This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
Stephen, if you've followed the comments here at David's blog, I'm sure you've noticed that I am aligned with ATs and not WTs. I say that just to indicate that I am in more agreement with you than disagreement, b/c...
I'm concerned that some of your language is more disuasive than persuasive. Perhaps it isn't of concern to you... I know that many people choose not to write as if the person they are criticizing are actually going to read what they write. But I think it's just human nature that when someone reads about their "creepy friends"... well, they aren't as likely to be persuaded by the writer as they might have been.
I stand with Chris Burgwald here. Regardless of what's happened in the past between Hand & Blosser (I consider both friends), the discourse should remain civil. There's no need for rude comments or slams against either party.
It is my desire that my friendship between the two will help both of them grow to appreciate each others position and to recognize truth on both sides were it exists. This will take a lot grace and patience, but I entrust everything to Our Lady. Let us pray.
[Stephen Hand]: "While Chris Blosser has never been fair to us---in fact he cynically engineered a 'down and dirty' attack along with his creepy friends, as many know"
In terms of "engineering" -- Greg Mockeridge had a guest post on Shawn's (Rerum-Novarum) blog, addressing what he thought were deficiencies (putting it nicely) in Hand's polemical writing style. I publicized my agreement with Greg/Shawn's criticisms. Hand responded. The rest is history.
For the public record I refer readers to my final post "Parting Thoughts on the Hand/Mockeridge Debate", with a compilation of previous posts, insofar as I was involved in the matter. I entrust all evaluation of my "down and dirtiness" to the good judgement of David's readers.
In terms of "fairness", I would contend that Hand / Houston Catholic Worker have never been fair in their portrayal of the neocons ("The Zwicks vs. Fr. Neuhaus & Michael Novak" (Against The Grain August 19, 2003), but I won't sully David's comment box with further discussion of this matter.
4 comments:
Stephen, if you've followed the comments here at David's blog, I'm sure you've noticed that I am aligned with ATs and not WTs. I say that just to indicate that I am in more agreement with you than disagreement, b/c...
I'm concerned that some of your language is more disuasive than persuasive. Perhaps it isn't of concern to you... I know that many people choose not to write as if the person they are criticizing are actually going to read what they write. But I think it's just human nature that when someone reads about their "creepy friends"... well, they aren't as likely to be persuaded by the writer as they might have been.
FWIW.
I stand with Chris Burgwald here. Regardless of what's happened in the past between Hand & Blosser (I consider both friends), the discourse should remain civil. There's no need for rude comments or slams against either party.
It is my desire that my friendship between the two will help both of them grow to appreciate each others position and to recognize truth on both sides were it exists. This will take a lot grace and patience, but I entrust everything to Our Lady. Let us pray.
Amen, David!
[Stephen Hand]: "While Chris Blosser has never been fair to us---in fact he cynically engineered a 'down and dirty' attack along with his creepy friends, as many know"
In terms of "engineering" -- Greg Mockeridge had a guest post on Shawn's (Rerum-Novarum) blog, addressing what he thought were deficiencies (putting it nicely) in Hand's polemical writing style. I publicized my agreement with Greg/Shawn's criticisms. Hand responded. The rest is history.
For the public record I refer readers to my final post "Parting Thoughts on the Hand/Mockeridge Debate", with a compilation of previous posts, insofar as I was involved in the matter. I entrust all evaluation of my "down and dirtiness" to the good judgement of David's readers.
In terms of "fairness", I would contend that Hand / Houston Catholic Worker have never been fair in their portrayal of the neocons ("The Zwicks vs. Fr. Neuhaus & Michael Novak" (Against The Grain August 19, 2003), but I won't sully David's comment box with further discussion of this matter.
Post a Comment