Julie R. Neidlinger: Lone Prairie Art Works

Some things are not borne out of offense.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 11 comments link this post

I've had the opportunity to team blog on another blog for a while now. Most of those posts, since it is a religious blog, didn't surface here. Instead, I pointed them out on my Lone Prairie Studies blog.

Last night, while reading a blog post that I was involved in -- part of a two-post saga -- and which seemed to have a continually growing comments section, something in my head clicked.

You need to stop.

I was about to leave a comment on this post, pointing out what I thought were inconsistencies in a point made by a fellow commenter. The discussion I was involved in, regarding whether the church was a body or a building, made a throw-away comment of "I have to hurry because I need to get to church" seem perfect for refutation that, yes, indeed, that person saw the church as a place instead of a wider body despite claims to the contrary. After all, we go to a place. A little moment of what I call "ah-ha-ism" where I sharpen my verbal knives and go to work. I got ready to type.

You need to stop.

What?

You need to stop. This is no better than the alternative.

Never being great at kicking habits immediately (it tends to take me a brutal piecemeal of a while to win), I stopped by the site today and found, in this post, a response that cemented in my mind why it was time to bow out:

Comment from Joe Martino
Time: January 12, 2008, 11:32 am

[...]

I know there were some who were offended by it to the point of taking their blog and going home, but I stand by my point that what happens at Tim's church is between Tim Reed, Owosso Mi his church and God. I don't see how it's your's, Ingrid's, Ken's, Amy's or Julie's or anyone else's for that matter. I didn't see anywhere where Tim Reed, Owosso Mi said that people have to do it that way

I like Joe; in fact, I can't think of a person associated with that blog that I don't like. This is not a question of "good people bad people" but of something else. Nevertheless, the comment caught me off guard. While I can't be sure, I think it was a reference to me and the comment that I chose to leave last night, instead of that witty rebuttal I was prepared to:

I think, after reading this post repeatedly, and watching the responses of all "sides" (my own included), that I need to discontinue writing on this blog. I see the same things I saw on other sites, and it displeases and disheartens me to be caught up in it.

Thanks for having me as long as you did. All the best to each of you.

It is a frustration to now see this as me reacting out of being "offended" (a useless concept if there ever was one) instead of the possibility that there are real reasons to leave a blog that involve much more respectable and worthwhile considerations that may apply only to me and my situation. The idea that I might have left in a huff, or in hurt or anger, instead of listening to what I realized I needed to do, is frustrating. It is an assumption.

It is similar to the experience I had while trying to calmly discuss the concept of church as body vs. building, and being told to "relax" after I felt I had laid out some clear points that didn't indicate an position of judgment on a person's actions, but rather, explained why it might be prudent to consider some additional reasons on why the opposing viewpoint existed. That was frustrating. My own real life has enough frustrations; why go after more online?

Something seems amiss when a blog is created to be the counterpart to a very real problem (in this case, blogs with amazingly awful skills of slicing and dicing the church proper with judgment and personal opinion), but instead, becomes less a counterpart and more the mirror image. The mirror image seems to be different, but all it is is the same thing, opposite direction. That is not the solution I am looking for.

You need to stop.

I did not leave out of offense of my sensibilities, as suggested above, or out of some kind of personal hurt, but because I could see this was not a thing that was building me up or teaching me anything but ways to verbally win. Instead, it was often a source of frustration, misplaced anger, annoyance, and wasted time I could have spent doing something else. I spent too much time on trying to doggedly work through a point of view when maybe I should have just let it go, shut my mouth, and let the rest of the commenters stick to their sides and "never the twain shall meet."

I wrote to the creator of the blog and told him I so appreciated the opportunity to write there. It truly was a good opportunity; I was thrilled to be given the chance. I certainly never expected such consideration from a person who I see as being very far above me in terms of knowledge and education in this area. At my joking insistence, photos and terms of cats were incorporated into the site; again, I was really honored by these actions. I still very much appreciate his posts on topics that I know so little about, such as hermeneutics and various theological concepts; I will continue to read his personal blog, which I had been reading long before the group blog existed.

