Sally Kern – The Gift That Keeps On Giving
When I bitch and moan about how things like Sally Kern’s heinous remarks hurt Oklahoma’s image, I’m apparently not just venting my personal embarrassment. Turns out, there could be very real economic percussions.
According to a recent Journal Record article, a relocation consultant for Staubach Co. (a San Francisco Bay-area financial services company that has been considering Oklahoma City for a major office relocation) has expressed concern regarding Kern’s homophobic statements:
Roy Williams, president of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, said the issue is a major concern the chamber is trying to address. He confirmed a Staubach consultant was troubled by Kern’s comments during a recent visit to the city.
“He told us straight up … ‘I cannot recommend to any of my clients that they should consider Oklahoma City because of that,’” Williams said. “When you have one of the nation’s premier relocation experts making those statements, you should pay attention to that and not dismiss it.
You know, Oklahoma City has some pretty cool stuff going for it. There’s a lot of interesting new development – swank new housing projects downtown, and some great bars and restaurants that wouldn’t be that out of place in a much “cooler” city. The OKC Museum of Art, especially its Noble Theater, is terrific. We have some pretty decent galleries, and a good (if not exactly of Austin-esque proportions) local music scene. The deadCENTER film festival is something to be proud of, as are the Flaming Lips. For whatever it’s worth, we now have an NBA team. Bricktown’s doing really well for itself. There are some sweet-ass downtown hotels. In a lot of ways, things here are starting to look up. Oklahoma City is starting to show a glimmer of potential coolness.
But things like Señora Kern’s remarks (not to mention our reluctance to dump those weird, antiquated liquor laws of ours) certainly aren’t helping us bring in the new businesses. I suppose the extent of the potential damage is arguable – does anyone really know just how many companies will decide not to locate here because of this? And some companies whose CEO’s share Kern’s sentiments may find it a turn-on. Who knows? But, even if the damage is insignificant, I don’t know that Oklahoma City is really in a position to be turning any business away, even one from San Francisco.
Something tells me that the Kernster (and many of her followers) wouldn’t really care much, though. I imagine she considers this a way to keep those out-of-state Liberal Heathens from invading her city. Any business that values things like tolerance and diversity ain’t welcome in these parts.
Subscribe: 
Rhology Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 9:56 am
Seems that these people aren’t very tolerant, nor interested in diversity, if they refuse to come to Oklahoma b/c a state legislator exercised free speech.
Isn’t this evidence that the free speech, diversity, and tolerance that you espouse are equivalent to that which you dig, not what you oppose? The double standard is glaring.
Streak Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Rhology, is this the argument that we have to be tolerant of intolerance?
I don’t think anyone has argued that Sally Kern doesn’t have the right to say these things–either as a private citizen or an elected official. But I am not exactly sure why the company’s decision is another example of intolerance. I worked with a very good friend years ago who, along with her partner, had two children in this state. My friend was not the birth mother, so had to adopt her children–and she was very nervous about that in this state. They had a plan in place that if the birth mother was killed in an accident, that my friend would take the children quickly out of state to ensure that her parental rights would not be immediately voided.
If Sally Kern’s statements reveal an underlying hostility to gay people, what progressive company would relocate here knowing A) that their current gay employees may not feel comfortable moving, and B) that their ability to recruit good candidates would be diminished?
And one final point. If a company decided not to move to a community because prominent members of the community had expressed what were openly racist statements, would you still suggest that was an example of the company’s intolerance?
Or perhaps I misunderstood you.
Rhology Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Hi Streak,
Well, if you’re intolerant of sthg, you’re intolerant! Kind of obvious, I should think…
The point is that judging good/bad as tolerant/intolerant is self-defeating and irrational. “Tolerance” is the drug of choice for modern Westerners, but it’s incoherent, so that’s the point I’m making. This post should not have been written, not only b/c of that but also b/c Sarah and Dwight have recently explicitly admitted that any moral statement they may make is personal preference ONLY and has no bearing or prescriptive power for anyone else.
I am not exactly sure why the company’s decision is another example of intolerance.
Well, if they decide not to move some operations to OK b/c of her statements, that would be intolerant.
My friend was not the birth mother, so had to adopt…would not be immediately voided.
