Alain’s Newsletter, classified as hate speech by Google and supported by the TVC, recently discontinued publishing and put up a splash page on the domain’s entry which provides no explanation. I emailed former contributor Stacy L. Harp who replied:
Not that you and I are friends, but I was told by someone that he is very ill and had to discontinue the blog until things get better.
Such a peach that Stacy! She’s writing for Newsbusters.org now.
In Stephen Bennett news, the “daily broadcast” hasn’t been updated in two weeks or so and Straight Talk Radio appears to have become a subscription based service. I’m curious if it’s even still airing on the handful of stations it debuted on. Numerous emails sent to STR seeking comment were not returned. The STR main page now reads:
Sraight Talk Radio is a subscription based service which reports on the homosexual agenda, understanding the truth about the homosexual lifestyle and how to minister to those trapped in this destructive homosexual behavior. As an Annual Member of Straight Talk Radio, you will have access to all of Straight Talk Radio’s Broadcast Archives – as well as new programs. The Annual Subscription to Straight Talk Radio is for your tax-deductible gift of $50.00 or more. We encourage you to download the broadcasts, burn them to CDs* and pass them along to as many as possible to learn the truth about homosexuality and its effects on society, children and those who practice it. (*A small fee would apply for burning special, multi-part broadcasts. Detailed information is available on the Private Members page.) As a member, you will also have access to STR’s Private Discussion Boards to discuss numerous topics relating to homosexuality and the homosexual agenda.
Harp’s main page, Writing Right, has had a cryptic description up of how Typepad gave her a new blog. She is daring people to “try to find her.”
Joe Brummer’s blog discusses some of what went on. Apparently he was able to comment on Stacy’s blog and have some conversations with her. Nearly every time I tried, it seemed my comments would not go through. Oh well.
Most of the people on the “other side” that I interact with I know outside of the blogosphere, with the exception of Disputed Mutability, who seems quite sane.
But yes, dissent is often equated with hate speech or “flaming”, even when it is written politely, factually and with a focus on expanding discussion. It’s draining, honestly. So I only try to engage every now and then, when I think I can do so in a way that demonstrates common ground. Usually that gets misinterpreted, too.
Whatever.
What a pity that a few boards are shutting down and that Bennett is charging admission to hear his gospel.
They should of been delighted that all those pro advocates were visiting their site. It might be draining them. However they are never going to defeat us with that attitude. 😛
Those who maintain blogs that specifically target an identifiable group-then misrepresents them, is at risk of being shut down.
Especially if that group-regardless of their age, ethnicity or religious affiliation suffer real restriction of their human rights and violence as a result, deserve protection from the internet hosts.
This isn’t about political rhetoric because of political parties.
People who claim to be Democrat or Republican aren’t assaulted in the streets or attacked in the bars they congregate in.
They aren’t banned from school or restricted in identifying themselves as their political party.
The Stacy Harps, DL Fosters and Willie Wilsons of this country have to take responsibility for their actions and understand possibly irreversible consequences of their actions when they portray a minority as unwelcome, dangerous or undesirable because of not only their identity, but their status AS a minority-unable to politically or socially defend themselves.
When hate is political (not just personal), advanced in the media or contributes to restricting the freedom of other citizens, it’s not something that occurs at the expense of those who express hate.
But those responsible for the VEHICLES they use to express it, also have the right to not let them continue. Haters can ultimately become a liability.
Hate always will be a liability.
Being stubborn about learning that, doesn’t look especially mature about responsibility, does it?
Same thing happens over at Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex, with replies to some pretty ridiculous postings either heavily edited, removed, or comments closed.
I know that blogs are people’s own property and they can do with them whatever they like. It strikes me though that the posters of these anti-gay sites operate under the belief that everyone who responds to their misinformation is going to praise and love them, but then wind up really surprised when exactly the opposite happens.
What’s the point then of having the blog?
Hmm… my comment might actually be a better response to the “dissent” thread in the entry above.
Jody, you raise a good question. It’s a compelling instinct to express oneself and of course blogs are essentially opinions.
But as noted here…anti gay blogs most commonly express only ONE opinion. There is no discussion…and the sites owned by anti gay religious individuals, tend to be SERMONS, not discussions.
And those sermons are not dedicated to religious principles in general, but dedicated expressly against gay people.
The TVC, the FRC, the AFA and CWA are nearly exlusively attacking gays and lesbians or consider any objections to what they say is a persecution of Christians.
DL Foster in his discussion of the anti gay rhetoric of his fellow ministers, defended that our society must or should adhere to Biblical standards of sexuality.
However, there are no calls to restrict divorce and remarriage.
