“Moderation in All Things”

As many of our readers will recall, sometime in June we experienced a bit of a “cyber bombardment” of “wall-to-wall spamming,” coupled with as many as thirty (exceptionally adversarial) comments in a single day (obviously “orchestrated” by one of the cult centers).  And, since such an onslaught made it difficult to answer all the comments in an orderly fashion -- and also because it was wasting the time of our regular readers having to put up with all this nonsense -- we decided to implement “moderation.” Each comment is now “moderated,” i.e., reviewed for content (by a blog administrator) before being approved for publication.  This way, comments can now be addressed in a rational, orderly fashion; and each comment can be given the attention it deserves.²  But, more importantly, it puts the blog administrator – not these disruptive “loonies” -- back in control.  The latter can no longer wreak their havoc.  It has put a fitting end to their “disruption” strategy.

And, although such an onslaught was “disruptive” -- we welcomed it, for a couple of reasons: Firstly, the comments themselves illustrated to our regular readers how completely adolescent these people are (thus reinforcing what we’ve been saying about them all along).  And secondly – because these comments were so absurd – they gave us “material” with which to expose these clowns in future articles.  One of our articles -- Say Again? (click here) -- in fact, was a direct outcome of this disruption.  It was in answer to one of these loonies’ comments about Schiavo; and, guess what?  That article brought on yet another spurious comment about Schiavo,¹ which gave us – you guessed it -- yet another opportunity to talk about Schiavo again: 

The comment was as follows:  “Fr. Cekada clearly stated, that IF Terri was capable of eating via the mouth when fed, then what they did was murder. The other issue is whether a stomach tube is extraordinary means. And it is. My father revered his parish priest, who later got cancer of his arm, and he chose death rather than amputation. Amputation is a one-time-thing, and quite easy compared to a stomach tube...which is on-going. Fr. Cekada is entirely vindicated.”

Well, for starters, Checkie already knew that Terri was “capable of eating via the mouth when fed” – because, not only was it public knowledge before, during, and after the time of her ordeal, but Checkie himself was actually informed of it at the time -- by several people. ³   Hence, his statement, “IF Terri was capable of eating via the mouth when fed, then what they did was murder,” is a LIE.  There was no “IF” about it.  We might also ask: what person who calls himself a “theologian” would – on such an important point – not be sure of his facts before making such a [mis]communication?  And what sort of “theologian” – when he did find out (which he indeed did), would not write a retraction of his erroneous position?  Checkie did neither of these things.  Over a decade later, he still stubbornly refuses to recant what he said.

The next lie that this commenter told was the following: “The other issue is whether a stomach tube is extraordinary means. And it is. My father revered his parish priest, who later got cancer of his arm, and he chose death rather than amputation. Amputation is a one-time-thing, and quite easy compared to a stomach tube...which is on-going. Fr. Cekada is entirely vindicated.”  Apparently, he did not read the part stating that [Cekada] “based his ‘extraordinary means’ argument on an outdated opinion of Pius XII’s that tube-feeding might be considered ‘extraordinary.’  By the time of Terri’s death, tube-feeding had for decades NOT been considered ‘extraordinary’ but routine.  So routine, in fact, that two of SGG’s parishioners had their kids on tube-feeding at the time (as we also included in one of our footnotes).

Sure, one might consider tube-feeding to be “extraordinary” in the sense that it is not a “natural” food-ingestion process; but, by that definition, any “artificial device,” such as artificial limbs, crutches, hearing aids, cataract inserts – you name it – could be considered “extraordinary means.”  And as far as tube-feeding goes, this has been considered routine for so long – even in decades-long feeding – that the term “extraordinary means” is no longer applied to it (except, in the case of (to use Checkie’s words) “a body that is obviously shutting down for good.”  The only problem here (as we also pointed out), Terri’s body was NOT “shutting down for good.”

Lastly, we must point out the idiocy of the part of the comment dealing with the “parish priest, who later got cancer of his arm, and he chose death rather than amputation. Amputation is a one-time-thing, and quite easy compared to a stomach tube...which is on-going.”  Actually, according to Catholic moral theology, someone choosing death over a life-saving amputation would be considered morally reprehensible – perhaps tantamount to suicide.  There are plenty of people who have undergone amputations to save their lives.  This priest sounds as if he’s some sort of wimp or coward.  Hasn’t he ever heard of the expression, “offering it up”?  Also, we might point out that the two aforementioned kids who were on long-term tube-feeding did not register one complaint about it being “painful” or “a burden.”  Bottom line, “Mr. Commenter”:  Checkie is NOT “entirely vindicated.”  He should, in fact, be indicted.