However, the "us vs. them" posts, the endless bickering by certain commenters under the guise of "discussion" on topics that I now question the importance of, the gang-up and pile-on of some dissenters even if they seemingly deserved it, and the strange moment when I realized something had turned over in my mind, meant I had to heed that very strong suggestion: You need to stop.

Even now, I'm thinking of ways I could very easily write a rejoinder comment pointing out inconsistencies and generalizations to the comment that suggested I left in offense. But why? To win? To have a last word? To put a person in their place? To prove a point? To endlessly harp on the same talking points until I either exhaust the reader or make a person crumble under the sheer weight of endless wordiness? I don't doubt my ability to argue endlessly and work a selection of words to bend to my will, but I question whether I should exercise that skill and make it stronger. It seems all for naught.

Senseless. And meaningless. There's no need for me to do anything, but stop. Some things are not borne out of offense, but out of very real and wise direction for me to disavow, for my own personal safety and benefit.

Labels: blogging, my life, religion, slice of laodicea

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

A slice of soap opera.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 9 comments link this post

Never complain. Never explain.
--Katherine Hepburn

There have been three incarnations of the web site "Slice of Laodicea."

This one.

Then it looked like this. ¹

For a short while, it existed as a new form, before splitting off into, this. Which has been reduced to this.

Except now, it's morphed into this, complete with a dramatic blame-game story and slight name change.

Slice has always been dramatic, with a dramatic past history, far more dramatic than even the most prolific quit-start-quit-start bloggers that I'm aware of. So dramatic that I've even got a blog label named after it. It's like watching an addictive car-wreck. A shark feeding frenzy. So much drama!

Some fellow "fans" were even placing odds on how long before the next version of Slice was up and running. I'm not sure I thought that was a great thing to do, but the familiar cycle of start-and-stop-and-start must have prompted the reaction.

How we quit says a lot about us. When I "quit" the old version of my blog before a web site rebuild and general overhaul in my entire site's file organization, as well as a slightly different direction in what I wrote on this blog, I certainly didn't write a huge page blaming my host or the vitriol of my readers. I wrote a short post on quitting, and a longer post explaining why I quit once the new site was up and running. A bit later, in response to a personal email I received, I tried again to reiterate my new goal on the blog. ²
Slice often posts about how modern churches have become almost like a circus in their efforts to reach/entertain people, and though I can't always disagree with some of those points, I feel more and more like Slice itself is its own circus. It might not be a mega-church, but it has mega-drama.

I'm sure the writer(s) and owner(s) of Slice have their reasons for starting and stopping, but I wish, when they decided to quit or make a change, they'd just do it without all the finger-pointing, blame, wagon-circling and rigmarole.

Start or stop. Get in or get out. Stand up or sit down. One or the other. Hot or cold. Make up your mind. You are referencing the Laodicean church, after all.

-----------------------------------------

¹ Archive.org is a helpful site in preserving web sites that are no longer. It is far more "permanent" than Google's cache, which becomes unavailable in a short time. Web sites are fluid and temporary, and it's an interesting discussion on whether there's a need to preserve them, much as other historical data is preserved. It's a partial answer to "where do blogs/sites go when their creators quit/die/leave?" However, if you try to research old versions of www.loneprairie.net...you'll find nothing. I've put a robots.txt file that keeps Archive.org from doing any "preservation." When I'm done, so is my web site.

² I can say with all honestly that I haven't been able to stick with that goal, particularly in regards to this statement: "This was one slight reason I deleted my old blog and have tried to post in a different and generally less personal or slightly removed and clinical manner. I don't want a literal stranger feeling like they are my friend and forming a close attachment without me even knowing it."

Labels: slice of laodicea

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Links: A stand of some kind.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 7 comments link this post

Sometimes, the internet makes me cry.

Cry, in a kind way similar to weeping over someone procuring fine art paper to use as toilet tissue in the bathroom.

Check out The Protestant Stand.

As opposed to:

The Catholic Stand.
The Protestant Sit.
Stephen King's "The Stand"?

Oh, that the world would have arrived at the point where blogs were no longer free. Instead, we get blogs like The Protestant Stand, complete with graphics drawn in Microsoft Paint.

