About Me

Name: Michael Scotto
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Ann-imals Running the Farm: My Banning at Ann Coulter Official Chat

 "Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves any richer— except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs."

"No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Since my blog post concerning the coup at Ann Coulter Official Chat (ACOC), I have visited that forum a number of times. Whether my posts were on-topic or simply banal observations it seemed as though every post became an opportiunity for a member of the "new team" or their supporters to take a personal shot at me. No big deal. I’m a big boy, I can defend myself. And in light of my blog entry here I can understand why they’d be a little on edge.

However, one of main reasons given for the sudden change in leadership at ACOC was that the previous administration was too touchy and too quick to lord it over the posters. Having posted nothing at ACOC worthy of a banning in the months since my blog entry on the topic (despite the personal barbs directed at me), I was surprised to receive an angry email damanding a public apology for my "vitriol" and "wild accusations". I’m glad to see that they’re scouring the net for independent thought (i.e. the offending comments were here, not on ACOC).

Worst of all, I was accused of "slandering" Ms. Coulter herself. I was told at the start of the week that I had until today to post my apology (what prompted this sudden need for an apology was not explained)… yet I was, without explanation, banned two days before the deadline.

What was the offense that precipitated the banning?

Well, on a conservative board I posted an article about the practice of internet sock-puppetry being used at The New Republic. I posted the article (by Cathy Young at reason.com) without comment. This begs the question, Why would an article critical of a Leftist magazine’s unethical behavior lead to a banning at ACOC?

Hmmm…

If you’ll look back at the comments from my orginal entry on this topic, you’ll notice a very fierce defense of the new moderators who are referred to (glowingly) in the third person.

Hmmm…

As for the supposed "vitriol" and "slander" here that apparently weren’t enough to get me banned there in October, I report, you decide (with apologies to Fox News).

Here is my "slander" of Ann:

It may be just another internet board to some, but when you attach your name to it and provide a link on your web site, you must bear the responsibility for what happens in your name. These changes did not happen without approval from Ann. She may not owe anyone an explanation, but I believe both a "Thank You" and an apology are in order.

Wow, how did I get that through the Townhall filters?

Ann, regular pratictioners of sock-puppetry are now in charge of your board. They have now banned a long-time poster for posting an article about a despicable practice usually associated with the Left. We have looked through the window at Ann’s Farm and it’s getting hard to tell the pigs from the, well, the pigs.

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Pilgrims and Xmas: One Last Time

 Do What You Want, Just Leave the Rest of Us Alone

I received some very bitter comments from the entry on the Pilgrims and Christmas. It seems as though facts are becoming very inconvenient things these days. I’m not writing to stop people from celebrating whatever they wish to celebrate, I’m just hoping that (a) they’ll get their facts straight and (b) they’ll leave other people alone.

Alabama, my current home, was the first state to formally make Christmas a legal holiday (1836). The holiday was not celebrated on any measurable scale in New England until the late 19th century. The rejection of the holiday was a reflection of the view of the Pilgrims; they simply hated Christmas. They hated the King James Bible too, but that’s another story for another time.

I depart from the Pilgrims in their desires to make the day illegal, but I also part just as strongly with those who want to force it on society. The Pilgrims so widely admired and referenced among American Christian conservatives as examples of what America is all about would be the first to blast the self-appointed Christian "leaders" who claim their heritage while forcing a "religious Christmas" on society at large. As noted in my previous blog entry, I believe the Pilgrims would be horrified by what goes on the name of Christianity these days.

Let me pause and say that I love the jingle bells/pumpkin pie/sleigh rides aspects of the season. I am a collector of fine holiday music (including hymns). For me "Christmas" is Bing Crosby standing in the snow next to a pine tree singing White Christmas (Manheim Steamroller need not apply). I object as strongly to the "Christmas trees are false gods!" crowd as I do to the "Put Christ back into Chritsmas!" crowd.

As a Christian I support any use of the season to point people to the cross. But that is no excuse for the holiday itself. I support using just about anything to point to the cross. Just as we can use something like The Da Vinci Code as an excuse to speak of what Christ accomplished on Calvary, so too can we use the season; but in neither case do the ends exonerate the vehicle.

In any case, I implore Christians to let the facts be facts. Leave the poor Pilgrims alone. On behalf of those interpid Separatists I groan in agony every time someone like Jim Dobson (or anyone at Focus on the Family) invokes their name about anything.

When simple facts have to be repeated, the words "willful ignorance" leap to mind. But simply put again: the Pilgrims hated Christmas, many of the Founders followed in their steps and there is no scriptural basis for the holiday. Can we agree on these? And for some of you, put your minds at ease, you won’t be tortured by eternal flames for missing services that day either. Hey, Dobson, why not tell your listeners what the Pilgrims thought of the groups who taught that nonsense? Better yet, tell them what Paul thinks of such things. I think the finality of the work of Christ is slightly more imporatant than Sam’s Club using "Merry Christmas."

I believe Christ was born on September 29 (perhaps conceived on December 25), but I don’t go around demanding that every one acknowledge my belief. I also don’t belive that the date is essential to fellowship. Anything that does not point to what was accomplished by the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord is of no eternal value. Getting puffed up because the ACLU is angry is not exactly a victory for the gospel.

Do what you want with the season. Put out huge carved images on your lawn. Talk about "the baby Jesus". Just don’t look down on those of us who don’t care for the unscriptural "advent season". Most of all, be concerned with those who deny the doctrine of justification not with those who say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."

Happy Holidays,

bleechers

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »