Johnson Goes Ballistic

[Richard Johnson]

O.k. I spotted it. The original reference was to "nuts and fruits" in the "ELCA," which was modified to read "here and there." Seems to me this alteration drastically dilutes the original. If Pastor McCain  thought the reference to crops was intemperate, he could apologize for it. If the moderator thought it inappropriate, and admonition could have been issued.
It doesn't seem right to have our esteemed moderator change his words for him, nor does it seem right to have the moderator revise my post without my permission. But then, I have never been - deo gratias - a moderator, so I am not sure of the duties and protocol.
Personally, I was neither offended nor surprised; for Pastor McCain makes it clear in various ways that he would not have ELCA produce in his salad bowl.

Esteemed? How'd he get to be esteemed so quickly? He's only been doing this a few days.

[scott3]

Esteemed? How'd he get to be esteemed so quickly? He's only been doing this a few days.

Shows how much the honorific is worth in these here parts, eh?  

[Charles_Austin]

Richard Johnson writes:
Esteemed? How'd he get to be esteemed so quickly? He's only been doing this a few days.

I comment:
You had the tile from Day One, too.

[peter_speckhard]

Just so everything is so the up and up, let me explain. I was on a bus with 34 high school kids traveling back  from Orlando to Green Bay and unable to check in here. When I finally checked it last night, there was a reported post from Paul, who said that he had tried to tone down the little "nuts and fruits" pun to be less ELCA-specific, but that Charles had quoted the original after the change had been made. I wasn't sure about that, since the posts seemed to have been made and/or edited within a few minutes of each other. But I thought my making the change was in the realm of fair play and would the thread avoid getting sidetracked, and that making a public note of the modification would avoid confusion. Charles, if you really want the original version in your quote, go ahead and change it back. Certainly nobody should have their posts edited without their consent, so perhaps I erred in taking Charles' consent for granted in this case (though it still seems to me like a minor point and the sort of change Charles would normally favor). Rest assured I have no desire or intent to edit people's posts without their knowledge and consent.

[pastorg1@aol.com]

Well, then how do you explain the fact that my posts often come off sounding somewhat dim-witted?

Oh.

Pete (Duh) Garrison

[ptmccain]

Oh, brother.

If it is not the intention of the ALPB forum site to allow people to "modify" their posts after making them, to do precisely what I did, take out language that was intemperate and unwise, which I put up in response to Charles' snarky little remark, then please remove the modify button. I've promised the [esteemed] moderator not to respond in kind to C.A. But there is nothing inappropriate on our [esteemed] moderator's part in correcting Charles misquote. Perhaps he should have given Charles the chance to correct it himself. Charles had plenty of time to make note of the fact that I had modified my comments, since he posted his response several minutes after I had modified my post, as the time stamping on the posts proves beyond a shadow of a doubt. With Charles' lengthy experience as a professional journalist I'm sure he would never want to be knowingly misquoting or misrepresenting anyone's comments.

I'm grateful to Peter for catching this mistake on Charles part and correcting it, since Charles did not.

This whole thing is getting a bit nutty!

[Charles_Austin]

Or for heaven's sake! Nutty indeed!
Pastor McCain posted.
I responded.
Then he - or somebody - changed his original posting. We all have the right to do that, to change our own postings; but I usually think that is done to correct misspellings or grammatical atrocities.
I feel no obligation to go back and see if someone changed their original post after I had quoted it.
The moderator can inform us precisely how he changes or deletes things, if he does so.
And I remain in the dark about which of my (generally temperate, though sometimes pointed) comments he considers "snarky."
Frankly, Pastor McCain's comment was more to the point before the change, and - as noted above - I was not offended because we know well his views.

[ptmccain]

Charles, *I* modified my post, of course, as I've just explained. Only a few minutes *after* I had modified it, you quoted me, but you used the unmodified form of my post. Your post appeared directly under my post. Within minutes, not hours or days. It is not too much a burden for you to change your post upon seeing that you are not quoting correctly. Seasoned veteran journalists don't always get their quotes correct, so we understand that you don't always either.

Now, perhaps we all better move along before Johnson goes "ballistic" for another reason.

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor McCain writes:
It is not too much a burden for you to change your post upon seeing that you are not quoting correctly.

I comment (and then: Over and Out!)
How would I see that? I picked up your quote and inserted it in my response. Why should I scurry back later to see if you had modified your original post? Now let's end this: I accept your apology, if that's what it was,  for writing that the ELCA is full of "nuts and fruits."

[Steven Tibbetts]

As a defense of Charles, Paul, I'll note that once I hit the "reply" or "quote" button, I do not make a habit of reviewing the post to which I'm responding.

It also takes me a few minutes to compose and edit even the most snide and pithy of my remarks, and the time stamp shows when I finally post without any reflection on how long I stared at the "Post reply" screen waiting for just the right words to come to mind.  (Even when one goes ballistic, there can be a long, long fuse!)

As I recall the thread -- as an ex-pat Californian, I tend to notice references to "fruits and nuts," though I haven't yet gone ballistic over any -- Charles' response kinda loses something if"fruits and nuts" is edited out of his response.  Seems to me that, rather than editing the quote in response, it would have been more, uh, beneficial to bring the change to the original note quietly to the respondent's attention with the opportunity to revise, or even delete, that response.

Pax et bonum, Steven+

[ptmccain]

But, Steven, you are not a seasoned, veteran, experienced professional journalist, so I do not expect you to have the same instincts for watching carefully how you quote, or what you quote.

For the record, I left the "fruits and nuts" in but took the ELCA out. Some may beg to differ, but I saw it as answering one person's snarky remarks, with another. So I changed it.

I am sure that Charles would have corrected his post himself, once his incorrect quotation was brought to his attention. In fact, that's what I gather from all this. Next time Peter can point out the problem and he'll fix it, without the moderator needing to delete, or edit, his posts.

[ptmccain]

I accept your apology, if that's what it was,  for writing that the ELCA is full of "nuts and fruits."

And, I accept your apology, if that's what it was, for your passive-aggresive rude remarks about The LCMS.

Group hug time?

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor McCain (yet again)
I am sure that Charles would have corrected his post himself, once his incorrect quotation was brought to his attention.

Me (with a sigh):

Great galloping buffalos! The quotation was not, repeat not, repeat again not "incorrect" when I posted it. And, I'm not sure I would have "corrected" it. I would have to see whether Pastor McCain is entitled to do-overs when he says something he later wishes he hadn't said. Now can we stop this?

[Richard Johnson]

Now can we stop this?

All those in favor? OK, the ayes have it.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Now can we stop this?

All those in favor? OK, the ayes have it.

Would those ayes be the ones to say ICBM?

(I'll admit it. My mind works in weird ways.)