I say I say I say

by Richard on May 18, 2012

I’ll get my coat…

via Tony Burgess

{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }


Pam 05.18.12 at 11:07 pm

Oh, I don’t think it was a matter of not ‘figuring’ out the privacy settings. I think an apology is in order but it probably won’t happen. Big smart guys who know a lot about the Bible (supposedly) don’t go in for that sort of thing.

No longer puzzled Richard?


Richard 05.19.12 at 12:03 am

More profoundly than ever! I could say I’m sorry. Damn it, I am sorry that you’re upset.

I just wish I had the faintest idea what you might be upset about.


Pam 05.19.12 at 7:23 am

Why I am Upset:
Kim posted St Paul’s Bottom which I felt was information taken from a comment I had made on another blog and used in a personal way to provoke me. Read my longest comment at this post and think about it.
I think it is your responsibility to ensure the privacy of your commenters. I am not prepared to stay as a commenter at this blog if you cannot see the point I am trying to make.
Actually, I am not that fussed on staying even if you can see the point!
There are a couple of blogs in Oz I comment at which I like and another one or two elsewhere that I like.
And my tennis backhand could use a little work - much more productive for me than arguing with people who don’t want to see.


phillip mutchell 05.19.12 at 11:39 am

Make like our sainted Isabella Pam “O pardon me, my lord; it oft falls out, to have what we would have, we speak not what we mean, I something do excuse the thing I hate, for his advantage that I dearly love.” Could be Shakespeare’s commentary on Paul’s all things to all men statement.


Pam 05.19.12 at 7:55 pm

Yes, I agree, WE do tend to give advantage to those we are more sympathetic to. Part of being human. And if it’s one thing I’ve had reinforced at this blog is that mixing of humanity. We meet (or on the internet, not really) people and form our views and, sadly, I’ve had some difficulty ‘bonding’ with Kim. And I am prepared to say my perception may have had something to do with it! But, hey I’m not going to take all the blame here - I think, as a teacher, Kim takes the ‘no prisoner’ approach which is not my way of teaching (admittedly, my charges are a lot smaller). And, no matter our faults, privacy is an issue. I cannot recall ever denigrating someone’s personal relationship(s) to make a point - and if I have - my apologies. I think that is beyond the pale. And I think it has occurred in this case (and at other times on other blogs). And pleased I’ve kept you entertained Phillip.


phillip mutchell 05.19.12 at 11:12 pm

[comment edited. Unpleasant tone]

However Pam I read the comments and would confess myself as puzzled as Richard & Kim and would suggest perhaps any apparent abuse of your privacy was accidental and not deliberate.


Pam 05.20.12 at 1:23 am

We all ‘meet’ God in the circumstances of our lives. Richard knows more of my personal history than yourself or Kim. Notwithstanding that, I believe standards of privacy on a blog are the responsibility of the person running the blog. I have issues with this and am unable to proceed because of those issues. That’s probably as much as I can say - and I can understand your puzzlement.


Richard 05.20.12 at 6:39 am

Pam, you’re suggesting that Kim posted a bit of Shakespeare here as a way of getting at you over something you wrote on another blog? And that this is somehow a breach of your privacy? No wonder I was puzzled. Have you any idea how that sounds?

Phillip, thanks for you comments. Unfortunately, I found most of it insulting to a close friend and that won’t do.


Pam 05.20.12 at 6:51 am

“Have you any idea how that sounds?” It may not sound reasonable to you. But it sounds reasonable to me. I explained why I thought it was reasonable.
Are you suggesting it is impossible that someone would do that.
Or impossible that Kim would do that.
I have read blogs long enough to know that people do respond on their own blogs to stuff that is written on other blogs.
I think an end to this conversation would be in order.


Kim 05.20.12 at 6:55 am

I don’t have the faintest idea what Pam is talking about. And I guess it’s just as well.


Richard 05.20.12 at 7:07 am

Ditto that Kim. Let’s leave it there, Pam.


tortoise 05.20.12 at 8:09 am

A wise preacher once illustrated his solemn warning never to ‘target’ one’s preaching at the privately-confided circumstances of an individual, telling me of an occasion when he was accosted at the end of a service by a church member offended at what he saw as a veiled homiletical attack upon him personally.

The preacher’s careful response: not every cap that fits has been made-to-measure.


phillip mutchell 05.20.12 at 10:51 am

Richard if you intend to edit a comment then censor the whole comment, to do less is disingenuous, and to offer the opinion that the tone was ‘unpleasant’ without allowing others to decide is thoroughly worthy of a spiritual descendant of that Wesley who refused to allow the membership any say in calling their minister, clean contrary to scripture.


Richard 05.20.12 at 1:59 pm

My blog, my rules Phillip.


Pam 05.24.12 at 10:10 pm

A couple of friends have hinted that it may be worth being a person who places importance on PRAOKASAOB (Practise random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty). It’s longer than METHODIST or ANGLICAN. But could catch on. Would your ‘rules’ allow it?


Richard 05.24.12 at 11:42 pm



Pam 05.25.12 at 1:52 am

What do I mean? Is that what ??? means?

I mean I’d like to visit your blog - randomly - with - acts of kindness - and senseless acts of beauty.

Hoping you think that’s a good idea. That’s all.


Richard 05.25.12 at 7:59 am

I was just a bit bemused by the question: how could raok be against the rules?


Pam 05.25.12 at 8:09 am

Yes, now I see your “comment policy”. It can’t be easy running a blog and hope all goes well with it. Hope saob’s are also welcome!

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>