If an image someone posts is so offensive as to cause outrage, I can certainly understand making a fuss.
I was reminded of an old incident on another blog in which a Roman Catholic blogger posted an offensive image without realizing it. I called it out, and the image was removed. You'll search my blog in vain to find that offensive image documented.
If a posted image is taken down by the alleged offending party, what does it say about the offended party if the image is still plastered on their own web site? It leads me to wonder if the offended party was really offended to begin with. The image is either offensive or it isn't. If my Roman Catholic friends really take venerating images so seriously, they need to be consistent and demand that all such offensive pictures be removed, entirely, even from their own websites.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
29 comments:
I know the gentleman in the link in question. Was a friend of my wife's. I usually responded postively to his postings, unless they dealt with cheap shots at Protestants. I would try to take issue with the substance. Ended up getting dropped as a fb friend and my comments don't get posted anymore--sad.
Like I said, I can understand being outraged by something posted. For instance, if an atheist posted something against me and posted a picture of a Hitler mustache on Jesus, I would be offended. If the atheist took the picture down, I would be grateful. What I wouldn't do is post the same picture on my blog and continue to complain about the offense.
If Roman Catholics consider such people like the nun in question with the Hitler mustache "holy", why in the world would they post that same offensive image on their own website? It smacks of silliness.
Then there are allegedly these morally superior Roman Catholic "do-gooders" that are writing Protestant ministers about offensive images on blogs. To be consistent, someone should write the parish of any Roman Catholic who would similarly post something so allegedly "offensive." Will this happen? I doubt it.
It's obvious the entire thing was nonsense. No one who made a stink about it was really offended. It's just polemical nonsense.
Hello Mr. Swan,
You wrote: "Then there are allegedly these morally superior Roman Catholic "do-gooders" that are writing Protestant ministers about offensive images on blogs. To be consistent, someone should write the parish of any Roman Catholic who would similarly post something so allegedly "offensive." Will this happen? I doubt it.
Me: Since I was one of those bloggers who wrote to the gentlman's pastor, I will note that I do not (at least consciously) maintain a double standard. I have written similar letters before to Catholic institutions which I thought gave offense to the Church's teachings. Here is an example:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3147998851717628040&postID=134897369861590342&isPopup=true.
As far as when I write, I have on occasions consulted my pastor or spiritual director before posting when I was n't sure I staying on "the right side of the line." One such occurrence was when I wrote about the tension between the right of privacy and right in free speech when it comes to the use of pseudonymous tags to conceal one's identity while blogging.
There is nothing wrong about being a do-gooder if one is being a do-gooder for right reasons. Christ calls on us to put our faith into action by doing good to all we meet along the road of life. If one is doing it to be noticed or improper motives rather than for ends of goodness itself, then it is to his shame because notice is all that one derives out of the occasion. If you feel that I have fallen short of the mark on this occasion, please let me know as I am open to fraternal correction.
As for whether it is "silly" for the AWMNBN to keep up a picture of something that was intentionally posted that he found to be offensive, I believe that he is keeping the picture there to document as proof that offensive image was indeed rendered. The incident that you referenced in your article was accidental in nature thus warranting removal. I suppose you could always ask him why he kept it up before judging on the silliness of him doing so.
God bless!
Paul,
For a religion that claims to venerate images and saints, I find your approval of the posting of the picture of the alleged "Saint" with a Hitler mustache grossly inconsistent.
Do you think it honors her as a "Saint" to have that doctored picture of her up on a "Roman Catholic" website?
C'mon Paul, enough is enough. You guys prove to me you really don't take your religion seriously.
Ironies of ironies:
It turns out I have to defend the honor of St. Therese. It appears Roman Catholics are more interested in polemics than actually honoring one of their saints.
How sad is it that someone whom they deem "anti-Catholic" is the only who cares about the honor of St. Therese.
Why am I 0% surprised to find the link Paul Hoffer pasted is now dead?
AWMNBN = ??
AWMNBN
"who must not be mentioned" - I get it now.
I googled and found:
SWMNBM = She who must not be mentioned
Hello Mr. Swan,
You wrote:
For a religion that claims to venerate images and saints, I find your approval of the posting of the picture of the alleged "Saint" with a Hitler mustache grossly inconsistent.