I’m sorry – I’m sure you didn’t just write this for the heck of it, but I am missing the relevance. Could you please explain?
If Sally Kern’s statements reveal an underlying hostility to gay people
1) Judging “hostility to gay people” as a bad thing is intolerant. How dare you! Who are you to judge her?!?!?!?!?!?!
2) Read her statement if you haven’t and then cite where she is hostile to gay PEOPLE. To the gay rights agenda, sure, no argument here. But to PEOPLE? No.
what progressive company would relocate here knowing A) that their current gay employees may not feel comfortable moving, and B) that their ability to recruit good candidates would be diminished?
You say “progressive” like it’s a synonym for tolerance or sthg. Apparently it’s not since these hypothetical progressive companies are intolerant to Kern.
Companies should move mostly b/c it would make them more money to move. I don’t see how this is even very relevant.
If the gay employees feel uncomfortable, then they apparently didn’t read Kern’s statement either. Maybe they just saw the YouTube video and experienced a visceral reaction to out-of-context quotes. But anyone can play that game!
Maybe you could explain how this would make finding good candidate significantly more difficult than it already is.
racist statements, would you still suggest that was an example of the company’s intolerance?
1) Yes, b/c I’m actually consistent with the rational positions I take. It’s alot to ask of someone, I know.
This bugaboo of “tolerance” is incoherent, as I said. As a Christian, I hold to the regular, unmodified version of “tolerance”, where I agree to treat you like a human being, etc, but don’t have to agree with your actions or state openly that I endorse your lifestyle. I just don’t persecute you for it.
2) To equate racism with homophobia (or whatever they’re calling it these days) is deeply disrespectful to those who suffer from racism. What did a black person DO to be persecuted on racist principles? Nothing: he was born that way. There’s nothing morally wrong with being _____(insert skin color here).
A homosexual, even if I granted that homosexuality is genetic (which I don’t) and even if I granted that the homosexual act is morally good or even neutral (which I don’t), doesn’t have to DO anythg about it. Persecution is thus based on sthg he DOES, rather than what he IS. This is offensive to me. If I were more liberal, I might try to pass a law that would silence you for saying such ignorant, biased, and indeed hateful things.
(Tongue half in cheek here. But only half.)
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
I also love how the post expresses concern that one woman’s remarks about the gay agenda and certain liquor laws might turn away a San Francisco-based company. The irony is deafening…
Streak Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
Well, I appreciate how you don’t quite come out and call me stupid, but suggest it instead.
My point about my gay friend was that there were real consequences to some of the stances by anti-gay people, including putting her children at risk. If, for example, her partner had suddenly died, and the state no longer recognized my friend’s legal standing, those kids could have been put into some kind of foster situation. In fact, you can mock me all you want, but there have been efforts in this state to ban gay people from adopting. If I oppose that, does that make me intolerant?
I think you misunderstand tolerance and you very casually avoided one example. By focusing on the equation of race to homosexuality, you very neatly avoided the issue. Are you truly saying that someone who supports tolerance is inconsistent are not tolerant of racism? That is asinine, at just about every level. Tolerance is not the same thing as saying “anything goes.” As you do note, it is extending the right for others to be different without necessarily endorsing their choices. I am tolerant, for example, of right wing fundamentalism even though I find their approach largely uninformed and irrational. But I would never want them to not have the right to be uninformed and purposefully stupid.
But I am openly intolerant of racism, sexism, and homophobia. I am intolerant of torture and stupid wars. So, if that means I can no longer call my self tolerant in your eyes, that is fine with me. For some reason, I think I can live with that.
Rhology Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
Oooh, your friend is gay. You didn’t say that. I gotcha, thanks.
Well, I’d very much like to see adoption of children by gay partners put to an end, (not necessarily dissolving already-adopted families) so… yeah, my sympathy is a little lacking in that area.
you can mock me all you want
Well, I haven’t mocked you, I don’t think. I always do my best to separate the position from the person.
there have been efforts in this state to ban gay people from adopting. If I oppose that, does that make me intolerant?
Thank God there have been, and I hope they succeed!
Yes, you are intolerant of those who oppose gay adoptions. Aren’t you?
