So you have a problem with women.
written by Julie R. Neidlinger 20 comments link this post*See UPDATES below*
Refresher course:
Recent history:
Older history: Recent history transcript:
Me:
Prairie Princess.
Nice one, Jim. Please point out where, on my blog or elsewhere, I'm actually gloating over Slice disappearing.
Tolkien never did anything to deserve your perversion of his story.
As is normal, today my inbox has been filled with rude emails from your minions.
Or should I say, your Orcs.
-----
Jim:
Sorry about your inbox Prairie Princess.
I didn't say that you were gloating, but rather that you seemed to have been bitten by the Slice-obsession bug. Just judging by your numerous posts in which you talk about your Slice bannings, and your alternate login identities, etc.
Tolkien never did anything to deserve your perversion of his story.
Are you sure? Besides, I thought I improved it in some ways. The original didn't have anything about a Noah's Ark playland.
Now say sorry to my fundy-Orcs :-)
-----
Me:
Jim,
Please check the dates of these posts that indicate some kind of so-called Slice obsession. Please. If you look at the percentage and subject of the posts on the rest of my blog, it doesn't even come close to registering on the obsessed level that these "watch blogs" like Slice seem to have with their target subjects.
I do have a few posts about Slice -- maybe eight or ten or so. In the past week and a half, a few things happened which caused me to write a couple of posts and interact with a new blog. This is by no means an indication of obsession, but of writing on something going on at the moment.
Perhaps you ought to do less judging, as you indicated above, and more thoughtful consideration.
And regarding Tolkein, no, it's not an improvement. Sorry.
-----
Jim:
Ok, well - here's the Google list. Wow! That couldn't be right. You didn't mention Slice on several hundred of your pages, did you? I knew it was a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT many.
Perhaps you are right about Tolkein though. He even seems to defeat me on GoogleFight.com
-----
Me:
(Attempted comment at 8:25 p.m.; was not posted.)
Jim,
Please note that on my blog I have a list of Blogger labels (or as I call them, "topics"). Slice is one of these. What that means is that every single one of my posts, which use the same template, obviously, has this same list of labels i.e. every single post is going to have "slice of laodicea" on it. To the same degree, I am obsessed with my cat Brutus, because his name will appear on every single post due to there being a category for him, as will Christmas, North Dakota, Music, Art and every single other label on there.
Obviously, I have many "obsessions."
Jim, really look at what you're saying, look at my blog, and try to see that what you have said about me on this post (and that other incident we had where you claimed I was carrying on some weird campaign on other blogs against Slice) IS NOT TRUE.
-----
Me:
(Original comment w/o the preface Jim added before it was published.)
Jim,
If you want to be honest, you ought to publish my earlier comment and make it clear to your readers why Slice appears so often on my site. I provided an explanation on the system of Blogger labels and how my template, which lists all labels (which includes posts labeled as "slice of laodicea"), makes all labels appear on each and every post.
This has nothing to do with obsession nor the actual content of each; it is merely how my template works with post pages.
By not including my comment you are effectively leaving people to believe you have "won" the argument when there is a logical answer and clear rebuttal in regards to any obsession you've hinted I have.
If you have lost the comment in your system, I would be happy to provide it; I have it saved on my own web site.
-----
Jim:
(He added this preface to the comment above, so that it was attached to the comment and read before my comment was read.)
From Jim: Here is one last comment from the Prairie Princess and then she has to wait, like . . . 50 more comments, before she posts again. People are starting to yawn over the Little Slice on The Prairie series. They want to get back to the Lord of The Rings movie. Apparently my Google link is not entirely accurate PP says; not all 500 of them are really about Slice. Got it. So here she is one last time to convey that . . .
Email I sent to Jim directly after this:
Jim, you are unkind in what you've added to my comment and the way you've portrayed me. I only attempted to clarify what was a mistake, but you took my explanation and prefaced it with rudeness about me being boring, not letting me speak for myself without adding something to tear it down before I spoke. Why did you do that? Why did you add to what I wrote? Why did you spin it?
I am sorry to have bothered you on your blog. I will remove your blog from my blogroll once again; it was clearly a mistake to have added it, and to keep it there. I am greatly disappointed in you.