There are no calls to restrict the ‘formerly gay’ from marrying. Considering the failures of marriages between one straight and one gay spouse, one would think there could be support for such a thing.
It’s just that no one suggests it to begin with.
No one objects to an adulterer or a thrice divorced man being the author and signer respectively, of a document called ‘Defense of Marriage”.
The claims of defending society against damage to marriage is ludicrous, given these facts.
But having a blog that expresses disdain or warnings about gay people is a fairly popular enterprise because of the status of gay people.
But eventually it will get old, because bashing a group, doesn’t do anything for what ACTUALLY damages marriage, marriages and married people.
The public might be ignorant at first, but they aren’t dumb.
They know nothing much is really changing or is effected by gay people and what they do.
Perhaps they’ll tire of the one track way gay issues are dealt with.
And they’ll wonder why gay people are getting all this play, when they have gas prices and the war on terrorists and the security of their jobs and health care and Social Security to worry about.
And gay people SHARE that worry, they aren’t immune to it.
I think eventually when the truth comes out, the public would rather gay people be enabled to share MORE of their responsibilities as citizens and not be exempted from being better at it.
So these anti gay blogs only are holding back the truth, rather than revealing it.
But I think the bloggers count on the fatigue of the public to not examine them that closely.
Or question them that pointedly.
Truth tends to be a predetermined destination. Endurance is the way to it, as it is to most things worthwhile.
I’ve always thought that whenever someone starts a blog, he/she should think very carefully what he/she intends to accomplish with each feature or functionality.
If you want to consider comments, then you need to ask yourself why?
Is it to get feedback? E-mail can do the same thing, although it is less convenient to the reader. But that gives you the power to choose what to respond to and what to ignore, without the pretense of welcoming all comers.
Is it to build community? If so, you need to be prepared to accept the good with the bad. You can choose, to a certain extent, who is or is not in that community, but then you end up playing God. Is that what you want? To have a community or to be God?
Is it for self-validation? Then perhaps a counselling professional would be more appropriate.
A small fee would apply for burning special, multi-part broadcasts.
Is he joking? This subscription business helps confirm to me what I have suspected all along. This isn’t a ministry, it’s another home business for SB. Does anyone know the law concerning these tax deductible “donations”? Can they require a minimum charge and still call it a donation? Or at least can it still qualify as tax deductible?
David Roberts
Oh, and another thing.
How odd is it that if you want to hear “the gospel,” you have to pay $50???
Maybe their version of the Great Commission goes something like this:
Go therefore and make sycophants of all the nations, charging them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, shaming them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, except at the front of the firewall. (alterations in bold, after Mt. 28:16-20)
Jim, while I -know- better, I still have this naievete that everyone wants to talk, discuss, and even, honestly, argue over various point of view. I grew up with BBSes and their wild talk threads. You were judged by not just what you said but by how you could say it and how you could defend it. I’m idealizing it a bit, but it at least felt like people were doing give and take.
Most blogs don’t seem that way anymore. Most of them are just “ditto headed” sites. I haven’t seen XGW to really censor anyone, though much like my fourth grade teacher, Ms. Denison, Mike does enforce a pretty high standard of decorum.
:^)
It’s why I love reading old pamphlets and things from the 18th and 19th century. People would write just the most amazing and scathing take downs of each other’s point of view — but everyone was at least reading what each other was saying.
It’s why I love reading old pamphlets and things from the 18th and 19th century. People would write just the most amazing and scathing take downs of each other’s point of view — but everyone was at least reading what each other was saying.
That sooo bears repeating: Everyone was at least reading what each other was saying. Now so often it seems it’s just preaching to the choir. And if you’re in the choir trying to sing a different tune, you get booted.
Not that anyone asked, but I thought long and hard about whether to have comments at my new website. I finally decided that since it wasn’t really a blog, comments weren’t going to provide much in the way of enhancements to the experience. The goal for the site was to be something that people would find as they looked for info on specific topics. Almost all of my visitors come via Google, which is exactly as I intended. Not that anyone asked, or cares.
But if someone is starting a website and wants comments, he/she should consider what role comments will play on the web site.
Ex-Gay Watch, IMO, provides the best example of how comments can add real value to a site, in no small measure due to the standards that have been established and enforced.
Same thing happens over at Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex, with replies to some pretty ridiculous postings either heavily edited, removed, or comments closed.
Reagan, did you have something deleted, edited, or are there any closed comments you can point out? To my knowledge I have only seen 2 comments ever deleted, not comments have ever been closed, and if there are edits, it is editing out words, not ideas.