This site is akin to the Great Apostasy Watch Fiasco of March 2007.

Charging money for something is the great weeder. This, of course, opens a whole blogging can of worms. Before blogger was owned by Google, I actually paid for a premium account, and would again, one of the few things I'll pay for on the internet.

Hat Tip: Myself, actually, in a long, round-about click-and-read-through linking way.

Labels: blogging, links, slice of laodicea

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Face to face.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 11 comments link this post

I wrote about it before, of the importance of being there, in person.

Ardent Internet users all have their dirty secrets, i.e. a web site, blog, or forum that they absolutely can't extract themselves from. Mine is no secret. I've blogged about my challenges and gripes that stem from the conversation that happens there. It's a complete car wreck, and I can't look away. Mainly, because I'm not a bystander, but part of the car wreck.

That's why, despite my many sniping comments and irritation, I was glad to see a fresh post that echoes what I'd written earlier, about how, in person, we would rarely treat people as we do online.

In the post, Flesh and Blood, Chris (of Fishing the Abyss) uses a personal story to outline the importance of remembering that behind every disagreement and every computer monitor and keyboard is...a real person.

In person, if you really, really annoy me and I can't stand you anymore, I...walk away. But I don't do that on the Internet.

In person, if I completely disagree with you but you don't personally irritate me, I...let you talk, and, if I respond, do so gently.

You'd never know that if you read my responses to some of the posts when I'm out chumming. I zing and slam and cut and use words to their harshest.

Me: I know I could never be as cruel as I sometimes let myself be online, if I were to be face-to-face with a person.

Henry (Rick): Yes, Julie, but your cruels are sometimes very creative.

Me: (But that’s a weakness, not a strength.)

I believe that. It's a weakness, not a strength, to use words to cut. It is lacking self-control, and choosing to be cruel rather than respond with thought and tempered emotion.

Sadly, I know I'm not there yet, that place where I know I won't do it again.

Labels: blogging, slice of laodicea

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Let Kenny help you out.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 8 comments link this post

You got to know when to hold 'em.
Know when to fold 'em.
Know when to walk away,
And know when to run.
You never count your money
When your sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done.
--From the chorus of the song "The Gambler", by Kenny Rogers

Yes, Kenny, that's right.

I've said it before; there's some good advice there. The tough part is knowing. It's kind of a countrified version of Ecclesiastes, suggesting there's a time to hold, a time to fold, a time to walk, and a time to run.

The tough part is the knowing.

There's a blog post there. This isn't it, however.

I never, ever thought I'd see Kenny Rogers quasi-quoted on a very particular Christian web site. Used as a title, even.

It is, after all, a song about gambling.

As I suggested in the comments section on a different site...it's either the start or the end of something.

-----

Editorial note: I would not recommend using the Kenny Rogers/Coolio version of "The Gambler" for similar titling. It would be difficult to make use of the revised lyrics for a Christian discernment site. Coolio is also known for such songs as, uh....

Labels: music, slice of laodicea

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Being Balaam's donkey.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 4 comments link this post

The Lone Prairie blog is, indeed, lone.

I've never seriously considered having a group blog here, with other people writing. I'm too much of a control freak, mainly. But another serious point is that I do not want other's opinions taken as my own. I can swear up and down that the opinions of others should not reflect on official Lone Prairie (i.e. me) stances, but that's a bit like telling the jury to disregard inflammatory information after it's already been blurted out. The names and opinions and writing are associated with where they are found, no matter how many bits of fine print state otherwise. Blogs are already a bit like the Wild West, what with comments from random people saying every such thing. Adding lots of people to write posts... eh.

Today I was working on a customer's web site, which meant in between HTML nervous breakdowns, I was out chumming on CRN.info. Two posts, mainly: Team Pyro closes its thread and goes home, and Round and round we go.

A comment I left on the latter post is what I want to mention here as far as people associating those who are associated with you as being associated with you. (That's not a little word game.)