Me:
Where is the inconsistency? Mr. Bugay's motivation when he posted the picture was to be blasphemous, defamatory, and disrespectful. The AWMNBN's motivation in posting Mr. Bugay's rendering was to confront and refute such conduct. If one looks at CCC 2148 and if one were to read AWMNBN's artical on blasphemy and if one considers what St. Paul writes at 1 Cor. 1:23, a person of faith can easily see the difference between the two. It is not the picture in and of itself that exemplifies the wrong, but the manner in how the picture was used.
Allow me to offer an example of what I am talking about here. There is nothing inherently sinful about nudity for example. Part of the giving of self to one's spouse out of conjugal love shows that nudity rises to the level of sacramentality, but when pictures of nude figures are used to evoke lustful or prurient interest, such constitutes pornography.
I do thank you for your concern for the honor of the Little Flower.
Rhology: I am sorry if the link does not work. My comments were posted on an article written on the Sancte Pater blog dated 10/30/2011 entitled, "Susan Sarandon's Daughter's Marriage Officiated by Sister Helen Prejean." The article and my comments are still there even if my link is not good. I do apologize.
God bless!
aul,
Allow me to offer an example of what I am talking about here. Suppose someone were to post a defamatory picture of someone, say, your wife, Would you keep the same picture on your website to document?
If you and your buddies don't want to show respect for someone your church deems a saint, that tells me how important your religion really is to you. You folks would rather make a big issue of about something you think is in bad taste, and keep that same bad taste plastered on your websites. You guys are jokers.
Spare me any further comments Paul. I'd rather dialog with Roman Catholics that take their religion seriously.
Mr. Swan, I do take my faith seriously. If you had viewed all of my comments, my objection to the picture has ever been that it was blasphemous, not that it was in bad taste. Mr. Bugay has the legal right to engage in bad taste (which is why I did not object to his caricature of Bl. JH Newman of Bl. Pope John XXIII. I did comment on how the caricature did not work, but that is different from urging him to recant from blaphemy); he does not have the moral right to engage in blasphemy.
As far as someone posting a defamatory picture on the internet of my spouse, rest assured, I would know how to legally defend that violation of her rights. I would note parenthetically that to do so I would have submit the pictures as evidence in court. Thus, I would be republishing the pictures. There is no other way for me to win substantial compensatory and punitive damages from a finder of fact for defaming my wife. Thus, your analogy falls flat.
Similarly, the AWMNBN felt he had to republish the picture to illustrate the blasphemy. He did not take it down because Mr. Bugay tried to trivialize his conduct by claiming that he did not "draw" a mustache on her, he merely "enhanced" a flaw in the photograph.
Thus, the reason that the picture is being published is the critical thing, NOT the picture itself. The critical issue is the reasons behind the person's conduct, which is why I suggested to you there was a difference between Tiber Jumper's inadvertent conduct and Mr. Bugay's intentional conduct. You give emphasis to the wrong thing (perhaps because of your negative view of saints and their veneration in the first place), which I would suggest demonstrates your error in accusing me and other Catholics of not taking their faith seriously. I do hope I have made myself clear on the matter.
God bless!
This is a really silly conversation.
Why doesn't Mr. Bugay just repost he picture on his blog, this time with the intention of merely documenting the picture that caused offense?
Something like "This image was initially on my blog, but after Roman Catholic complaints at its offensiveness, I took it down. It now appears again in order to illustrate what sorts of images Roman Catholics find offensive."
Should be fine.
Mr. Lollard, given that the subsequent posting is premised on the earlier posting which was done to give offense, your argument constitutes a wonderful example of sophistry.
God bless!
Mr. Hoffer, just so that I'm clear on things:
John Bugay posted some sort of image of a St. Therese with a Hitler mustache or something (or so I surmise). Some RC blogger or another took offense and asked him to remove it. John Bugay did remove it. That blogger then posted the offensive image on his website, presumably to document how outrageous and blasphemous John Bugay is.
John Bugay's initial posting is offensive, the nameless RC blogger's posting isn't offensive. Your argument, so far as I can tell, is that it's okay for the nameless RC blogger to post it because he is doing so for illustrative purposes.
My suggestion was simple: what if John Bugay reposted the image for illustrative purposes? I suggested a possible subtitle he can add to the photo to explain its re-posting.
