Un-Christian Tactics being Exposed
Brother Robin Foster has exposed some tactics that those desiring change have begun. It seems that if you cannot win in the debate then all you have to do is charge racism. You really do not need to have something racist said you can invent it. Also, notice the dichotomous standards being held by some that do not desire to see Dr. Mohler as President. We are still six months away from Indianapolis, and the rhetoric and false piousness is as thick as a glass of buttermilk that you would dip cornbread into.
See here, and here for the false piety and rhetoric.
See here, and here for the rebuttal.
See here for a clear account of what you are seeing.
We are not in the 2nd week of 2008 and it certainly appears that we are in a pickle here in blogdome.
Tim
My preferred method is to take sweet cornbread and crumble it up in a bowl. Then add the butter milk with some sea salt and pepper to taste.
But, allow me to affirm you as a true Southern Baptist Brother even though you may dip your cornbread in the butter milk. No need to divide over tertiary issues.
Comment by Robin Foster — January 7, 2008 @ 1;17 pm
My Brother Tim,
Thank you for the collage of posts over the past few days. I would not have believed it would have evolved to such intensity. Enid’s light may be flickering. Perhaps we will do well to expect the juice to be turned up for a last sprint before June.
I booked my hotel last evening. I hope i live to get there ;^)
Grace, Brother Tim.
With that,
I am…
Peter
Comment by peter — January 7, 2008 @ 1;44 pm
Brother Robin,
Here in NC we have a more cultured way of using cornbread. It is to be dipped then the area dipped is to be slurped, sucked, chewed and then (if there is any of the pre-dipped cake remaining in one’s hand) dipped again. Of course that is the cake version. My Momma would make a different kind. It seems that if you heat up a frying pan (cast iron, not one of these with that black non-sticking tar in the bottom) with and melt lard, then take your corn meal batter and place a table spoon full of that batter in that hot lard, it will begin to fry. You leave this frying corn meal in place until it begins to float. Once that pattie is floating it will turn a golden brown in color. You then take that out of the frying pan and place it on a plate that is covered with a paper towel. (The paper towel soaks up the grease and the fried corn bread remains crisp.) Place you a bowl of turnip greens on the table seasoned with black pepper, salt, and load it up with White House Vinegar. Get you a huge fork full of greens, place it in your mouth and begin chewing. Once you experience the twang of the vinegar and salt place in your mouth that crisp corn bread pattie and chew until your heart is content. Repeat this procedure until all if finished and I promise you that you will either have to go to the bathroom (I am not saying your specific need) or the Hospital Emergency room to remove a gall bladder. :^) If you run out of greens before you do corn bread patties, then sit there and eat those corn bread patties. If the patties are cooked right you will sound like horses eating corn.
I must stop because my mouth is watering and Momma is 3 hours from me.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — January 7, 2008 @ 3;16 pm
Brother Peter,
Email me to let me know what Hotel you are in.
Blessings,
TIm
Comment by Tim Rogers — January 7, 2008 @ 3;17 pm
As someone with nothing invested in the future of anything related to Southern Baptists and the Southern Baptist Convention, I must note that the back-and-forth between the two “camps” is often rather childish, often amusing but in this case it’s offensive.
Wade never called Peter out by name. Someone from your “camp” took that pleasure. Did Wade have unChrist like motives in addition to pointing out a comment that MANY found offensive? I don’t know whether Wade’s heart was pure in that regard. But don’t try to convince me that Peter’s heart has been pure in his MANY blog posts about Wade over the past couple of months. Any reasonable observer would easily reach the conclusion that these two guys (Wade and Peter) just flat out don’t like one another. The rhetoric is almost always heated and slightly excessive to say the least. If we’re going to have a conversation about “being Christlike” with our language, we probably don’t need to paint Peter as the poor little victim. I think we’re all guilty of being nasty with our words and tone from time to time in the blogosphere.
As I said, I don’t think Peter is a racist. Peter may like to argue for the sake of arguing but in many instances he’s proven himself willing to have fruitful conversations with progressives and moderates like myself. He’s a bit more inclusive than other Southern Baptist bloggers I’ve met online. I appreciate those qualities in him. But like I said on another blog, I was offended by his remarks. Les Puryear, a man who I’ve always been impressed with when it comes to the subject of race, took the offensive comment in the same way that I did. As someone who spent nearly two years interacting and working with many of Atlanta’s finest leaders from the black community, I’m pretty sure that they would have been offended as well. Regardless of Peter’s intent , those specific words when directed at an African-American are offensive. We all should be more careful with our words.