Points to note:
- Jim responds to all the male commenters by their true name. He responds to me by "Prairie Princess."
- Jim did not add a preface to any other comment but mine.
- I always addressed him as Jim and tried to be straightforward in my comments with very little sarcasm or belittlement.
- If Jim wants to point out an obsession here at Lone Prairie, it would be this kind of interaction that I see on blogs often run by Christian men.
Jim Bublitz has a problem with women. Or more specifically, he has a problem with women who do not agree with him and try to get involved in a discussion. He makes light of my comments with snarky preface material in order to dispel any aspect of continued discussion I may have been trying to add to the conversation. He added the preface material to help disguise the fact that he was attempting to build a case for my "obsession" but made a mistake in understanding how a Blogger template works; any mistake is embarrassing to him, particularly if it is one pointed out by a woman. His use of a nickname instead of a real name is his effort to belittle me, while he affords the men -- even the ones he obviously disagrees with strongly -- the courtesy of using a real name. Jim has a blog called "Old Truth" but it's real name is "The Truth Jim Finds Agreeable."
As per the usual way men shut women up, the pattern went as follows: bait into discussion, nickname, patronizing tone, shut her up. Jim is one of many men who has a problem with women who don't kowtow to him. He should consider showing the respect that he demands other people give him and the blog writers he so passionately defends.
UPDATE: So...maybe things have cooled down. Maybe.
UPDATE 2; 11-17-07: In light of recent events (read here, here, and here) I withdraw any suggestion I may have made to readers encouraging them to visit Old Truth to find useful Christian information. While the excerpts from Whitefield, Spurgeon, et. al. are extremely good, the incestuous camaraderie in the comments section by the regular commenters forbids any disagreement without insult or accusation. You can find plenty of good, online repositories of those Christian sources elsewhere. I also do not recommend any non-believer going there in hopes of finding an answer, since the commenters and writers will see fit to use the Bible as a nearly literal sword only, seeing you as an adversary to conquer for the Lord.
I note that Jim has requested, in the comments section of this post, that I attend to the posts on this site which are inflammatory towards him. While I am sure that he is, as he repeatedly states, a fine father and husband, and no doubt a fine person in "real" life, his treatment towards other father's daughters and sons, and his behavior as an elder in the body of Christ whom I had initially looked to for guidance through his blog over a year ago, is in serious need of adjustment. Though I have been repeatedly asked to examine my heart and become humble and repent of my "rebellion", I see no evidence that those doing the asking are capable of seeing the same things in their own lives. I withdraw any support of Old Truth, and apologize for those I directed that way for helpful guidance in the past. I believe I was wrong in doing so.
Labels: blogging, slice of laodicea, women
Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger 1/09/2007 10:39:00 AM
Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.
Help support this site.
Facebook |
Stumble It! |
Del.icio.us |
DiggIt! |
Technorati |
Blinklist |
Furl |
reddit |
Newsvine
20 Comments:
All Jims are jerks.
By 
Jim, at
9/1/07 19:57
Well, there was that Jim Jones incident...
...and I know of another Jim incident that I can't relate here.
Hmmm.
By jove, you may be right!
(You're not a jerk. Even Jim Bublitz is not a jerk. Just wrong.)
By 
Julie, at
9/1/07 20:21
I tried to post this comment a couple of times but I don't think I had any luck. If I did, ignore this one.
I remember once being told by a church member to "never get in a pissing contest with a jackass (or some other such animal) - maybe you know the quotation better than I do. In any case, there are some people out there that are best left alone. Their negativity and judgementalism are toxic.
Having visited both "Slice" and "Old Truth" a few times, I soon came to the realization that their brand of Christianity was one I would prefer to avoid. There are too many good Christian blogs out there to read to spend any time with those whose narrow and simplistic views color their perception of others who are trying to follow Jesus.
Hopefully in the next few days the caustic comments from the "orks" and/or "minions" will slow to a trickle and then cease. Until then, you are in my thoughts and prayers, and let me add that when a new "Prairie Princess" entry appears in my RSS Reader, I can't wait to hope over to your blog and see what you have to say.
