Darn, I kind of wish I could read the original, and the deleted comment! Oh well . . .
Bene - your quickness to apologize (for what I’m not sure) and your gracious offer of bloggins space is a great blessing and a very Christlike gesture. Thank you!

Not sure what you said originally (and for all I know we deserved it but it doesn’t matter to me. You’re a good’un and I appreciate, as always, your passion for making the blogosphere a kinder place.

Bless you

bill

If these corrections are not acceptable, by all means speak up or post.

I am sorry for the trouble I caused you, there was no intent to harm.

Now, if that is your impression and you absolutely believe it is a correct assessment of us and our site, I wouldn’t want you to sugarcoat or lie just to make me feel better. In such a case, it’s enough that you allowed me to respond, and you should leave your post as it stands.

I struggle with how we are perceived, on the flip side. I know that we are not perfect and we’ve had our fair share of rough-around-the-edges-ness. But I also think that to some readers things that seem normal to us can be misconstrued — things like vigorous debate can look like contentiousness, things like poking fun at our friends at the Boar’s Head can look like frat-boy childishness, things like us acting like “arr arr arr” boorish males can look like chauvinism and what-not. And maybe sometimes those things ARE those things.

But I am also proud of the community we have developed, people of different denominations or no denomination at all. We have regular men and women commenters who feel at home at our site. We have recently acquired three or four Brits who have made themselves at home at our “American blog.” One of our friends and regular participants is an atheist.
We have always strived to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and allow open dialogue, provided it is civil and respectful. I am notorious for deleting and banning, but it is only because I am protective of what we have going on. If someone trolls, abuses, or just wants to argue, they get the boot much sooner on our site than on others. We won’t have the regular blogospheric fisticuffs you can find at Joe Carter’s otherwise fine site or WorldMagBlog.

So that’s why it irked me (sort of) to read your warning to your readers. Maybe you have a point, I don’t know. But it told me that maybe I wasn’t doing such a great job at what I’ve been trying to do at The Thinklings. And then maybe I thought “Bene doesn’t really know what we’re like anyway.” Rude of me to think so, I admit.

Who knows. This is probably all my insecurity. But one thing you got right is that I defend my turf, even if I think I do it in a different way and for a different reason than I thought you were implying.

I’m out of town right now, staying at my in-laws’, so my computer time is limited. I’ve been trying to get back and check on the comments here so you wouldn’t feel like I bombed you with my perturbation and then ran away. But if I am slow to returning, please don’t take that as a sign of my disinterest. I am grateful for the exchange and for your openness.

I don’t know what to say.

How can I remedy this?
Would you prefer it’s deleted or would it help if it is worded so it isn’t putting you and your fellow Thinklings in a ‘them’ or a ’sort of person’ position?

Bene, it was very gracious of you to open up your blog space to us Thinkings. It wasn’t necessary, but I appreciate and am blessed by the gesture.

It’s hard to put my finger on, but I always get this sense that we are (and I am) like “Them” to you. I rarely feel like a real person when you reference us/me, although I have appreciated your efforts in dialoguing with me when I’ve expressed hurt or offense.
I guess the way you wrote this post sort of struck me like we are Ideas to you. When you talk about us or people like us I always feel like I’m being referenced like a Sort of Person and not a person.

I don’t know if that makes sense at all.

I also just too exception to the idea that nice or hurting people would get stomped on at our site. I know we have the reputation for debate and for being a boys club.
Oh, that’s another thing — you mention women commenting like it’s a weird thing to see at our site. We have — let me think — at least four or five regular women commenters who feel right at home at our site. Those are regular participants in our community, not just occasional commenters.

I guess I just resist the idea that we are like Them, whatever “them” is (fundamentalist, churchy, chauvinistic, ______? I don’t know). The idea behind “committed to defending their turf” strikes me as odd. We debate those who are interested in debate, but we hope we are gracious and kind to all who comment. Certainly none of us would run roughshod over someone expressing hurt in a post like Shrode’s.

Anyways, as always, I appreciate the forum. I consider you a friend and I read your site regularly, even if I don’t always comment. Thank you for allowing me to respond. Maybe this is a way I’m defending my turf, but when I feel like our reputation is on the line on such an influential site as yours, I do feel compelled to pipe up.
—

Just as a personal side note, without invading anyone’s privacy, I would mention that hurt is a very relevant topic to a few of the Thinklings right now — I’m talking real world, real crisis HURT. For what it’s worth, none of us is any shape to dismiss any of the hurting who cross our doorstep. We are seeking mercy and we are very interested right now in offering mercy, as well.

Blessings.

Right off the top, I think I can see one difference.
I don’t perceive Shrodes question as directed to seekers.

I like you a lot, Bene, but sometimes I think you don’t give us (me) enough credit.