Comment by Big Daddy Weave — January 7, 2008 @ 4;02 pm
We had a cast-iron pan in the shape of little corn-cobs. The oblong pieces of cornbread extracted from the molds were scrumptious.
Comment by Bart Barber — January 7, 2008 @ 4;03 pm
my momma had a big, ole, black, iron skillet. the cornbread was always thin and crusty. we’d but butter on it and away we’d go. good eatin.’ my dad crumbles the cornbread up into a big glass, then pours either buttermilk or sweetmilk over the cornbread until the glass is full. he enjoys it immensely.
david
Comment by volfan007 — January 7, 2008 @ 5;02 pm
Big Daddy, I have read your viewpoint on the comment and the excuses you and others have given for Wade several times, now, as perhaps you have read mine. But just because Wade didn’t post his name does not vindicate him from the fact that he posted links to lead readers to Peter’s identity. Then as he received numerous comments, Wade said “that man wouldn’t know a racial slur if it slapped him in the head.” Only due to Robin’s post was the less than irenic champion of grace and truth proven as disgrace and untruth.
And yes, Peter has posted several posts magnifying what he considered duplicity of Wade’s views. But Peter never produced the spew that assasinated anyone’s character–never. In fact, Peter has championed folks he didn’t even agree with because of how they were treated in the cyberscope of verbiage. And Wade has never been placed on the chopping block of opinion as a racist slurring white man of Southern Aristocracy who just happens to live in the heart of Alanta, Georgia.
In a country where folks (white, black or hispanic) are murdered for just walking down the streets and murdered for the color of their skin without any idea how that person believes or has served a community of all races, to have him painted with a brush of racism with the possibility and, moreso the probability, of being read by millions if not billions, this smacks of a the worst kind of Christian animosity.
We are about to elect a new president in America. One of the candidates is an African American and he is one of the finest candidates we’ve seen the Democrats produce in a while. Do you not think the world at large will be googling the term “racism” in an attempt to see why some will not vote for the first black man to run for President of the United States? Do you not think that when they click on the sixth entry that Google spits out and read that a baptist minister from Georgia named Peter Lumpkins has been charged by another Baptist minister of this despicable attitude that they will bother to find posts such as this one that vindicates him?
If you do not think that then you are not the lawyer I have grown to respect for his opinions on subjects of this nature. We cannot unring this bell, Big Daddy. The only thing close to being rectifiable with this atrocity is for Wade Burleson to take down that inflaming post. And when he does, I’d suggest everyone else take down any of theirs relating to it. This is not simply two men who find themselves on opposite sides of issues with a bit too much testosterone flowing through their fingertips. This is not simply an issue of who is the greater man of God. Or who has more political correct vocabulary skills. This is an issue of one man being painted with one of the most despicable attitudes we have in America–indeed the world. Wars are fought over less. Peter has proven himself by past actions that he is not what Wade colored him to be.
This is dangerous. The life-threatening kind of dangerous. Best we all be praying for angels to encamp themselves around Peter. this is not funny. not the least bit funny. selahV
Comment by selahV — January 7, 2008 @ 7;01 pm
SelahV,
I was offended by Peter’s comment LONG before Wade wrote his post.
The purpose of my comment was not to defend Wade. Instead, I wanted to point out that others were offended by the comment. We did not blog about it, though.
Comment by Big Daddy Weave — January 7, 2008 @ 8;43 pm
Brother B. Diddy,
You have always been one that would openly view a point and see it for the weight of its argument. Though, you and I have not agreed on much we have been able to argue the points.
I must tell you that I disagree with you as to the reason you were offended. You say that you were offended because you have worked with some of Atlanta’s finest black leaders, and you believe they would be offended also. I find it hard to understand how you, a white person, would be offended over someone referencing cornbread and buttermilk. I grew up with cornbread and buttermilk and it has absolutely no racial overtones at all. You argue that when we (Anglos) speak with others (African Americans) we must be careful of our terms. What should I do if I reference sin and say that Jesus can wash away your sins and make you white as snow? Am I to change that terminology when I speak to an African American, because I may offend him/her with a racial overtone that black is sinful and white is righteousness? I just believe you are stretching in your argument.