Concerning Jims, you have to live with one for a while before consigning them to jerkdom. And even though Jim in the comment above is often wrong, I don't think he's a jerk either.
By Will, at
9/1/07 20:26
You are, of course, on to something, Will.
Some stuff rolls right of my back like water on a duck, and other things get under my skin. Mainly, the manipulation of what the facts are and being patronized.
That bugs me. It really, really bugs me.
As always, thanks, Will. You're a good blog friend.
By Julie, at
9/1/07 20:50
Bublitz is an idiot. His blog is crap. Ignore it.
By , at
9/1/07 21:29
I think, Will, that the quote you are looking for was "you can't run with the big dogs if you pee like a puppy." No?
I'm glad you don't think Jims are jerks. And I assure you, I don't pee like a puppy either.
And Jules, don't let any Jims, (Jules and Jims, get it?) jerky or no, get you down.
By Jim, at
10/1/07 06:07
That is a complex last sentence, Jim.
:-)
By Julie, at
10/1/07 07:31
"You know what they say, it's a woman's perogative to change her mind, among other sayings. I've seen so much changing of the mind on Slice of Laodicea I gave up long ago. Posting a thread, then removing the thread wholesale. Accepting comments on threads, then refusing to accept any comments, then changing to accept comments on only some topics. Now changing to take the site down, but promising another change will come soon and be back again. It's really pathetic to anyone with common sense.
Now you see firsthand why God disallows women to "teach or exercise authority" over men. It's because women lack the critical element for teaching and exercising authority over men --- namely decisiveness. Please spare us the tripe about why this or why that, as they say, if you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.
Posted by: RIck on Monday, January 08, 2007 "
I can't believe you didn't say something about this comment over at Bublitz's blog. What a schmuck.
By , at
10/1/07 12:11
Anonymous 1 and 2:
I don't think Bublitz is an idiot and I don't think his blog is 100% crap. I do think he has an insecurity problem with women which he hides behind Paul and the Bible and sarcasm so that he always appears smarter.
I would agree that RIck seems to be a schmuck.
I find RIck's use of the over-used cliche to be ironic: if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
The kitchen. Where no doubt people like RIck think all women should be. Implying that only women can stand the heat.
Genius, RIck, genius.
Another reason some men like women to shut up is because they can't take it when women are more intelligent than them in any area whatsoever. Which, of course, is why I wrote the posts I have.
You'll note I have not changed my mind on this matter, despite that being the "woman's perogative."
By Julie, at
10/1/07 12:29
Rick doesn't even have his theology straight. God doesn't disallow women to teach or have authority over men, that was Paul (who had to do some serious interprative dancing on the pages of Genesis to bolster his argument).
On the other hand, this is the same Paul who made sure that the authorities left the church run by Lydia alone. He did this by paying the church a visit with Roman guards in tow as he was escorted from Philippi. Paul had procured this official escort out of the city by playing the 'I'm a Roman citizen' trump card he was fond of using. The story is found in Acts 16:35-40.
By Jim, at
10/1/07 18:24
I've heard lots of debate on the "women" issue, but I've never heard mention of what you've said here, Jim. Or at least, it sounds different from what I've heard before... any links or sources I can read more? (The part about Paul's interpretation of Genesis...)
Curious, as always. Plus I like to have something to read while I'm working and slaving in the kitchen.
By Julie, at
10/1/07 21:19
Julie,
Don't sweat the small stuff. I'm new to your blog, and am enjoying what you have to say. Most people got over calling other people names in Junior High school...but this is the christian blogosphere, so I guess we're all free to abuse anyone we wish...Never mind admontions about treating women as sisters and mothers. But what's a few scriptures when there's an ego to stroke....and we all know how fragile the male ego can be.
By beerhallrevival, at
11/1/07 10:26
You seem to be crying about something that isn't even a big deal especially for someone who seems to have a very sarcastic attitude herself. Normally, when I meet someone with a sarcastic attitude they are able to receive as they dish out. Maybe you are hiding your real feelings of inadequacy and then blame men for it by saying they are women bashers. Just my take on the conversation here.
