lol…wiki:

    “From the 1970s onward, under the influence of neo-Marxism, critical theory and Michel Foucault, it became fashionable in the English-speaking academic social sciences and humanities to use the French word “critique”, instead of the ordinary “criticism”. The suggestion is, that there is a difference between the two terms, but what exactly it is, is often not altogether clear. Often the connotation is, that if a deliberation is a “critique” and not just a “criticism”, then there is “a lot of extra thought and profound meaning” behind what is being said. A “critique” in the modern sense is normally understood as a systematic criticism, a critical essay, or the critical appraisal of a discourse (or parts of a discourse). Thus, many academic papers came to be titled or subtitled “a critique”. From the 1970s, English-speaking academics and journalists also began to use the word “critique” not only as a noun, but as a verb (e.g. “I have critiqued the idea”, instead of “I have criticized the idea”). What is often implied is, that “critiqueing” goes deeper into the issue, or is more complete, than “criticizing”, possibly because the specialist criteria of a particular discipline are being applied.”

    and:

    “Professionally, “what it means to criticize” has become a much more specialized and technical matter, where “inside knowledge” is required to understand the criticism truly; this development is linked to the circumstance, that the right to criticize, or the propriety (appropriate use) of criticism, is regarded nowadays much more as depending on one’s position, or on the context of the situation (“I would like to say something, but I am not in a position to criticize”).”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism

    The right to criticize. He may ascribe to the “I am a professional (pastor, elder, book reviewer, clergy not laity), therefore I critique” view, whereas the rest of us non-pros have not enough information to formulate a “correct” criticism and have no right. Remember, we are to be “willing to remain in ignorance” and all that…and since we cannot have enough info to critique/criticize because we are remaining in our ignorance, we should just keep quiet. I realize he indicates that he places himself in that “remaining in ignorance” group, but if he truly believes that, how can he continue to inform the reforming?)

    Is criticism considered a form of teaching that women may not do to an elder/pastor? (Recalling he is of the women may not read scripture in church bunch as that is considered teaching men, in his view.) If criticism is kind, unemotional, constructive and educational, although it may shed a negative light on an issue, is that a form of teaching which may be forbidden for a woman to do to a elder/pastor? I don’t think he would think that is believing the best. 🙂

    So many rules on what women may or may not do, it is hard to keep them straight!

  41. “Proverbial Rolling Mosquito Coaster?”

    If TimC wants ta build his proverbial house upon da sand, can we help it if the rains come?

    SGM was of ‘bad design’, the Lord, He wanted straight angles?

    hmmm…

    Sopy

  42. Tikatu

    He addressed this in his 4/3 blog post so it was a month later.The  comment was posted here on March 6.

  43. @ dee:

    “What is stranger still is the focus on that one comment by Mr. Challies and the lack of focus by Mr. Challies on the questions and concerns that were raised by TWW and SGM Survivors regarding his connections to SGM and his publishing company.”

    In Challies’ post, this is the reason he gave for not addressing the critique-

    “There is part of me that doesn’t much care that these bloggers are writing about me and that what they are writing is unhinged from reality. If I have learned anything from ten years of blogging, it’s that I’ve got to have thick skin and not be easily offended. I’ve often considered the implications of 1 Peter 2:23 and Proverbs 26:4-5 and other passages that pertain to personal offense. Engagement and self-defense is usually a dead end, and I do not intend to refute those discernment bloggers who have been after me, to meet error with fact. My concern is not first for them but for you and me, the people who read their sites, even if only occasionally.”

    1) Engaging with the nameless discernment bloggers and their commenters is a dead end. Why? We don’t know…it’s just usually a dead end. Kind of like his limiting comments to 100 and after that nothing of value can be learned…or things just deteriorate after that arbitrary number. Why? We don’t know. He just says it’s so.

    2) The nameless bloggers are “after me”. If you are after him, he will not engage/defend. Who decides if someone is after him? I think he does. I guess critique/criticism = being after him. Being “after me” sounds ominous and he will not engage. He is above that. (Or perhaps scared.)