Here's the comment I left, with added links that weren't in the original comment, as well as two spelling corrections:

Comment from Julie
Time: April 13, 2007, 6:33 pm

All the discussion about who is the most angry person pushed aside for a moment, I found this comment of Amy’s to be dead-on:

“When you were a pastor did you talk to people the way you talk to them on the blogosphere? Did you ever treat people who had a different viewpoint than yours with respect?”

This is something that puzzles me about Ken Silva, Chris P. and others who exhibit a similar vein of sarcasm and meanness in blog comments. Ending a post with a smiley face and “peace” doesn’t do away with earlier tone.

I was speaking with my mother about Silva, in particular, because he writes for the Worldview Network. My parents and I have attended a number of the Worldveiw Weekends and I have always valued the experience. I have stacks of books and CDs and really, there’s a lot of great material and I’ve benefited so much. But now, over the past eight months or so, I’m seeing columnists and people associated with CWN calling me (and others like me) names, leaving veiled spiritual threats of damnation on my blog and theirs, etc. Yet CWN is still happy to take my money, host their events in Assembly of God churches (we speak in tongues!!) and so on, even though their columnists talk nasty on mine and other’s blogs.

This is a serious issue for me. It really has turned me off, and I struggle to beat down feelings of GBA [guilt by association].

I said to my mother last evening that I didn’t know if I wanted to attend another WV Weekend, and if I did, I would like to pull Brannon Howse aside and ask him if he bothered to see how his beloved columnists behaved on the internet. This is not a threat, but a sincere curiosity. Is Silva and Chris P.’s and Ingrid’s and all the Slice 1.0 and Slice 2.0 blogger’s behavior by calling me emergent, apostate, heretical, pelagian, and whatever else they can come up with, just fine?

Because it didn’t sound like that at the last WV Weekend I was at which was full of the Silva-themed “Ecumenical Church of Deceit” what with all the Pentecostals (they were a majority), Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists — Baptists are few and far between up here.

The same people paying for registration, buying books and tapes, supporting the CWN are many of the same people Silva et. al. are blasting!

All this to say, yes, Amy. You have an excellent point. Some of these pastor-teachers would do well to check their tone instead of their brain before leaving something on blogs and in comments because they would never speak to me — a mere “congregant” — or others that way in person.

For Ken to recently point out I wasn’t giving a Christ-appointed teacher-pastor correct respect is really rich: he shows very little behavior that I think an actual teacher-pastor would exhibit.

This is an issue for me. Last night, with the distaste of being the subject of a drive-by-Silva, I went to the Christian Worldview Network and was immediately repulsed by what flanks both sides of the site: ads to buy stuff.

Buy these books! Buy these CDs! Buy this course! Buy! Buy!

How can all these columnists that I referenced in my above comment, people who regularly decry the crassness and commercialization of mega-churches and the marketing of Jesus and all those (I agree) distasteful things continue to write for a web site doing the very same thing, which is trying to make a buck off of Christians in the name of Christ? At the same time, how can CWN allow columnists under their banner that are going around insulting the very people asking for, hosting, and attending these Worldview Weekends? We are not all Calvinist Baptists. I've noticed my Pentecostal money is just as good as the next.

I know CWN has pruned columnists in the past, and I think it's time they did it again. Guilt by association (GBA) isn't fair, true, but after a while, I rethink handing my money over just for another round of internet flogging coming down the pipe.

The picture here is one of someone beating the donkey mercilessly, and then clicking the reins and expecting it to pull the cart to market all the same. Where's Balaam's donkey when you need him? I'm tired of being the silent ass* expected to shut up and pay.

----------

*The usage of the word "ass" here is in a traditional, non-swear word sense. This word can be found in older versions of many beloved hymns which, as we know, are the preferred music of Christianity. Usage of this word in no way puts me in the "emergent" camp because 1) there seems to be trouble defining that and 2) I hate incense with a passion.

Labels: slice of laodicea

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

I can see you love women.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 10 comments link this post

"The church is a bunch of women wearing men's pants."
--Ken Silva, on the Mike Corley Program

Well, you know what I think about skirts. Christian men of a certain ilk are always so kind to women.

If you click on the Mike Corley link and listen to the entire program, let me know. I did. I'll send you a sympathy card. You get to hear two Christian men sitting around sarcastically cutting down another Christian man they do not like.