By , at
11/1/07 10:47
How come you have a category for slice, then? If your not obsesed, I mean.
By , at
11/1/07 11:00
Good question, Anonymous.
When my Blogger account finally switched to beta, I went back over all posts (about 400 or more, I think) and had to label them. I jotted down on a piece of paper the "topics" that kept appearing and if I saw there were more than, say, five posts on a topic, I would consider that enough to start a label.
I didn't want to have hundreds of very specific labels if I only blogged on it once. Since I have to list the labels by hand and they are not automatically generated, I didn't want a huge list to constantly change.
I also took into consideration the Google searches that the statcounters showed brought people to this site. I then weighed the two before making a lable.
For example, one time I posted on Blue Cross/Blue Shield and I get many Google hits for that post. But, having only posted on health insurance once, I decided there didn't need to be a label.
Slice brought in a strangely high amount of Google hits and I'd posted on it I think about six times or so. So I gave it a label eventually during the beta switch process, although not right away.
I find that once I have a label set up, I tend to use it as a tag if there is even the remotest connection to a post.
By Julie, at
11/1/07 11:07
But if you wrote about it enough to get a label then it seems like my question is still valid.
By , at
11/1/07 11:32
Hi Anonymous,
There are topics I've written about more than Slice but instead of a specific label for every conceivable categorization (again, it goes back to the fact that my labels are hand-generated HTML on my template and not automatic) I decided to dump them into more general categories.
For example, "internet" and "blogging" are very general categories. The mix there is qutie varied.
Now, with Slice, that was something I couldn't figure out how to categorize. Plus, I was getting these Google hits. Some of the Slice posts work in the blogging category, some in religion, etc. So, seeing that I had written five or six Slice-based posts, that I got Google search hits for Slice, and that categorization proved challenging, I made a seperate category.
I still add categories when I realize I have a topic that doesn't fit well with other topics or that I'd like to seperate out. It will probably happen more, now, because I'm fully into the new Blogger and not trying to pull 400 old posts up to speed.
Does that answer your question?
By Julie, at
11/1/07 11:37
Anonymous (there are too many anon's to keep this straight...)
"Maybe you are hiding your real feelings of inadequacy and then blame men for it by saying thy are women bashers. Just my take on the conversation here" (Emphasis added: mine)
I believe I've answered your "take on the conversation" in my most recent blog post. I don't believe you've read enough of my blog to understand me. I have read much of Jim's blog and am used to his writing style in both posting and the comments section. I am going to hazard a guess and say you've read very, very little of mine to make this snap judgement.
But thank you for your comment.
By Julie, at
11/1/07 12:48
Why all this brouhaha over a soda? I have always found Slice a bit too much, I don't know, flavored of some of spice perhaps, and prefer the more subtle flavor of say, a Sierra Mist or a plain old 7-Up. Oh, who are we kidding, what I really love is a sugar and caffeine laden Mountain Dew! Icy cold, the nectar of the gods. I have been accused of being obsessed with the Dew!
By karma, at
11/1/07 16:28
I wanted to "finalize" this discussion with a few comments that were left at the original Old Truth post.
-----
Jim:Prairie Princess (as referred to above) now has this to say on her blog, based on my conversation in the comments above:
Theory: Jim Bublitz has a problem with women. Or more specifically, he has a problem with women who do not agree with him and try to get involved in a discussion. He makes light of my comments with snarky preface material in order to dispel any aspect of continued discussion I may have been trying to add to the conversation. He added the preface material to help disguise the fact that he was attempting to build a case for my "obsession" but made a mistake in understanding how a Blogger template works; any mistake is embarrassing to him, particularly if it is one pointed out by a woman. His use of a nickname instead of a real name is his effort to belittle me, while he affords the men -- even the ones he obviously disagrees with strongly -- the courtesy of using a real name. Jim has a blog called "Old Truth" but it's real name is "The Truth Jim Finds Agreeable." As per the usual way men shut women up, the pattern went as follows: bait into discussion, nickname, patronizing tone, shut her up.
She has also emailed me with further correspondance, all of which she has documented on that same page. Just so that it is not said that I'm hiding anything, here is her link to all of the correspondance. (Links back to this post.