    3) Discernment bloggers who are after him are not worthy of him “meeting error with fact”. He is offended?/indignant?/frightened? that nameless bloggers are after him. He will not defend himself by meeting error with fact because, well, never mind…I don’t know why. He doesn’t say. He just says nameless discernment bloggers will not get his facts, so there. He is doing his part to keep us in our ignorance.

    4) He is doing all this not meeting error with fact out of concern for us (and himself), which goes well with his wanting us to be willing to remain in ignorance.
    It is my opinion he is concerned that we remain in our ignorance.

  44. @ dee:
    Dee, you have the right to publish the IP address from which the comment came. They can fake the email address, but faking the IP address is difficult and very few people actually know how to do it. State it as, “It appears that the following message, which appears to be a threat, came from the following IP address.” Then if the “big boys” want to find the source, they can. Also, note that you are publishing the IP address so that the alleged victim of the threat can proceed with investigation and a formal complaint against the actual source as appropriate.

  45. Diane wrote:

    @ Dave A A:
    Inquiring minds still want to know…am I Jesus or the bride?

    Dont forget, there are 4 blue/pink puzzle persons, not jist 3. The 4th is chirch elders/believers. Believers believe the church elders. Church elders take care of the inquiring minds stuff! 🙂
    Seriously, you are Christ’s body, and his workmanship, and his city, and his priest, and his temple, and his king, and his kingdom, and his field, and his building etc. etc. etc.
    And As for MD and myself, we are his winsome bride!

  46. @ Eagle:

    I think you are right, Eagle. So…why again should anyone who wants to know the truth about something, as much truth that is available that can be accessed, trust Challies’ discernment? I almost feel sorry for him.

  47. Eagle wrote:

    they are often removed from reality.

    “what they are writing is unhinged from reality.” Blogger xxx, alledgedly referring to bloggers D and D

  48. When Challies says it is wrong (a sin of which to repent!) to read criticism/discernment/analysis/watch blogs, he is also saying it is wrong to attend to people who’ve congregated on those sites, people who’ve been hurt and are expressing/sorting and searching for a way to grow out of the pain. People who haven’t just left in a huff but who are trying to find a way to stay with God.

    This says all that needs to be said about his priorities. It is beyond the pall.

  49. @ Eagle:
    @ Dave A A:

    From the Challies post regarding nameless discernment bloggers:

    “Where the Bible calls us to approach conflict with equal parts truth and love, discernment bloggers operate by lies and fear–or half-truths and fear at the very least. It is an intimidating combination if you are the one who may face their wrath.”

    This is what I pity, Eagle. He essentially called discernment bloggers liars. (I have not known you to be liars Dee and Deb, and I bet you didn’t even know you had wrath and were after him, did you.) I almost feel sorry for him–not for him as a person, but for the way he is going, or for what he is showing to people that he is.

    Kind of like I would feel sorry for a teen who repeatedly made wrong decision after wrong decision. You know, after a while, you just kind of shake your head and marvel at the roads people choose. That kind of feel sorry, Eagle. Not feel sorry like he is a victim or that he doesn’t know what he is doing. His post was very demeaning and hurtful and I am sad that so many of his followers/commenters did not see that.

  50. Eagle wrote:

    Mara which railroad did your family work for? Your commnet piqued my interest.

    I have two cousins who work for Union Pacific. One is an engineer in Wyoming, moving a whole lot of coal.
    The other works in Omaha.
    I love those guys. I miss them a lot since I don’t see them often any more.

  51. @ Sophie:I have no idea. I have looked through the comments. So, if anyone has, they must have used some code language to which I have yet to be introduced. if we knew something was a threat, we would not allow it.

  52. Diane wrote:

    @ Eagle:
    @ Dave A A:
    He essentially called discernment bloggers liars.

    That’s how I understood it also. But with no examples of the lies and half-truths, we’re just left to guess.
    Sophie wrote:

    Where was he physically threatened? On this blog? By whom?

    Again we’re just left to guess. I think it must have been something in one of the 2 March posts about him, but so far I can only find figures of speech which one would have to take literally.