Aren’t you in agreement with Sarah/Dwight on this? You guys are the ones who brought up tolerance! Why are you asking me? I’m just answering you on your own grounds. If you want to drop the incoherent and irrational charges of intolerance, I think the world would be a much better place, actually!
By focusing on the equation of race to homosexuality, you very neatly avoided the issue.
Again, answering you on your own grounds. You brought racism up, I told you how they’re different.
Tolerance is not the same thing as saying “anything goes.”
That’s how it usually is said until a sore point for liberals is brought onto the table.
Stop trumpeting “intolerance” if you don’t like it!
Then again, maybe you don’t use that term that way, and so much the better for you if you don’t.
it is extending the right for others to be different without necessarily endorsing their choices.
That is not how it generally is defined by the American Left these days.
And that’s not how Sarah used the term in her post. She’s angry at Kern for making “intolerant” comments about the gay agenda, but made no suggestion towards, say, violence against gay people.
But I am openly intolerant of racism, sexism, and homophobia.
Very well, you’re intolerant. I’m glad we can agree on that. It’s all I’ve been saying.
if that means I can no longer call my self tolerant in your eyes
Not in MY eyes – I told you how I define “tolerance” and how it should be defined, but I’ve been answering, if not you, then Sarah on her own grounds.
So, it looks like we can just let it go and actually discuss the issue since we don’t differ on “tolerance”. But I hope you won’t mind if I watch you like a hawk to make sure you remain consistent with your stated position on it!
Peace,
Rhology
Streak Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
So I am intolerant according to you, because I think that children are better off in a loving home than not?
Ok.
This is stupid. If you still say that we can’t talk about tolerance because we don’t accept racism or murder, then you and I have nothing to talk about. If that is really how you think the left defines tolerance, then I suspect you actually don’t know or don’t listen to someone who is left of center.
Either way, I am done.
Rhology Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
No, no no no no. You’re intolerant according to SARAH’S DEFINITION OF INTOLERANT. Not mine – I told you I agree with the way you stated it.
How many times did I say that I was answering you/Sarah on your own grounds in my last comment? It’s essential to keep track of stuff like that.
If you don’t think the left defines it like that, then yeah, I don’t know if we have much to talk about. If you can’t be honest or levelheaded enough to see that, then God help you. Sarah herself even used it in her post and you still refuse to admit it!
See you.
-Rhology
Streak Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
So there is no room in your mind that some of us see being gay as something outside of their choice? That for a community to show open hostility to those people who are gay is, in fact, intolerant? And there is no room to suggest that those who don’t approve of homosexuality (ala Sally Kern) will also enact legislation that is discriminatory toward them?
You may support that legislation. Obviously you do when it comes to gay people adopting. But how our criticism of such actions becomes the mechanism to undermine our belief in intolerance is in your mind.
Obviously we disagree. And obviously there are places where views of tolerance will find themselves in complete opposition.
Rhology Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Well, there’s certainly no undisputed evidence that BEING homosexual is genetic.
But of course people are born with propensities to violence, alcoholism, etc. and we don’t say that it’s OK to be violent or an alcoholic, do we? I was referring to the h-sex ACT, and that IS a choice.
That for a community to show open hostility to those people who are gay is, in fact, intolerant?
Again, did Kern do that? Or did she show hostility to the gay AGENDA?
And which “intolerant” are you using – ours or Sarah’s?
If ours, no, I don’t really see how. there’s hostility and there’s doing sthg about it, which are far from the same thing.
And there is no room to suggest that those who don’t approve of homosexuality (ala Sally Kern) will also enact legislation that is discriminatory toward them?
There is room, but that’s debatably a good thing.
And obviously there are places where views of tolerance will find themselves in complete opposition.
True, and at the beginning of this comment I thought you and I agreed on “tolerance”, but at this point I’m not sure at all whether you hold to the conventional definition or the incoherent, novel one used by Sarah in her post.
Could you simply tell us one way or the other so we can move on?
Peace,
Rhology
Sarah Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
Rhology, you’re the best. No one knows how to liven up a party like you. I just got home from work, not having checked comments in a few hours. Damn…did I ever have something to come home to!