Goats?

Silva sounds insane a couple of times, yelling uncontrollably. He takes pride in his self-taught apologetic knowledge. He takes pride in his scraping-by ministry as some kind of martyr badge-of-honor. He takes pride in his metaphor as the David vs. Goliath. He takes pride in his interpretation of the Bible. He. Takes. Pride.

At some point, Silva yells out the above quote as to why the church is in "such bad shape" yet, at the beginning of the program, they both got all worked up when someone made a crack about Baptists.

What, Pastor Ken, you have no women in the Baptist church? It's OK to make a crack using women but not Baptists (male Baptists)? Corley and Silva get so worked up about the mockery of the Baptist church throughout the program, but laugh at the women metaphor. Between Corley and Silva patting each other's theological back in bobble-head agreement, it's pretty nauseating.

At the beginning of the program, Corley mentions a web site that takes him, Silva, et. al. to task. He laughs and says he won't mention the address on air, then making a joke about whether or not the people have jobs. I do not understand why he would be afraid to throw a few links to another web site. If he is so sure of his position, he should encourage his listeners to go to the site and see for themselves. What is this fear of helping people learn of conflicting opinions? Both Corley and Silva swear up and down they aren't afraid of their enemies (with the complex logic of "we're right and they're wrong", essentially). Really? Give listeners the link, then, which is to this blog: CRN.Info and Analysis. They are the Internet foil to CRN.

Corley ends the program quoting Romans 1:16:

"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ..."

I agree, though I am ashamed of some of the people claiming to speak it. For more on all of this nonsense, go here and read about Silva and Corley.

Sidebar: Silva single-handedly introduced me to Rob Bell. He can't stand Rob Bell, and I took that as a recommendation.

Labels: slice of laodicea

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Apostasy Watch!

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 2 comments link this post

My first clue that something was amiss was the use of frames in the web site design, making it nigh unto impossible to link to any article I might even find useful or interesting (such as one that questioned the Christian "foundation" of our nation, brought to you here, frames free.)

The second clue was the over-enlarged, out of proportion, stretched graphic of a man in a megaphone. That's just wrong, and clearly so.

I introduce to you: Apostasy Watch!

There's a heck of a lot of exclamation points over there. I mean... over there!! And oh yes, if you haven't had your daily dose of sand in your coffee yet...CRN!!

I think I'll categorize this meaningless post with all those grating Slice posts just because that's now become my category for such things, things that kill faith and sour the face.

I admit to reading the blog posts at the CRN antidote, yet rarely commenting. My comments, when I do take the time, tend to be less theological and more like the one on this post:

Comment from Julie
Time: March 20, 2007, 3:35 pm

And yet again, I have no idea what Chris P. is trying to say. I pretty much choked right about here:

"The Lord never asked for opinion, although the postmodernists love to dispense it."

Or from this post:

Comment from Julie
Time: March 14, 2007, 9:44 pm

"Don’t any of you have something to do that is actually useful?"

Why is it that the people who always leave this type of comment are usually the ones commenting on every post in an ankle-biting fashion, and leaving the longest comments when it’s all said and done?

LATEST ADDITIONS:

Mike Ratcliff Faces Roaring Lions

Comment from Julie
Time: March 21, 2007, 6:41 pm

"...just shows the lack of discernment among the Amen Corner here to which Chris P., Mike and I have become accustomed from you self-appointed watchdawgs of the watchdawggies here..."

There are a lot of Amen Corners on the web. They tend to shout at each other from corner to corner to see who can "amen" the loudest. The point of this is to accomplish nothing except say "amen" really, really loud.

Of Double Standards and Idols

Comment from Julie
Time: March 21, 2007, 6:53 pm

"She is probably just raising money to build Rob Bell’s yoga parlors and Rick Warren’s coffee houses..."

But do they serve coffee AT the yoga parlors? Because that'd be a problem for me.

Seriously, now, I cannot fathom why it is OK to shell out $300 for one conference and not a mere $55 for another, why a huge church for one pastor is wrong and not another. That is screaming of inconsistency. How anyone can be fine with that is just...unfathomable.