Blessings,
TIm
Comment by Tim Rogers — January 7, 2008 @ 9;11 pm
I have a question, a serious one. Do you think that racism is perpetuated because people choose to be overly sensitive to words, applying extra meaning to them immediately, based on preconceived notions, and reacting to the meaning they derived, without investigating whether the meaning was supposed to be in those words, of if the person even knew a different meaning could be in those words?
What would happen, if during the course of a conversation, a person hearing words they interpreted as offensive, stopped the conversation and asked the speaker what they meant by those words? What if they dialogued about the matter, educating each other, clearing the air, giving each person a right to be heard and make their case for the different interpretations? Might not this promote positive relationships, harmony, communication, etc.? Be proactive instead of reactive. And don’t be agressive about it, just talk with the person and find out what they meant without judging them guilty first.
Another question, whatever happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty and the right to face one’s accusers? Peter was judged, tried, and convicted without ever being told he had committed an offense. Even if he was guilty, the process was wrong. He was given no opportunity to address the offense, offer a defense, and take care of an apology if his brother showed him his sin. The method was wrong, it was unBiblical and shouldn’t have happened, especially by someone who is a Christian leader and expected to be setting an example for others to follow.
Trish
Comment by Trish — January 7, 2008 @ 10;09 pm
Selah
If Wade took his post down and never mentioned it again in any form or fashion, I would immediately follow suit and take mine down.
That’s my promise.
Comment by Robin Foster — January 7, 2008 @ 10;28 pm
Tim,
I like cornbread. I like fried chicken. I like collard greens (cooked in a little Jack). And I tear up some watermelon. But I would never direct such a comment as Peter did towards a black man, child or woman. Maybe we need to revisit some southern history to help explain why that is just inappropriate and construed by many that look like me and look like Dwight McKissic to be demeaning and inappropriate at best and downright racist at worst.
You ask how a white man such as myself could find that comment directed at McKissic offensive? Come on now. Is that a serious question? Tim, not sure where you grew up. But I’m from Vidalia, Georgia - much deeper south than any part of North Carolina. The racism in my school, in my community and even in the Southern Baptist churches was very very bad. The Fuzzy Zoeller-esque remarks get old after a while.
I just noticed that Wade closed comments. Perhaps SBC Today will now follow suit?
Comment by Big Daddy Weave — January 7, 2008 @ 11;55 pm
Wade has taken down the post with closed comments. You may read the reasons on Wade’s blog. That closes the matter for me as well. I personally commend Peter and Dwight for talking about this. I will never mention this subject again. The past is now the past.
Comment by Debbie Kaufman — January 8, 2008 @ 12;48 am
Robin,
Wade left instructions for it to be taken down if Dwight said to. He did. However, I have a problem with it that I posted at Peter’s site. Trish stated that Peter has been exonerated, but I disagree. I told her:
I do not share your point of view. It was very backhandedly done.
1. It is the 3rd post down, more than half a page from the top with the same date as the original post. This is like a correction of a slanderous newspaper article with 1″ headlines on page one for days, being relegated to a correction on the editorial page.
2. It states, with emphasis, that the offense was not intentionally made. Some exoneration.
It would be worth more if the same amount of energy and space, and top billing were given to an apology for race baiting from the author.
Let me add, that taking the post down does not an apology make.
Ron P.
Comment by Ron P. — January 8, 2008 @ 1;19 am
Debbie,
How convenient to say the past is the past, yet no apology for the intentional race baiting has been publicly published with the same notoriety.
I for one, believe that Peter deserves a very public apology from Wade.
Ron P.
Comment by Ron P. — January 8, 2008 @ 1;24 am
Ron P., I agree with you. And Wade owes Peter an apology. I don’t care if he makes it public or not. But I call on him to do so. Wade didn’t acquiese and honor Dwight’s request without adding his own little disclaimer that not only was Dwight offended but so were others in his office. Wade needs to be held accountable for his intentional actions toward another brother in Christ.