So, they couldn’t find enough ex-gays to dominate their blog, or provide an audience to Bennett? Gosh, what happened to those “hundreds of thousands” of ex-gays?
Shel, that was me who posted that, not Reagan. I’ve had comments edited, I’ve had them deleted and just yesterday your site closed off a discussion. I believe you’ve done the same to a gentleman by the name of Patrick who posts contrarian views there as well.
It’s your blog and you are free to do on it, to it and with it whatever you like. But as Xeno pointed out in comment in this thread, it sure seems that sites like yours that take a “Gay is Bad/Evil/Disordered” position also tend to be the sites that are quick to edit and remove posts.
I thought Jody stated her grievance in a rather reasonable manor, so I was (somewhat) surprised to see that shelray simply used it to make a snarky joke of a post on his/her blog. This is the kind of language that gets us nowhere.
David Roberts
This is the kind of language that gets us nowhere.
Eh.
It’s a free country.
And I’m a guy.
Hey all, while we are on the subject of blogs, has anyone else noticed the dissappearance of scatter-words? Anyone have any ideas what happened?
Edwin
Scattered Words is still online, but Ben does not post much. From a quick look at the site, I get the impression that he’s still not seeking treatment for depression; still surrounding himself with people who don’t understand or support him; in other words, still setting himself up for self-defeat.
I’d forgotten about Ben. Really sad to see he’s still in so much pain.
I thought Jody stated her grievance in a rather reasonable manor, so I was (somewhat) surprised to see that shelray simply used it to make a snarky joke of a post on his/her blog.
In hind site, my post is sarcastic and exposes a little mean streak I have, and is not quite as funny to me now. Especially after Jody’s response it looks mean spirited.
Jody said:
And I’m a guy.
I apologize! I am so gender challenged with pronouns. I see a name and immediately default to the gender of someone I have known offline with the same name. Consider this my preemptive apology to everyone whose gender I get wrong – it’s not intentional.
shelray said:
In hind site, my post is sarcastic and exposes a little mean streak I have, and is not quite as funny to me now. Especially after Jody’s response it looks mean spirited.
Thank you for your sincere reply on that. I have to admit I didn’t expect that post, but at least you took responsibility for it 🙂 We’ve all got our own mean streak somewhere.
David Roberts
…it looks mean spirited.
Shelray, in part, that’s why I choose not to censor the posts on my site. I’ve removed comments for libel, slander [as I understand the law] or for someone impersonating someone else. I figure people should be free to comment on something I said without worrying if I’m going to take it down for being offended.
And Dave, no worries. “Jody” is old english for “Joseph” or “Jude,” male names. But in the last 30 years, most people have associated it with girls. Personally, I blame the demise of “Family Affair” re-runs on afternoon TV for the state of gender confusion of the Jody name.
Comments at XGW may be immediately deleted or commenters may be banned for:
Libel
Slander
Copyright violations
Link spam
Profane and threatening comments of the “All faggs must die!!” variety
Solicitation for sex or other services
Wholly irrational ramblings (These are comments from people suffering from apparent mental illnesses — we do not delete or ban comments simply because they lack sound reasoning — we find bad logic humorous.)
People earn demerits toward a ban for the following:
Persistent personal attacks
Persistent and intentionally disruptive off-topic comments — for example, comments that seek to turn a page about antigay violence into long, angry rants about pedophilia or promiscuity.
Persistent defamation against entire categories of people.
Willful Grace recently summarized behaviors she has observed to cause consternation among those of us who operate XGW.
I know we need to consolidate our guidelines, offer examples of good and bad etiquette, and provide greater clarity about gray areas.
The goal is to keep comments somewhat civil and focused on concrete facts, and to limit the spread of blind accusations and bigotries, whether they are antigay, anti-exgay, or opposed to various ethnic or religious groups.
Hey sorry to bother you all but for some very strange reason I seem to not be able to access his site at all (scatteredwords.com). So you guys are all able to access it? How very strange….
Sorry to chuck this conversation off topic.
Regards,
Edwin – I was unable to access Scattered Words for awhile, too. I could do so using Internet Explorer but not with my usual browser, Mozilla Firefox. What I finally figured out is that I could get in if I didn’t type “www.” first. By just typing “scatteredwords.com” I get in fine. Don’t know why, but it works. Why don’t you give it a try?
ahhhh it still doesnt work. I’ve tried both Opera and Internet Explorer. It gives me this very strange “Precondition Failed” webpage. Perhaps its just this computer. I’ll try using another comp some other time. Thanks anyways.
PS I cant post comments in Opera either…at least i can read the darn blog entries!
Edwin