Pages

Sunday, September 9, 2007

Visiting Candyland Q&A

Q: I heard that you troll Candy's comment section looking for people to debate. Any response?

A: When people leave a comment in a comment box they have an option of making it possible for people to get in touch with them via e-mail or to visit their blog. I think there is an implication there that you WELCOME VISITORS AND COMMENTS! I have on occasion asked people about their support of Candy's anti-Catholicism on their blogs. Two such occasions ended pretty much in disaster, but one blogger ended up putting me on her blog roll and we remain friendly! and so it goes.


Q. I'm sure you have been persecuting Candy and her commenters for years now just to make yourself feel intellectually superior. Why don't you get a hobby?

A. I only discovered Candy's blog last spring during the Homeschool Blog awards. I've been very open about visiting her blog because it was one of the nominees, being very interested in her homemaking stuff and being surprised at the voracity of her anti-Catholic posts.

I enjoy blogging and commenting. I enjoy spirited, challenging and interesting debate. Some of the toughest debates I ever had were with a female Presbyterian cleric who had studied in France and Rome. I thoroughly enjoyed our discussions as they sent me scrambling to research on line and at the library many times.


Q. What's up with all of the logical fallacies?

A. I think it is important to compose logical and well thought out points. I do not think that just because this is just "blogging" or that we are primarily women that our standards for being thorough and logical should be lower do you?

Which doesn't mean that we can't have fun with our discussions. Some of the best debates are full of humor! I think it's okay to use a little levity when tackling deeper topics now and then.

Q. Do you delete comments?

A. I try not to. If comments are on topic, respectful and not full of ad hominem attacks I generally keep them up. You can peruse the archives here and see that there are many comments up from people objecting to this blog.

Q. You are cynical, sarcastic, and worst of all, hypocritical.

A. I've also been called "so many shades of stupid they don't make a Crayola box big enough to begin coloring her in." On the other hand some one once said of my comments : "Truth, love, charity, and, oh yeah, sensitivity, decorum, good taste and a dollop of wit." Someone also commented on the size of my "ham hocks" once but I'm not sure what that had to do with the validity of my comments.

Q. If Candy wanted to comment here would you let her?

A. Absolutely!

Q. Why do you keep personally attacking Candy when I can find no evidence where she has personally attacked you?


A. I don't feel that I have attacked Candy as a person. I have only been critical of the topics she has blogged on, primarily attacks and misinformation on Catholicism. You won't find attacks against me on Candy's blog because she has deleted them. I do have some of them saved on my other blog however for reference.


Q. Why do you keep reading if it bothers you so much.

A. First of all, I have to tell you I have been doing apologetics on line now for almost ten years. What I read now days rarely gets an elevation in my heart rate as I have read and debated most of it before. However, there are a lot of young Christians looking for guidance and role models in Christianity and are probably attracted to homemaking blogs like this. If they are searching them out via search engine, I want to be sure that they have uncensored access to the other side of the story as well.

Q. Why don't you attack other blogs like Stephanie's?

A. There are only so many hours in a day and I have limited time. I have posted comments on other blogs before correcting misconceptions regarding Catholicism. They aren't always published.

Q. But don't you think that everybody should be able to have their own little place on the web if they want to say whatever they want without being criticized.

A. I think if you are going to have a public blog you should expect to take some criticism for your opinions from time to time. There are plenty of options for having a PRIVATE blog and having only a few friends and readers looking at it. Candy's is not a private blog and she publishes anti-Catholic stuff for the purpose of "educating" and "warning" others to "come out" of the Catholic Church. This blog exists in response to that.

Of course I believe that everyone has the right to have a blog and say anything they want and run it anyway they wish. I also believe that I have the right to disagree publicly with anything that is written on that public blog, or with how it is managed. That's the problem with free speech. That's why most socialist countries don't allow it!

Q. But don't you think there will be as many different kinds of Christianity as there are Christians?

A. Where in the bible does it say that?

2 comments:

motherofmany said...

OK, this is what I mean. You have admitted to attacking Candy when you couldn't 'take' any more of her anti-Catholic posts. Now you are saying you never attacked her. Refuting the statements she makes would look something like "I don't believe this is true of all Catholics" or "The article you posted has a very anti-Roman slant to it". Saying things like "cult of Candy", "she's just plain crazy", or "it's not the eye make-up that nmake you look mean" are COMPLETE ad homined.

It has also not escaped my attention that your anonymous commenter very nearly copied my post word for word. I thought you were going to level with me now.

Elena said...

Actually Amy what I said was:
"I have only been critical of the topics she has blogged on, primarily attacks and misinformation on Catholicism."

1. Cult of Candy is more a description of the gals who seem to be reading that blog and accepting all of it as fact without any attempt to do their own research. In fact, it seems that most of them consider Candy's blog to be a primary source for research purposes.

Definition of cult: a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

Seems pretty descriptive to me.

2. DO a search of this blog. I never called her crazy.

3. Candy blogged about wearing makeup last week (remember, I said I have only been critical of the topics she has blogged on) and she herself said eyemake up made her look mean.

In my experience It's not make up that makes a person look mean, but rather how they treat other people. Candy banned me again after I commented with a factual response to her pagan art post. I think that could qualify as mean. People who make fun of your faith, body, race, gender, income - I think we call them mean. The thesarus also lists petty, unkind cruel, spiteful, or malicious.

I thought you were going to level with me now.

I am leveling with you now Amy (oh and note that your comment is up, as are your prior comments except for 'since when?'") SO pick your topic and let's start the discussion.