I admit to paying about $55 for a Bob Dylan concert ticket. Was that wrong? Should I have held out for $300 Madonna tickets? I want to make sure I get the most truth for my buck…

----------

Why be deep and meaningful when you can just be meaningful, instead?

Q. Why do you waste your time throwing chum?
A. Because the sharks fascinate me.

Labels: slice of laodicea

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Moses might have stuttered.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 7 comments link this post

The question isn't how good you are, but if you are willing to do what is asked in spite of an apparent lack of skill.

Where's this coming from? In the comments section of this post, the first comment to be specific.

I have never said that currently written music is wrong for the church. Music shouldn’t be judged by when it’s written, but rather its spiritual content and musical excellence.

That seems right.

[Long listing of musical qualifications here...] I also studied piano for 9 years at the Wisconsin Conservatory, and we both believe that there are clear standards for excellence. This is even more so when music is used in worship. There is a hymn that says, “of the best which thou hast given, earth and heaven render thee.” That’s what we both feel about music used in the worship of a holy God.

Really. I don't have a problem with much of the rest of what the author says, but this part jumped out at me because I've seen her write something similar before and it never seemed quite correct.

I responded in my own comment to that post:

It is important to note that not everyone has the opportunity to take nine years of piano at a conservatory, nor do they all have the chance to be such a top-notch trumpet player. There can be excellence in far less skilled playing, mistakes and all.

This is a similar argument from people who start implying that all preachers of the gospel must have some incredible seminary/theology degree in order to be capable. This doesn’t even make sense. It’s like a post on my blog about hymns: not everyone everywhere in the world has these opportunities and God uses them as they are. It is a matter of willingness to a) be used in spite of a “lack of credentials” or skill and b) do the best with what God’s given you.

I really do not care for the elitism that lists all the impressive trumpet qualifications in order to make a simple point that could have been made with far fewer words: God asks us to give him our best, in all things, at all times. Period.

There is no need to say that a guy who may not be skilled on the guitar but is the only one willing to play and therefore limits the music to simple choruses that he can handle is a person not doing a good enough job for God.

There is no excuse for being half-hearted or lazy in what we do, but there is no reason to list qualifications or skilled training as yet another hoop to jump through in order to approach God. It's hard enough to get people to do things; the last thing we need to have is some high-brow list of what they may never achieve in order to be considered "excellent." Most people already believe the bad things about themselves, already believe they aren't worthy enough or good enough. Most people are more than happy to find an excuse to not participate. This idea of being good enough, holy enough for God? Even in our music abilities? Human constructs.

My church is very small. Sometimes, at holidays, there are many more people. I play the piano up front the same as when there are only 15 as when there are 50. I'm not performing for the congregation, but I'm playing to God. I've only had about five or six years of piano lessons as a kid and whatever I could teach myself for improvising off of lead sheets. I make my share of mistakes and bad errors and am this side of being a hack at the keyboard. None of that is important but the one thing: I'm playing to God. I'll never be good enough on my own, but Jesus makes me good enough.

Come as you are. Be willing. Believe in Jesus. Do all things at all times with a right heart and attitude. No degree or specialized training is required. He'll take care of the rest.

Moses might not have had eloquent speaking skills, but God used him anyway, great skills or not. It's something He seems to do repeatedly.

Labels: music, religion, slice of laodicea

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

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:

Pedestals

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.

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. 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

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

The prairie princess.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 4 comments link this post

You remember Jim. Jim, in search of Old Truth.

According to Jim (not the TV show), I am a devious prairie princess in some lame-o Lord of the Rings allegory he's try to drum up as some kind of premature death knoll for a website temporarily down. Anyone who has ever said anything negative about the defunct web site has been labeled a "critic" blog, which would explain my posts on North Dakota, my cat, my family, music, art and all the other topics I spend time blogging on, the explanation being that I am solely focused on criticizing one blog and no other; that must surely be my entire life. Critics are also lumped into some kind of "emergent" category which is completely inaccurate and bizarre; I have no idea why anyone would assume that about me.