So, as one can see, this comment (along with the previous “onslaught”) has given us plenty of “material” about which to write.   In an ensuing comment (which, by the way, we decided to “spam”), someone added this: “You should go back to not requiring a post approval, this new way is much too slow. Ya [sic] I know some people blasted you in a similar way that you pretty much always blast others and it probably didn’t feel good, but bid deal so there are a few extra posts about how you delete comments and now you only play into that by monitoring all comments.”  (This same comment was also sent in to Pistrina, who responded to it in a succinct but decisive way, hence our decision to simply spam it and let them handle it.)⁴

But that ensuing comment got us to thinking:  The fact that we at Lay Pulpit (and, of course, Pistrina) allow comments at all – “moderated” or otherwise – is far and away a more liberal policy than what the cult-masters allow.  In their bulletins, newsletters, and other “communications,” they make provision for no feedback whatsoever.  Can you imagine if someone started giving Dannie, Checkie, or Big Don the kind of “feedback” that we get here – or if someone got out of his pew and started giving a “sermon within a sermon” (similar to that one lunatic’s “blog within a blog” nonsense back in June)?!  How long would Dannie (or Big Don) tolerate that?  (Dannie can’t even tolerate crying babies during his sermons!) ⁵

So, bottom line, we see our new “moderation” policy as an eminently good one –one that provides for feedback -- but one that spares our general readership the disruptive (and time-wasting) influence of a handful of crackpots.  It is a policy that (we think) will be here “for the duration” at Lay Pulpit (and at Pistrina).⁶  There is one notable difference between us and Pistrina, however: we at Lay Pulpit have decided to “spam” those comments that we feel are merely “disruptive for disruption’s sake.”  We choose not to tolerate such comments.  Pistrina, on the other hand, is more “accommodating” in their approach to such opposition – and we applaud them for it.  We feel that they have chosen the “right” strategy for them – but we feel that our strategy is “right’ for us.  We both have our reasons for our policies, and we think both are valid ones.  But beyond that, we feel no need to further explain why our policy is different from theirs.

In either case, we certainly believe that moderation of comments is a good thing, for everyone concerned.  (And, actually, it is a good policy for any publication, large or small, for it provides for two-way communication, yet still provides the right safeguards.)  The cult-center loonies have been whining loudly, complaining that moderation “slows things down too much.”  No it doesn’t (and no, it hasn’t).  We like it, and we think it’s here to stay.  And if those loonies don’t like it -- well – they’ll just have to get used to it!

______________________________

¹ Ironically, many of the comments we got from these trolls were accusing us of “bringing up Schiavo again” – yet it was they who actually brought it up!  So, in writing about Schiavo, we were merely responding to their taunts, not prematurely and preemptively “dredging up old news.”  But, regardless of who was “dredging it up,” according to these trolls’ logic, regularly reminding people of our Lord’s crucifixion would too be considered as “dredging up old news.”

² And, of course, comments that are particularly absurd can be “spammed” and/or deleted if need be – and we have done a fair amount of “spamming” already, with no adverse effects.  It has, to be sure, resulted in fewer comments; but we like it that way, because the comments we now get are constructive and rational – not the insane claptrap that the loonies have been peddling.  Plus, more importantly, our new policy has not adversely affected our readership; it has actually increased since we’ve implemented the policy.

That is not to say that a more “open” toleration of comments doesn’t have its advantages.  For one thing, as we’ve already noted, it gives us more “material” for future articles; but on the other, it often turns the comments section into a three-ring circus, where the loonies can carry on an incessant dialogue about issues of interest no one but themselves (and which waste everyone’s time) -- and which, more often than not, are only read by the loonies themselves anyway.  We have chosen to be not so “open” – and that works for us.

Our colleagues at Pistrina Liturgica, by the way, were the first to implement moderation, and we followed suit shortly thereafter.   And this is what has particularly upset these “loonies”: they can no longer wreak their havoc in an unbridled and haphazard way.  “But,” as they say, “they have brought it on themselves.”  So, if they want to blame anyone for this new policy, they need only “look in the mirror.”

³ And Cekada was totally aware at the time he wrote his words that Terri could swallow – because he was informed of it by several people (including one of his own parishioners, as well as a noted neurologist).  In correspondence between this parishioner and him, she informed Checkie that Terri was – amongst other things -- able to swallow.  (For more of her correspondence with Checkie, click here.)

⁴ Pistrina responded thusly: “We didn't go to moderation because of the "blasts": we always allowed them, and we even enjoyed them. Even now, almost all comments but spam are published. We do delete those that offend decency.  We had to moderate because the spammer was disturbing our Readership. As it stands now, there isn't too much time before a comment is posted, except when they arrive during our night-time, so we'll stick to moderation.”

⁵ As we’ve reported in more than once in the past, Dannie stops his sermon if a crying baby is “interfering.”  The “offending baby’s” mother must remove it to SGG’s vestibule (because there is no crying room per se) – a vestibule that is neither heated in winter nor air-conditioned in summer.  And, once in the vestibule, mother and baby are not allowed to re-enter the church until AFTER the sermon is finished (because the “commotion” of the door being opened is too much for His Self-Importancy to bear).

⁶ In fact, it is a policy that should have been implemented in the first place.  We did not have the foresight to see the day when disruptive loonies would cause such harassment for both us and our readers.  Now that they have done so, we have been able to “neutralize them” by putting the right safeguards in place.  So, we thank these loonies for their “disruption” – for, thanks to them, now those safeguards are in place!