It’s funny, because this all ties in too perfectly to a post I was working on this afternoon, about how frustrating it can be for people of two drastically different mindsets to communicate. I think that for you, Rhology, consistency is everything. I respect that. But I think what you’re missing is the notion that thoughtful and productive conversations can be had without each sentence being perfectly consistent. People are messy and complicated. You, me, Sally Kern, the Pope of Morality (whoever he or she may be), everyone. We’re all inconsistent from time to time. And you know what? Maybe that’s okay. People contradict themselves all the time. It doesn’t automatically invalidate what they’re trying to say, though.
I’m curious, because it seems a lot of our conversation centers around me and my flaws (of which I admittedly have very, very many). But a couple of questions for you, and I mean these sincerely and nonconfrontationally. Do you ever really try to understand other people’s points of view, and listen to what they’re saying? Do you try to understand why they feel the way they do; why they see things the way they do? Or do you just keep a running mental tally of everything they say, turning all discourse into a never-ending game of gotcha? What is your agenda, Rhology? Are you really interested in knowing what I think about things, or are you just looking for ways to point out why I’m wrong and you’re right?
So I gather that you think I’m intolerant and hypocritical because I despise intolerance and hateful remarks. That’s totally fine. You know what? Maybe I am. But I wonder if maybe you’re not misunderstanding the nature of this blog. I write my posts not as a dissertation I intend to have peer-reviewed for an academic journal, or as an attempt to convince the world that my point of view is The Only Right One. If it comes off that way, I apologize.
Instead, my posts are snapshots of how I happen to be feeling at one particular moment. With that being said, I stand by each and every word I write, because “incoherent” and “novel” though they may be, they’re my words. They may not always be right, but they’re mine.
I would certainly hope that no one reads my posts as the the Definitive Last Word on any topic, so I don’t really feel the need to prove anything to anyone. I could kill myself trying to make sure that every last thing I say was airtight and irrefutable, but quite frankly, that’s impossible. There’s always going to be something that someone, somewhere, can pick apart. C’est la vie.
It just makes me sad that so many people seem to talk past each other, only trying to prove the other person wrong and themselves right. There’s this wall that we really can’t ever seem to get past. I hope someday that can change.
Sarah Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
Just a couple more things, after having gone back and re-read the previous comments…
Rhology, in reference to Kern’s remarks, you said: Read her statement if you haven’t and then cite where she is hostile to gay PEOPLE. To the gay rights agenda, sure, no argument here. But to PEOPLE? No.
I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think that an “agenda,” in this sense of the word, is simply a piece of paper handed out at the beginning of a meeting. The “gay rights agenda” is about people. It’s about treating everyone equally, kindly and with respect. I don’t see how you can separate the two.
And that’s not how Sarah used the term in her post. She’s angry at Kern for making “intolerant” comments about the gay agenda, but made no suggestion towards, say, violence against gay people.
Well, I would certainly hope that just because I didn’t explicitly state that I was against violence towards gay people, doesn’t mean that I’m in favor of it. My goodness. And again, I don’t see how you can separate the “agenda” from the “people.” Forget Soylent Green, the agenda is people!
Rhology Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
Hi Sarah,
Well, we can agree that at minimum I help keep things lively around here!
Here’s the thing – I am a servant of God. God is truth, He has communicated His truth to anyone who will listen, and He uses me as one of the ways to communicate it.
He created you, me, words, books, ideas, knowledge. The only consistent and true epistemology is founded on Him. I’m here to help you. I want you to see the emptiness, the vacuity and self-centeredness of many of the ideas you express.
In this case, you mock someone who has more or less accurately spoken the truth about a group of people who, far from rejecting their sin, engage it, embrace it, and call others to celebrate it.
I mean you no disrespect in any way, and I hope that you will learn (as I have and continue to do) to separate the person from the position, the idea. I take great care to do so in the way I write. If you are uncomfortable or angry, may I suggest that you are feeling the prick of the truth of what I say, the downfall of your wrongheaded ideas? I pray that one day you will admit it to yourself and God; whether you admit it to me is far less interesting to me.