Happy Birthday, Julie. Your email inbox will contain direct emails and comments-to-be-moderated from "well wishers" telling me I ought to get a life, telling me I'm going to hell, telling me they will piously leave "God to judge my soul", and telling me I ought to be ashamed.

I stand by everything I've said here. At this moment, after reading Jim's post, I stand by it times ten.

I still believe Jim has plenty to work on in his own life and stretches that truth he claims to be preserving on his web site.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

Jim would say no one has that right and has decided to use a cheap Lord of the Rings allegory to paint his friends favorably and his critics as little more than Orcs. As I said in a comment I left on his site, he has his own Orcs, and he sent them my way today. He will no doubt respond with great Christian charity.

This blog post will not be categorized with the "religion" label because there's nothing Christian about this ridiculous mess that I somehow walked right into. Good grief; I never learn. But I'll take the nickname of "Prairie Princess" with pride. It's kind of cool.

Thanks, Jim. You're wrong on just about everything and everyone you've summarized in your post, but the name you saw fit to throw my way is fine with me. On a serious note, feel free to email me directly for further discussion without the benefit of the hallelujah chorus backing you up.

On another note, thanks for all the blog traffic today. My hit counter has literally lit up.

-----------------------------------

UPDATE: Read the follow-up post.

UPDATE 2: So...maybe things have cooled down. Maybe.

UPDATE 3; 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, prairie princess, slice of laodicea

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

An instalanche without the Insta.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 6 comments link this post

NO, I AM NOT THE PARODY SITE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.

I had a second generation Instalanche once. Lots o' hits that day. So I'm checking my stats before heading for bed and lo and behold...high numbers! I dove into the referrals to see what big-name blog had linked to me and was sending me all these readers. I wondered what witticism had caught the eye of a top-notch blogger, what alarming truth I had stumbled upon that must be made known to the entire world, what turn of the phrase had caught the eye of one who was astute.

Right.

Here's where all my hits are coming from. I kid you not. Google searches for Slice.

Ironic, considering my recent post.

So I headed on over to Slice to see what was sending people to Google and dumping them, with great disappointment I'm sure, on my blog. I discovered a post (UPDATE: the link has since been changed) talking about a parody site, a site making fun of Slice. The comments section on that post is worth a read for its own hilarity.* I wasn't impressed by posting the contact information of the fellow running the parody site with the suggestion of harassment. Not really funny. The parody site wasn't actually linked to, however, so I found myself doing the same Google search to find it. Here it is: www.sliceolaodicea.com.

Hmmm.

I like a good parody; I've seen some good ones of myself in the past. I can't say I like this parody, though. Parody - satire is a better word, maybe - is like a fine chocolate cake**. If you slam the door on the oven the cake ceases to be beautiful and the middle caves in.

Actually, that's a poor analogy, because I'll still eat a sunken chocolate cake whereas I didn't stick around the parody site long at all.

If you're going to do parody, if you're going to do satire, understand what it's for. You can't point out error if you're too busy making equally bad mistakes on the other end of the spectrum. The problem with parodying a site like Slice is that there are times when I've read it and I wonder to myself if they are the parody and there are times when I realize that despite my overwhelming disagreement and disgust with the site, they have hit on truth that I must be careful mocking.

Really, the best answer to Slice is Sliced.

And, if you were using a good browser like Firefox, you'd see that my little red notice at the start of this post was blinking. Parody that.

UPDATE: Speaking of parodies and anonymity, please read these three posts which show that it is never good for the pot to call the kettle black. It looks like someone from Slice is running their own anonymous parody site. It looks as if there is a bit of defensive "I have a logical reason but that excuse doesn't count for you!" backpeddling is going on. Don't throw that first stone, people.

UPDATE 2: Here's a fabulous summation of the whole messy week, done with clarity and kind tone. Read it. Don't miss out on the link to another blog with a post from last year which shows the kind of "interaction" that has sadly come to be expected when trying to hold Slice writers to their own standard.

UPDATE 3: It looks as if the entire Slice website has been taken down and the domain name pointed to Ingrid's radio program. I'm not sure it if is for revamping, if the site will reappear in the same place, of if it is gone for good.
----------

*George tried to post a comment, stating that there was no need for a comments section on the post since it was more an FYI and there was really nothing to discuss beyond bolstering and "you-go-girl" commentary. Which is what you see. I note that George's comment did not appear.