Or if it is more to your liking, Mr. Bugay could try "I had posted this image and was asked to remove it for it's offensiveness. I did remove it, but now post it a an illustration of the depths of blasphemy that I reach in my contempt of Roman Catholicism".
Clearly, my suggestion was to illustrate the absurdity of claiming to be offended by an image that now exists only on your webpage, after you ask someone else to take it down because of how offensive it is to you.
Imagine a Christian website hosting pornography as a means of protesting how exploitative and repulsive pornography is.
What seems patently obvious is this: whichever Catholic is keeping the image up is doing so because of an unwillingness to forgive. It was offensive, John seemingly agreed that it was too much, and hence removed it. He took necessary measurements to undo whatever wrong was done by the picture. Not willing to let him off the hook for it, said Roman Catholic took steps to freeze his offense on his own website so that all the world can continue to scoff at and scold John Bugay for his "sin" even after his "mea culpa".
It is clear that this is not about the offensiveness of the image, but about the offendedness of Roman Catholics who feel the need to complain about how wicked and nasty Protestants can be. Whoever it is is pretty clearly not offended by the image at all, or is not offended by it enough to let it overwhelm his smug sense of satisfaction at having "dirt" on John and something to complain about.
Forgive and forget. If John Bugay took it down, then he clearly saw the error in posting the image and clearly doesn't wish to cause needless offense. There is no reason to let the issue persist.
Where exactly is the sophistry?
In Christ,
JL
Hi Mr. Lollard:
Your sequence of events is a bit off.
John Bugay posted a doctored picture of St. Therese sporting a Hitler mustache. A RC blogger (AWMNGN) posted an article declaiming the conduct and posted a copy of the picture to document the conduct. A number of individuals, including myself, asked that Mr. Bugay take down the picture. He initially refused, but later did remove it only after attempting to rationalize why it was ok for him to post it in the first place. Thus, the picture was posted documenting the conduct was done prior to Mr. Bugay's removal, not afterwards. Again, like anti-Nazi exhibits, exhibits attacking anti-Semitism, or any other efforts to document improper conduct, one has to reference the conduct and show it for what it is.
With all of that in mind, it is my understanding from the RC blogger himself and from reading an update he posted to the article in question that if Mr. Bugay were to offer a sincere apology, the RC blogger would take down the picture as well. You are correct that Mr. Bugay removed the offending picture but there was no accompanying apology or to use your words, "mea culpa." I would post a link to that blogger's statement and let it speak for itself, but Mr. Swan has asked me not to post links to that person's articles when commenting and I agreed not to do so. I will not offend our host by doing so now.
One last note, please do not attribute to me the attachment of the adjectives of "outrageous" and "blasphemous" to Mr. Bugay himself; I do not claim that he sports a demeanor that is outrageous and blasphemous or that his character is outrageous and blasphemous. I commented that on this occasion he has engaged in an action that I consider outrageous and blasphemous. There is a big difference.
God bless!
John,
There's no point in trying to reason with Mr. Hoffer on this. He appears to be addicted to exposing "anti-Catholicism" , so much so, that defending the posting of the image in question doesn't bother him.
If it were Mr. Hoffer "documenting" this nonsense, I would immediately suggest Roman Catholics concerned about the proper respect St Therese deserves write Mr. Hoffer's parish. Perhaps Mr. Hoffer is simply infected with secularism and post-modernism and he can't see his double standard. If this woman is considered "a saint" shame on any Roman Catholic posting such a disgraceful image, whatever the context. But that's the way the world is now...
And here's how those folks think: "My policy is that I document error and derogatory bigotry, etc. unless there is a full retraction and renunciation."
Policy?
“You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."... But If someone posts an offensive image of a saint, make a stink over it, but document it on your own website. Keep the offense alive, no need to turn any cheek.
These guys still function with "Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth."
Lest we miss the point:
If Paul & co. really found that image offensive, they would not wish to see it posted at all.
they have proved to me the image was never the problem. Rather, they simply used the image as polemic and propaganda.
Mr. Swan, I have offered an argument in response to your assertions. Rather than dealing with the argument itself, you apparently decided to make me that mark.
You wrote: There's no point in trying to reason with Mr. Hoffer on this.
Me: I have offered a reasoned response and have done so in a respectful manner. The fact that you choose to disregard my reasoning does not change the fact that I have addressed your argument, you have yet to address mine.