Big Daddy, I like your stand for many things you take in our world–even though I disagree with your viewpoints on many of the same. I appreciate the fact that you care for so many of the downtrodden, abused, and misused. And the very fact that you are as outspoken as you are in whatever stream you find a comment so offensive as you say Peter’s was to you “LONG before Wade posted it”, it begs the question why you were so long in doing your normal thing: Voicing opposition and outrage, if not at least a gentle reprimand to our brother-in-Christ, Peter Lumpkins, at the time you first were offended. Perhaps if you’d contacted him, this whole fiasco could have been averted. I know Peter has dialoged with you on many occasions. Surely he would have opened an email. selahV
Comment by selahV — January 8, 2008 @ 8;38 am
Robin, I sincerely doubt that Wade will take down his post. Until every last word, title and all is removed and all reference to Cornbread and Buttermilk is eliminated, so as to find “error, no post available with this url” shows up on the Google search to draw folks to his site, I will speak wherever there is comments engaged to discolor and label the character of my friend (or any other brother and sister in Christ) as racist. Again and again and again.
I will be writing a post on racism very soon. And I pray others will look long and hard into their hearts for the seed of any impure thoughts which bring rise to this despicable attitude. With it carries a multitude of deeply held animosities toward our brothers and sisters of color. I find it repulsive. selahV
Comment by selahV — January 8, 2008 @ 8;56 am
Tim, I have just received an email from a friend I count very dear to me. I want to go on record at this hour, that it is entirely possible that there is an apology forthcoming from Wade Burleson and I should not jump to conclusions as some did when they read comments and insinuations regarding Peter.
I am sorry for doing that and will now remain silent on this issue. As soon as I’m done apologizing on other blogs on which I have stated my grief over this heartbreaking situation. selahV
Comment by selahV — January 8, 2008 @ 10;36 am
Sister Harriette,
You need not apologize for anything you have said here. I have not seen you overstep any boundaries in your references. I have seen where Brother Wade has taken the post down and has called on SBC Today to remove the comment. As one of the 5 men who are responsible for that blog I will tell you that I will not remove anything at Brother Wade’s suggestion. We have contacted Brother Peter and if he wants us to remove the comment, we will. But only at the authors request, not at the demand of one who instigated this entire issue with a false charge of racism.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — January 8, 2008 @ 12;09 pm
Tim, thank you for your validation. selahV
Comment by selahV — January 8, 2008 @ 12;15 pm
Harriette,
I completely agree with Tim. You have been most kind to all on this, even those that have ardently defended Wade’s attack on Peter.
We need more to act like you in the SBC blog world, not less!
Ron P.
Comment by Ron P. — January 8, 2008 @ 1;07 pm
Hi Big Daddy Weave,
Since I am the one you referenced in Peter’s “camp” as being the one to take “the pleasure” of specifically naming him, I thought I would point out a couple of things. I am sorry I did that. I apologized on both blogs. I am still sorry.
However, from the links it was pretty obvious who Wade was talking about. That is how I figured it out. I am in no one’s email or phone loop.
I am just an over-50 member of an OK SBC church who likes to read blogs.
I find it interesting how you have decided whose camp I am in. How about neither? I actually agree with a number of Wade’s individual positions, but I think that he is writing in a manner detrimental to actually advancing or discussing any of those views. He was wrong in the post we are referencing.
Comment by Karen in OK — January 8, 2008 @ 1;21 pm
Sister Karen,
I did not know that you “outed” Brother Wade. There is not need to apologize for that. As you say, there were links that came straight to SBC Today’s comments and you could read Brother Peter’s name and his active link that linked you to his blog and profile. Therefore, you have nothing to apologize for here at Southern Baptist in NC.
Let me go on record expressing to Brother B’Diddy that you are not in “our camp“. Shoot, I did not even know you had a tent. “^) I have seen you agree with Brother Wade on a number of occasions. I have also witnessed times that you disagreed.
Keep dropping by Southern Baptist in NC and SBC Today, we do enjoy your comments and value your insight.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — January 8, 2008 @ 4;56 pm
My stance on this issue personally has not changed. Dwight just has more grace in him than I do. He is the most kind and gracious man I know, this has just proven that fact. I stay silent on this to bring it up no more, out of respect for him and his wishes. No other reason. Just to clarify.