**Most chocolate cakes, by being both chocolate and cake, are super yummiliciously fine. I also gave my cat catnip and he now has huge eyes and is strangely silent. The two are related in that cake makes me strangely silent, too.

Labels: blogging, slice of laodicea

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Find George.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 11 comments link this post

I'm still enjoying my new vacation from blogging and I thought I'd celebrate it by...blogging.

Uh. Yeah.

Anyway, to occupy your time, I have a confession to make which will give those of you who have way, way, way too much time something to do.

I have an alter ego. I've done it before, writing online under a pseudonym, as I admitted in an earlier post.

I have posted on a certain website under the name "George" (George only, no last name, lest you confuse me with another George Cancilla, who seems a little sanctimonious), with my name linking back to http://none. I am only able to do so because my ISP switched out all the DSL routers and upgraded the entire system, causing my previously blacklisted IP number to change drastically to a very thrilling, very uninformative IP number. At least, I think this is the reason. I left a comment one day, figuring it was all for naught, and lo...it appeared! Maybe I was unblacklisted. Anyway.

I've been keeping a mental tally of comments that appear and how I need to word agreement/dissent in order to appear. It feels like anthropology: how do I be the squeaky wheel without getting the oil? With this blog post, however, I am breaking a kind of Prime Directive (a la Star Trek Insurrection) by revealing my hidden observation post.

Sometimes George agrees in a stupid, non-thinking way. Sometimes George disagrees but politely. Sometimes George leaves comments with gaping holes in the logic to see if it will be published and how the rest of the commentors work with it. Sometimes George disagrees vehemently because Julie slips out of anthropology mode and sees red.

George is a funny-sounding name in Spanish and I've always had a bizarre affinity for it. That and for Bob, of course.

I believe my comments have all been published. I don't always go back and check. I could be off in my count and mistaken. I'm not a great anthropologist; I don't always have the stomach to sift back through those posts and comments to see if George makes an appearance.

Yes. I lack integrity (scroll down to the discussion on "proxy servers") because being banned/blacklisted means you don't even have permission to visit or attempt response. Being banned means assuming the technology is what does the banning and not an internet conscience.

I think my main reason for being such a shade on this is to prove a point: banning a person permanently based on a comment or two you didn't like in the past means you only hurt your readers and valuable discussion. This is a good lesson for me as well.

Obviously George (me) had something to say of value, since he made it in the comments section and hasn't been banned (yet).

Moderating comments based on banning IP numbers seems to make the most sense for a highly trafficked blog, but it also means a) you'll need the technology to deal with dynamic or changed IP numbers, b) that you are essentially marking people with a number (a very unbiblical concept, oh my!) and c) that to weed out true weeds you kill a ton of wheat.

Moderating comments based on a comment-by-comment content standpoint frees you of those three issues, though it takes a huge amount of weeding time for larger blogs; it means you have to read what Fred Phelps says every time, whether he signs in as Fred or as, uh, George.

If you don't want to deal with comments, say you're turning them off and then actually turn them off. And then quit turning them on again, particularly on the posts where you know you want lots of yes-men agreeing with you. That's a sign that you "lack integrity" and need to prove your point by assertion.

So go find George. He probably won't last long after this. Think of it as my Christmas gift to you.

UPDATE: Greetings, Old Truth readers. You may wish to read this post.

Labels: blogging, slice of laodicea

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

The watchmen are not to be snipers.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 0 comments link this post

The

SECTIONS

About

Contact

Breaking News!

Events

Press

Sales & Specials

TODAYS HEADLINES

BLOGROLL

Some things are not borne out of offense.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

A slice of soap opera.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Links: A stand of some kind.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Face to face.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Let Kenny help you out.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Being Balaam's donkey.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

I can see you love women.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Apostasy Watch!

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Moses might have stuttered.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

So you have a problem with women.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

The prairie princess.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

An instalanche without the Insta.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Find George.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

The watchmen are not to be snipers.