You wrote: He appears to be addicted to exposing "anti-Catholicism" , so much so, that defending the posting of the image in question doesn't bother him.
Me: The picture itself still offends me, but we are not talking about the picture. We are talking about the rationale of why someone who is offended by a blasphemous picture would still post it.
You wrote: If it were Mr. Hoffer "documenting" this nonsense, I would immediately suggest Roman Catholics concerned about the proper respect St Therese deserves write Mr. Hoffer's parish.
Me: Rather than attempting to obtain an evisceral emotional response from your audience, why not treat with with my argument before attacking my character.
You wrote: Perhaps Mr. Hoffer is simply infected with secularism and post-modernism and he can't see his double standard.
Me: Again, you are attacking me and not the argument. Poor form, that.
You wrote: If this woman is considered "a saint" shame on any Roman Catholic posting such a disgraceful image, whatever the context. But that's the way the world is now...
Me: If there is shame to be attached, it should be attached to the person who first posted it not to someone who confronts the improper conduct.
You wrote: And here's how those folks think: "My policy is that I document error and derogatory bigotry, etc. unless there is a full retraction and renunciation."
Me: That is AWMNBN's policy. I do not disagree with it. It is too bad that you have barred him from posting here to defend it.
cont.
comment cont.
You wrote:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."...
Me: Since this would not be an occasion where lex talionis would be applicable, turning the other cheek also would not be applicable. I do not believe that Mr. Bugay directed his mock at me in particular. Where he has apologized in response to something I have written, I have altered what I have written accordingly. Moreover, Where I have given offense to others, I have directly and prominently apologized for my conduct. See, http://capriciousness.blogspot.com/2011/04/pope-benedict-xvi-and-eucharistic_25.html
I would not expect anyone to adhere to a standard I do not hold myself to.
You wrote: If someone posts an offensive image of a saint, make a stink over it, but document it on your own website. Keep the offense alive, no need to turn any cheek.
Me: 1 Samuel 3:12-13; Ezekiel 33; Gal. 4:16; and Col. 1:28 provide an answer to this scurrilous charge.
You write: These guys still function with "Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth."
Me: I have not taken either his eye or his tooth. I have not repaid Mr. Bugay with unkindness for unkindness.
You wrote: If Paul & co. really found that image offensive, they would not wish to see it posted at all.
Me: True, I do wish John had never posted the picture in the first place. I could be working on other matters.
You wrote: They have proved to me the image was never the problem. Rather, they simply used the image as polemic and propaganda.
Me: I could make the same argument about you in writing the article and keeping the issue alive. By using emotionally charging the issue instead of dealing with the theological issue of whether the altering and publishing the photograph constitute blasphemy or even dealing with my argument in a logical or cogent manner, you yourself have engaged in the negative usage of polemic as well as propaganda to promote your own agenda.
That said, I do not deny that I have engaged in "polemic" to highlight something I thought was blasphemous. I do not deny that I have engaged in "polemic" to persuade someone from removing a picture that I believed was blasphemous. Any debate to persuade is considered a polemic. What I do deny is that I have engaged in propaganda. Show me where I have done anything here to present a biased factual claim or distorted the facts of this instance. Show me where I have sought to evoke an emotional response rather than a rational response. Show me how I obtain any sort of personal benefit or benefit for the Church here. Your accusation of propaganda is simply not tenable in light of all of the evidence.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend my remarks here.
God bless!
Paul,
Earlier in response to me, you said this:
"A number of individuals, including myself, asked that Mr. Bugay take down the picture."
That's a weird thing to do. Why would you want Mr. Bugay to take down a picture? Why did you ask him to do that?
Think about what it means when you ask a blogger to remove an image from their site, and think about how that image now exists only on a Roman Catholic blogger site.
You have been respectful and clear in your arguments, and I thank you for that; I just think your point is a very silly one indeed.
In Christ,
JL
Hello Mr. Lollard:
Your wrote: That's a weird thing to do. Why would you want Mr. Bugay to take down a picture? Why did you ask him to do that?