This blog has various facets to it, reflecting what you said – your thoughts on life, etc. But you make arguments. You express ideas, you attack the ideas of (say) Sally Kern. On a public blog, with comments enabled. In doing so, you expose yourself to rebuttal. Are you not seeking after truth? If your position is radically screwed up, wouldn’t you appreciate it if someone had the decency to tell you? That’s what I’m doing.
How do I know? One way is to examine the statement you yourself just made:
I think that for you, Rhology, consistency is everything.
Not everything, but a great deal. Truth is not inconsistent. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument, and a failed argument is one sign of a failed idea. You seem here to be rejecting the idea that consistency is fundamentally important. Let the reader judge how much sense that makes, and how far I’d get as a Christian if I spoke the same way about, say, the historicity of Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead! I pray one day you will see how silly that statement is.
People contradict themselves all the time. It doesn’t automatically invalidate what they’re trying to say, though.
Consider, then…
1) Gay people must be hunted down, tortured, and killed.
2) Gay people must NOT be hunted down, tortured, and killed.
What happens now? I’m messy and complicated, you know.
No, the question at hand is: Whose argument is sound, consistent, and logical?
I write my posts not…as an attempt to convince the world that my point of view is The Only Right One.
Really?
In this post alone, you:
-called Sally Kern’s remarks “heinous”
-said you were personally embarrassed about them
-called Kern’s statements homophobic
-called the liquor laws “weird” and “antiquated”
-said “Something tells me that the Kernster (and many of her followers) wouldn’t really care much”
-attributed “Liberal Heathens” to Kern and her “followers”
-said “Any business that values things like tolerance and diversity ain’t welcome in these parts.”
If you don’t want to engage topics like this with those who have different ideas, I can see several choices for you:
1) Stop blogging.
2) Stop blogging about controversial topics and stick to reviews of restaurants and other stuff like that (which, when you write them, I happen to enjoy reading).
3) Continue to blog about controversial topics but close your comboxes.
4) Continue to blog about controversial topics but ignore dissenting comments that appear.
Alternatively, you could also:
5) Engage the commenters and either ignore the counterarguments when they blow up your position or divert the conversation when your position is clearly in the wrong.
6) Engage the commenters and change your mind when they show your original argument to be faulty.
#5 appears to be your current strategy. I’m hoping for #6, but anythg is better than #5.
If you want to know MY ultimate goal, it’s to stand in the way of your ungodly remarks and show to all who read why they’re wrong, thereby shutting up those wrong ideas. Not with violence or coercion, but with thought, with the freedom to discern truth from error.
Now, as far as the “gay agenda”, you refer to a paper passed out at a meeting. Such a comment makes me wonder whether you even read Kern’s statement or whether you just watched that pitiful YouTube vid.
What she means is the organised push by some gay people and their friends and allies to make homosexuality look like a perfectly normal and acceptable alternative lifestyle to as many people – especially children – as possible. In some cases, special protection and uber-rights are the goal. This IS dangerous to the US. I don’t necessarily think it’s the most dangerous threat to the US, but I see her point and agree it’s highly dangerous.
If the mvmt were about people and doing what’s best for gay people, it would be lovingly trying to convince them to give up their destructive lifestyle. Not necessarily to go straight (although that is the best thing for many), but to be celibate at least and work to control their lusts. It’s not about people at all! It’s about – what else? – power. In many cases, gay people are the pawns, and that’s a terrible thing.
Now, I’m cool to let the convo continue on topic, but whatever. As far as the cause of truth goes, that you have given up the claim to consistency and the possibility of a position free from contradiction, I’d say my position is looking pretty good.
Peace,
Rhology
Sarah Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
While I appreciate your concern for my soul, as well as your blogging advice, I’m not going to change anything about the way I blog. Everything I post, I post with the knowledge that not everyone’s going to agree with me, and that a few people might even be pissed off, or think I’m stupid. That’s cool. I can handle criticism. I welcome all comments, including yours. However, since it’s my blog, I can respond (or not respond) to whichever comments I choose.
As for my soul, if your intention is to save me from myself, let me save you the time and effort. Nothing you’re going to say is probably ever going to bring me around to your position. Even if you get me to think twice about something here or there, you’re probably not going to convince me that you’re right. Sorry about that.
