Sometimes I make the critical mistake in not drinking before I check out the comment board. A little over two weeks in, and I already have reached the point that I feel like I re-animated the deformed and withered corpses of all my tormenters from the old site. Clearly I was completely oblivious to the idea that writing a post on organized religion when I myself believe in God would garner at least ONE commenter who sounds like an Alzheimer’s patient in a Wal-Mart Supercentre. Yes, please allow me a moment for the shock to settle in.
Writers here are split on the negative comments. I won't lie, it's kind of nice to be verbally blown over the comment board, but I don't particularly mind the negative comments either. They either spark debate or give some good material to work with, neither of which I consider a bad thing. But there's a couple ways to do this, and I don't fully understand what some people are trying to accomplish.
To use an example of a negative comment I don't understand, I'm not particularly sure why someone is trying to bait Mizzle. He doesn't typically respond to stuff like that anyway, because he's... y'know, a grown-up. He'll jump on a debate, sure, but when someone is just saying stuff for the sole purpose of pissing him off, then why WOULD he respond? What POSSIBLE point could there be to it? It's not like the person even left a name.
Another one I don't understand - why anyone would state that "they know why Dylf's last site failed." Zuh? How does a site "fail", exactly? What's the definition of a "failed" site? Did my last site "fail"? Is THIS site "failing"? I think that a site only fails if it doesn't live up to the creator's expectations, and speaking for myself only, I don't write for anyone here, I write for myself. If they even did have a specific complaint about Dylf's post or his writing in general, something CONSTRUCTIVE, and that's a big if I think, they sure didn't mention it. So... mission accomplished? I guess?
Now, as for MY commenter, for the record, I will say this. At LEAST my "Jesuit Heckler", as Dylf has coined him or her (I had a good debate with Jaderberri about which sex this person was), posted a comment that had a specific criticism. So I would take her comment as something that has SOME sort of value over the others because it had, I assume, a potential purpose.
Notice I said potential purpose and not just purpose, because if you really think that this test has merit, that's your right. I think it's asinine and borders on cult-like, and that's my right. But don't blame me for taking it. St. Mary's GAVE me the fucking test to do.
Anyone who knows me or has read any of my stuff over the years knows that while I have a strong faith in God, I have a very different set of beliefs on organized religions - and they aren't good.
St. Mary's we're the ones who made the decision to DISTRIBUTE this drivel and make it public, along with the fact that they consider anyone who uses the internet Satanic. I need to pause here. I'm sure I don't need to mention the blantant and obvious fact that Jesuit Heckler WAS CLEARLY ON THE INTERNET READING AND COMMENTING ON MY ARTICLE IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THEREFORE, BY THE LOGIC OF ST. MARY'S: IS. SATANIC. (By the way, if you're reading this, apparently so are you. Hey, thanks for reading.)
So she gets to join all the people who smell, swear, stay up late, watch MTV, dye their hair or don't like garlic. As well as people who like dancing, philosophy, poetry, science fiction, or privacy. Also people who have piercings, tatoos, heavy metal t-shirts, cable TV, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, a horror movie or anything directed by Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, Count "Dracula" (by which they mean Chocula) cereal, video games, books by Anne Rice or JK Rowling, a diary, eye-liner, Hot Topic clothing or a headache. AND the drug addicts, introverts, alcoholics, vegans, bored people, homosexuals, bug-eaters, extroverts, vegetarians, nauseous people, bisexuals, people who eat or sleep too much, goths, emos, people who eat or sleep too little, transexuals, heavy metal bands, crossdressers, thirsty people, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists, retards, mongoloids, or anyone with any kind of birth defect.
And *I'M* the one standing on shaky theological ground here. Sure, that completely makes sense to me.
Aside from Jesuit Heckler, it seems everyone enjoyed "Unprotected Sects" and I'm glad. I sure had fun writing it. I don't think I can, in good conscience, take credit for all of it though. St. Mary's church did come up with the questions, after all, and all I did was answer honestly. And even though I'm Satanic according to them, I still would be remiss if I didn't thank them for the material, even though it was unintentional on their parts.
On March 1st, I share my in-depth thoughts on the institution of marriage. I'm not sure what happened to that "dislike" button, but I will not be missing it after that article is posted...
Song For Today:
"Freefalling" (Cold Blue Mix)
- Dennis Sheperd & Cold Blue
Quote For Today:
"I kneel only to God... I don't see him here."
- John Abruzzi, Prison Break