Comment by Debbie Kaufman — January 8, 2008 @ 6;45 pm
Sister Debbie,
What are you talking about? No one on this blog has ever stated anything about Brother Dwight and his graciousness. Your statement implies that this post has put down Brother Dwight which has not been done.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — January 8, 2008 @ 10;01 pm
No Tim. I’m putting down this dancing in the streets celebration.
Comment by Debbie Kaufman — January 8, 2008 @ 10;45 pm
Apologies to Karen in Oklahoma for putting you in any camp.
However, only those who probably spend too much time in the blogosphere (I include myself in that category) would have known who Wade was talking about.
Debbie, there may have been some dancing but I got a feeling most of these fellas have two right feet. I love it how several bloggers have written posts that decry Wade for supposedly exploiting Peter’s comment for political advantage. But the catch-22 is that by doing the denouncing, they too are exploiting the situation and consequently furthering their own political agenda.
I’m reminded of the politician who denounces other politicians who engage in a “politics of fear” through countless references to 9/11. Meanwhile, the politician that decries the “politics of fear” continues with a 20-minute speech on terrorism, nuclear war and Islamism that would strike fear in any regular person.
But Debbie you should be used to the dancing. Whether they admit it or not, Wade is public enemy #1. To use a popular political phrase, Wade is an “agent of change.” Look at how Mike Huckabee has been treated by the Old Guard Rush Limbaugh/Bob Novak/National Review types. Any person with fresh ideas, an irenic spirit, and populist appeal is a threat to the Establishment. Wade is that threat. And any opportunity to discredit him will be pounced on. Arguing ideas is one thing but the little school girl bickering that has been going on in the last couple of months is beneath many of these grown men.
Comment by bigdaddyweave — January 8, 2008 @ 11;41 pm
BDW,
With all due respect, I do not know of anyone who is dancing on this one. The pain and suffering inflicted by Wade for political gain upon Peter was not worth any political points that may possibly be gained. I can assure you none of us would wish this upon Peter.
That said, Wade is not our enemy, Satan is. We disagree with Wade on many issues, and agree with him on more than we probably disagree. I for one, adamantly stand against his and other’s efforts to embellish and broaden the parameters of historic Baptist beliefs. He is a brother in Christ, whom we do not agree with theologically on certain issues for which many of us can not compromise biblically.
Ron P.
Comment by Ron P. — January 9, 2008 @ 12;15 am
Brother B’Diddy,
What Brother Ron said.
Sister Debbie,
Celebratory Dancing in the Street Are you even on the same blog here as the rest of us?
Brother Ron,
Very well stated. Such fresh ideas! What an irenic response. I agree with you. Of course, now that I have pointed this out, if any one disagrees with you then according to B’Diddy they are against you as an agent of change. :^)
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — January 9, 2008 @ 6;22 am
BDW: I grieve in my heart for all who suffer the pain of heartless smears. As Christians I charge that it is expedient for us to confront our brothers and sisters wherein we witness intentional or unintentional err. However we must do so with the loving-kindness our Father has so liberally bestowed upon us. To do less is no better than the one who errs with the utmost of intentional disregard for humanity rooted in his/her heart.
I have absolutely no designs on anything political, brother Daddy. 99.9% of what I write in my blogs is inspirational, personal experience, human interest pieces. The charge of dancing is the streets is ridiculous at least and ludicrous at best. NO ONE is celebrating anything other than two brothers in Christ who have reasoned together with the Lord as their Master. To each we commend the example of Christ’s teachings. If the supporters of the assault on another find that as unworthy of celebration, then they need to go back and look in the mirror again today. There is a chunk of bark in their eyes leftover from the limb they and the Lord removed during quiet time.
And to any who are interested, we pray today for CB and his family as they are in court (probably at this very hour) hoping to put an end to the uncertainty of four little innocent orphaned children in need of his permanent care as a parent. selahV
Comment by selahV — January 9, 2008 @ 9;25 am
What Big Daddy Weave said.
Blessings,
mel
Comment by M L (Mel) Spencer — January 9, 2008 @ 12;04 pm
BDW,
I will disagree with your analysis on a few levels. But first, I agree with the need to call attention to how one conducts a response to a post like Wade put up, for one does not want to malign the man’s character as he did Peter’s. That would indeed be quite hypocritical and contrary to clear commands such as Titus 3:2. I think most of the posts that went up were in an effort to come behind a brother whose demonstrable integrity has already shown himself to be a man approved and worthy of respect far beyond what was shown to him. As far as they call into question Wade’s motivation of the heart, I join you in your warning.