If you really want to reach out to me, the way you’re going about it is not the way to do it. So if saving souls is really serious to you, you might want to move on to another one. I think this soul’s a lost cause.
Streak Said:
April 25, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
But Sarah, he speaks for God. Or himself. Whatever.
Wow.
Rhology Said:
April 26, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
No, I agree. You have the right to blog however you want. I was (again) answering you on your own grounds – you were complaining about my responses, so based on that I came up with those options.
Streak,
Yes, I speak for God. I know b/c He has revealed Himself in a clear manner. ANYone can speak for God, if they want to. They just better get it right. Fortunately, He’s made it possible for anyone to get it right. There’s nothing special about me. The message is that which is special.
And, just to keep the convo on point here, the topic of this post is Kern’s comments on the gay agenda. Comments on whether a soul is a lost cause or whether someone speaks for God or whatever aside, this post made an argument. It stands refuted. But I think any reader can see that.
Peace,
Rhology
Streak Said:
April 26, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
Anyone can speak for God? That isn’t blasphemy?
Well, you are certainly partially right. Anyone can, and in certain circles, most do. Whether they get it right or not is perhaps up for debate. In my experience, most people who claim to speak for God, speak mostly for themselves, and then use God as a backup. Some would call that arrogant. Actually, I would call that arrogant.
But hey, if that is what you want to do, go for it. Speaking for God has worked so very well for the John Hagee, Pat Robertson, et al., crowd.
Glad you are as sure that you refuted Sarah as you are certain that you speak clearly for God. At least you don’t need to attend some kind of “assertiveness training.”
Sarah Said:
April 26, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
Actually, Rhology, the point of this post was how a public official’s words may potentially dissuade certain businesses from relocating here. And, it was about how I find that a shame, because OKC has a lot going for it these days. It. Was. An. Opinion. If you don’t like my opinion, you’re welcome to move on.
Glass wall. Glass wall.
Rhology Said:
April 26, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
No, I don’t like your opinion, and I’ve explained not only why I don’t like it, but why it was wrong. You’ve done the former and neglected the latter for your part.
I’ve pointed out as well how you are making more than that point in this post. You speak of ‘glass wall’ and then won’t own up to or have forgotten what you yourself wrote.
Peace,
Rhology
dustbury.com Said:
April 29, 2008 @ 10:37 am
This week in Kerndom…
A few days back, Sarah described Sally Kern, who represents District 84 in the Oklahoma House, as “the gift that keeps on giving.” And apparently this generosity is spread far and wide. For instance, the Munchkin Wrangler, reviewing his search……
Ron Said:
April 30, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Rhology is a troll. Hits all the sites where Kern is being taken to task. Rhology’s specious circular arguments and strawman attacks are just simply indicative of the ignorance that abounds on social issues by a small but vocal minority of the followers of the sky god. Oklahoma has an 18% rate of functional illiteracy but in my estimation about a 40% rate of functional social intelligence. Its just the way it is and the invention of computers and that new fangled internet and those blogs just prove too tempting a target for these social neanderthals like Rhology who simply MUST set you straight on all things concerning your soul and your personal relationship with Jeebuz. Those evil sodomites are trying to take your soul and change the codes on your VCR … cant you see??! Oh man.
Rhology Said:
May 1, 2008 @ 9:02 am
Ron,
You who have made your first comment here call me a troll? What, do you define “troll” as “someone who disagrees with me”?
You didn’t present an argument in your post but rather just a bunch of insults. Says a lot and nothing at the same time.
Peace,
Rhology
Brian G. Said:
June 20, 2008 @ 2:30 am
No, I don’t like your opinion, and I’ve explained not only why I don’t like it, but why it was wrong. You’ve done the former and neglected the latter for your part.
“Whaa, whaa, someone thinks differently from me! I have to MAKE THEM think like me!” You’re a fucking psychopath, rhology. I’m shocked Sarah hasn’t booted your ass off of here already.
John Morales Said:
June 22, 2008 @ 6:23 am
Heads up – and may I first say this seems a nice blog, Sarah.
Rhology is an ardent apologist from some obscure denomination, and seems to have a walter-mitty complex.
Given his net history, Alan will (functionally) troll you with his presuppositionalism, given half a chance, and has no interest in honest engagement.