Response to Julie (previously known as Prairie Princess):
Dear Julie:
I am very sorry that I have offended you, I was not trying to belittle you because you are a woman, but was trying to diffuse the tense interaction with you (and several others) that were upset, by keeping an element of humor in the discussion that related to the allegory above. Please accept my apology, I do not disrespect women, in fact this whole page is my defense of a woman who I used to work for (Ingrid) and have a lot of respect for. Also, I live in a house with 3 women (wife and 2 daughters) and having "respect for women who disagree with me" is essential to my daily survival. I will no longer call you Prairie Princess. Again, I am sorry to have offended you along gender lines.
Posted by: Jim from OldTruth.com on Thursday, January 11, 2007
-----
Pamskee: I am a woman. I wear jeans, ride horses, and drive a tractor.(visit Julie's site and read her comments about the "Scottish lady")I know Jim Bublitz personally. He doesn't have a problem with women, even outspoken women such as myself.
I used the link Jim provided to see Julie's blog firsthand. She protests too much, considering the content of her blog. She reveals a preoccupation with perceived wrongs against her gender. She assigns motives. I would encourage anyone who thinks she has been mistreated to visit her blogsite.
Her complaint about Jim not understanding her format is curious considering that "slice of laodicea" is listed specifically on a list of general topics. It is singled out.
Julie's characterization of people who agree with Jim or hold reformed doctrine is offensive, especially since she roundly condemns "snipers".
I am a woman. I don't appreciate Julie's peevishness. It's not a credit to our gender or our Lord. I especially don't appreciate her impuning of Jim's character on her blog. If she knew this Christian brother, she would know that his rule for faith and practice is God's written word. Jim isn't always right and doesn't present himself as such. He has no problem with women. That is Julie's misrepresentation.
Posted by: pamskee on Thursday, January 11, 2007
-----
Me: Hello Jim,
Thank you for your response.
Pamskee, just as you know Jim personally, you don't know me personally. That is the problem with written interaction between strangers: you do not have the benefit of knowing the person behind the words. You say I misjudged Jim. I say you misjudge me. It is neverending.
Regarding my new fixation on perceived "wrongs against my gender", I have about four or five posts out of 400 (extremely varied) posts that address the matter on my one blog; I have many more posts on my other blogs and I don't talk about it at all. This is similar to the point I was trying to make with Slice in regards to taking the full quantity into consideration before establishing "fixation." Proof of mention does not mean proof of fixation. It merely means it was on the radar and I used it as blog material. I have more posts about my cat and about Christmas, truly.
Regarding the fact that I have a label for Slice on my blog, I have just answered that same question from an anonymous comment on my blog that I think provides a sufficient explanation.
"Julie's characterization of people who agree with Jim or hold reformed doctrine is offensive, especially since she roundly condemns "snipers"."
I do not understand what you are trying to say here or where this comes from, so I can not address this. I'm not even sure what you think my doctrine is and why I have a problem with reformed doctrine.
Regarding my impuning of Jim, I note that many people only have a problem with this when the person being impuned is someone they know, and not when it is done in the name of "discernment" or any other such term. In the same regards, you impune me in your comment. Your intention may be to bolster Jim or support a friend (a fine thing) but you do it by impuning the one who impuned. This is interesting. I'm not terribly upset about it, but it, again, is another circle of words that happens when people who do not know another try to communicate with only written words to go by.
Not knowing Jim personally, and only weighing the words, the manner of written address, the lack of using my name, etc. lead me to my summary. I have nothing else to go on but what I see here on this blog. You may judge me accordingly by what you see on my blog, if you wish.
If you deem me peevish, that is how it is, then. That has nothing of importance to do with your being a woman or not, though you have noted it before making your final decision on who I am; being a woman gives you no further credentials or sway in your take on who I am and what you think of my interpretation of Jim's comments to me.
Posted by: Julie on Thursday, January 11, 2007
-----
Me: And the word should be spelled "impugned." My mistake.
Posted by: Julie on Thursday, January 11, 2007
By Julie, at
20/1/07 17:29