On disagreement, first everyone who read the post knew who was passively accused of being a racist, for the links led them directly to the comment. Second, how could you be a chronic blogfly and not see that Wade’s detractors comes largely from those who agree wholly or partially with his reformation ideals (at least as far as they concern the power seat struggle as opposed to doctrinal direction)? Wade has alienated himself from most because of a loose cannon accusational approach, an unwillingness (or inability) to back up interpretational assertions, an unwillingness to answer questions directly, and, since San Antonio, a self-destructive tendency. I would give credit to most blog readers, if I was you, of having the ability to address ideals separate from personality or who one’s friends are this week.
Comment by colin — January 9, 2008 @ 12;23 pm
please forgive the syntactical and grammatical flaws above: “…come…were…”
Comment by colin — January 9, 2008 @ 12;25 pm
Brother Tim,
A couple of things: first, Robin called me about whether or not I wanted to take the comment down. I contemplated actually placing a preface above the the comment with results from my conversation with Dwight McKissic.
Contemplating that, it was not a good idea for various reasons, not the least of which would it perhaps would summons the bugs from beneath the darkness and take me to task for ‘changing the comment’.
After thinking it through, I decided to leave it as is. I wrote it. I meant every word of it–not in the godless racist way others have tragically accused, however–and I hold no guilt for saying it.
Nor do I desire a ‘mythical meaning’ to arise around it where people may make it say anything they desire like one commenter did with Fuzzy by saying he maligned Woods with a comment about ‘barbeque’.
As for BDW, and exonerating our Wade with the lame excuse that ‘he did not mention Peter by name’ I think Aaron is learning his lawyer tricks quite well early on. Nice try, my friend.
And to name Karen as the culprit is nothing more than another trick–diversion. Why do you think Wade did not put my ‘name’ in the post? To protect me?
One final note, BDW: many have asked a very good question and no one seems to answer including you. Since you were so ‘offended’ a good time before Wade put his post up, why did you not take me to the cleaners on SBC Today thread? You certainly have not been reluctant to question me on other occassions. And to hear your words, ‘racist comments’ are something you clearly have no hinderances to questioning.
Perhaps you did and as once blog insinuated, SBC Today refused your comment–though I really doubt that. Others who howled after Wade posted said virtually the same yet neither did they mention it. For me, that is the strangest thing.
The first I knew of the comment being controversial in the least was as I described at SBC Tomorrow: our Wade had it up in neon lights.
Wash this out as you wish as a feud between Wade and me, BDW. Frankly, I don’t care a duck’s behind if you do. But if anyone cannot see this entire fiasco could have been averted and avoided via a better, more noble route than it was by simply taking me to task at the thread on SBC Today, I remain speechless.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Comment by peter lumpkins — January 10, 2008 @ 6;25 am
I am in a fix. I agree with Wade’s take on the convention. I think Drs. Patterson and Mohler and a few others have treated the SBC like their private fiefdom. I think the narrowing of fellowship is dangerous, silly and damaging to the Kingdom.
But I see how Wade can rub people the wrong way. I agree with him most of the time and still find his posts annoy me frequently. He seems to have completely conquered any traces of low self esteem.
But, as an observer, I would say this. The attacks on Wade have been much harsher than his criticisms of others. He has focused on issues, not personalities. Many of Wade’s detractors have resorted to name-calling, character assassination and other forms of slander.
I am about as conservative as they come. But I was accused by Jeremy Green of being liberal because I didn’t support Paige and the SBC blindly. The rhetoric has to be brought into the realm of the civil, the kind and the Christian.
This is true of some of Wade’s cheerleaders, who seem to think he can do no wrong. They should not dismiss those who disagree with them as futile fundamentalists who blindly follow the leader. It is also true of his detractors, who seem to think he has horns, a tail and pitchfork. They should not call those who want some changes liberal or question our commitment to Christ or the convention.
I would like to find a website that would engage in rational discussions of these issues without the vitriol, the name-calling and the silliness. I think the direction of the SBC will be decided in the next few years. The current roiling bitterness will not help.
Where is such a site to be found?
Comment by Dave Miller — January 23, 2008 @ 10;10 pm