Me: Frankly, I was prompted to do so not because I was offended by it, but I did so out of regard for Mr. Bugay as a person and out of concern for his soul and because I did not care for how Mr. Hathaway was mistreated and mocked in the comment box there. Blasphemy should be confronted and discouraged. Furthermore, it should not be used to justify hurting others. The picture's continued presence there could have given rise to further mistreatment of others and would only imperil Mr. Bugay's soul that bit more.
Thus, for me anyway, it is not just about a picture. It is about how the picture was used. One may think that I am being silly for distinguishing between the two, but for better or for worse, I have given my reasons for what I have written.
I think that perhaps the problem here is how Protestants view the Catholic notion of veneration. Since you think we worship a picture or a statue, you are placing too much emphasis on the photo. Since as a Catholic, I do not worship a picture or a statue, but venerate what is represented by those things, I am better able distinguish between the photo and the manner in which the photo is being used. I can not think of another reason for why my straight-forward argument is not being understood.
Anyway, thank you for your very legitimate inquiry that noone else thought to ask before lambasting me here.
BTW, as an aside, is John Lollard your real name or did you pick the handle to honor John Wyclif and his followers?
God bless!
P.S. Where I wrote, "I do not deny that I have engaged in "polemic" to persuade someone from removing a picture that I believed was blasphemous." It should have read, "I do not deny that I have engaged in "polemic" to persuade someone TO remove a picture that I believed was blasphemous."
Proper use of prepositions is a sign of mastery of a language. Obviously, I am still learning.
God bless!
Mr. Hoffer,
"Blasphemy should be confronted and discouraged. Furthermore, it should not be used to justify hurting others. The picture's continued presence there could have given rise to further mistreatment of others and would only imperil Mr. Bugay's soul that bit more. "
I'm glad you had such a concern.
What exactly is blasphemous about posting an image of St. Therese with a mustache?
I'm not sure veneration of saints is at issue here. I'm sorry John Bugay posted the image, and I'm glad he removed it. Let me tell you where I am coming from.
I get offended by blasphemous pictures of Jesus. I don't store such pictures anywhere on my computer as evidence, and wish they would disappear.
I get offended by pornography, and I ask for it to be taken down, and I don't then repost the pornography on my own website to show how offensive it is.
I find images with excessive bad language offensive, and I don't them share them with the world by hosting them on my own website.
Muslims get offended by pictures of Muhammad. Muslims do not draw and repost pictures of Muhammad, not even as evidence. You will not find them on Muslim websites.
I guess overall the norm seems to be, you ask for offensive and blasphemous images to be taken down because you do not want to see offensive and blasphemous images. Putting them up on your own website virtually guarantees that you will have to see the images, and guarantees that they will continue to exist, and guarantees that people around the entire world will continue to see them.
Which is why I say this all sounds so silly. You want the images taken down because they dishonor St. Therese by showing her with a mustache, but the Catholic website is the only place currently displaying the images of St. Therese with a mustache.
If some impious college student were to stumble upon the image, find it hilarious, and pass it around the internet for everyone to laugh at, it is because a Roman Catholic hosted the image. John Bugay took the image down.
That's all I'm saying. It seems like if it were really offensive, the nameless blogger should have taken it down by now.
In Christ,
JL
(PS, my name is chosen after Wycliffe and the Lollards. Thank you for asking)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend my remarks here.
Mr. Hoffer,
Over the last few years I've allowed you to comment as often as you wished. I think maybe once or twice I may have deleted something of yours. I simply don't recall. I'm tempted though to not allow any further comments from you. It's not at all because you come off as either rude or insulting. Quite the opposite: I think most often you're quite capable of expressing yourself in a cordial way, and you certainly could be a helpful guide to some of your friends in this area on how to post comments on the Internet. Perhaps this was part of your legal training; either way, you certainly know how to keep a cool head when you post. For that, I'm grateful, and I can't recall you ever being unnecessarily offensive.
But I did not appreciate that your recent visit here was taken (by you) and re-posted elsewhere on an extremely hostile blog, a blog that has no problem insulting and ridiculing me, while at the same time using my meager research (while all the while saying what an idiot I am). Those you keep company with over there do not have the cool demeanor you do. It really is true that the company we keep can influence how someone views us. I wonder if in actuality, that despite your usual charitableness, you are like those guys. If you hang out with them, there must be something to it.
In regard to this current discussion, the point was to expose that what one considers "holy" should be treated as such, despite the context. Holy will be "holy," wherever you put it. Say what one will about the evils of Islam, but I think they understand this concept. If Therese is a Saint, she should be treated as such in a Roman Catholic worldview. We both realize that the entire episode you guys pretended to be upset about could be "documented" without that picture. Perhaps you could try to explain this to Adomnan when you take the rest of this back there: a Saint is not the same as the holocaust. Take a lesson from Islam on this. Treat a saint as she should be, whatever the context. That picture would have never made it to my blog. Despite how diabolical I think Romanism is, I typically avoid that sort of approach. I would agree with you and your friends that the picture was offensive. But I think you folks enjoy the Jerry Springer like atmosphere it created. That the picture of a saint is still up on a Roman Catholic blog tells me we think differently about holiness and purity. You guys are interested in "documentation." I'm interested in seeing if Roman Catholic apologetics takes Sainthood and veneration of images seriously. You guys don't, maybe others on your side of the Tiber do.
Since though these words and whatever response you put up will be probably be copied back to that den of vipers, I'm going to allow you to make one last comment if you wish. After that, please do not leave any more comments here. Unlike some of your friends, I don't think you'll be a blogging stalker and leave comments despite this request (I wonder who did that?).
Regards,
James
Mr. Swan, If I understand your last comment, I take it that I am being asked not to interact with you folks on any future matter, not just this one. That saddens me as reconciliation can not be reached without communication. Rather than offer some lengthy farewell 'apology,' I will merely repost what I posted over at AWMNBN's website earlier this evening reminding fellow Catholics that they should address arguments made by you and Mr. Bugay in a charitable manner:
"I am worried that the tone here is getting kind of personal. Focus on the argument, not on the person. As I was reminded by someone far wiser than myself in connection with this matter, “I believe that it is important to argue for truth, but that it is also important that the mode of our arguments conform to our calling in Christ." Thank you Rev. Koerber!"
I do not take credit for the remarks. It was something that Reverend Koerber, Mr. Bugay's minister, shared with me in responding to my concerns over the issues raised in this latest series of interactions. It is advice that we Christians all should follow in our dealings with each other as we contend for the Truth in offering the reasons for our hope that is Christ Jesus. Like it or not, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. Would that we start treating each other as siblings.
I leave you with this thought from St. Edmund Campion:
"If these my offers be refused, and my endeavours can take no place, and I, having run thousands of miles to do you good, shall be rewarded with rigour. I have no more to say but to recommend your case and mine to Almighty God, the Searcher of Hearts, who send us his grace, and see us at accord before the day of payment, to the end we may at last be friends in heaven, when all injuries shall be forgotten."
May God's peace be on all of you always!
Paul,
As long as you don't simply take everything said over here and repost it over there, then you may continue commenting here. Frankly, those folks know where this blog is, and they do read it. It appeared to me you simply took it all there so they could treat me with their form of Roman Catholic Christian love. Yes, that's sarcasm. Please don't use me to chum the water.
I did not read all the comments on your buddy's blog before they were removed, but I read enough to see a group of people out of control. I suggest you work with them a bit.
You'll notice, I don't post pictures like the one in question, and for the most part, I try to avoid the nonsense as much as possible.
Mr. Swan, Thank you for continuing to allow me to comment. In response to your last comment, I hope you saw that the AWMNBN hid the photo and did remove a good chunk of the comments that had been posted with the article and I hope you read his explanation why he did so-that the direction of the comments were going was towards the uncharitable. As far as my reposting comments on other blogs, I did not do so "to churn" things. I did so in this instance because I thought to try to steer the conversation back to actual points as opposed to more personally directed comments. In the future, I will either ask permission to copy comments to post on a 3rd party site or just post them on my own so I can make sure that personal ad homenim attacks do not occur.
God bless!
I did not do so "to churn" things.
While I'm not beyond presenting an occasional malapropism, if the word "churn" was in response to my use of the word "chum", I actually did intend to use the word "chum".
The almighty Wikipedia states:
Chumming - a bait for fish, including sharks
For review, in the later part of the movie Jaws, Hooper, Brody, and Quint throw pieces of bait into the water to attract predators.
I hope you saw that the AWMNBN hid the photo
I just took a look. I'm so glad I was able to help out and lead the blogger to do the consistent thing.
Post a Comment