I’m posting the comment exchange I had with Hawk at Triablogue. I’m using an image rather than pasting our individual comments just to make it simple. Here’s a link to the archived version here:
I did reply to Hawk’s 8/02/2019 2:09 AM response. My reply was visible, but removed later. I had not archived this article at that point, which is why it’s not in the screenshot. Fortunately, I had checked the box that said to email me with new replies to my original comment. That included my own replies, which worked out great because you can not only see Hawk’s final comment, but proof of what my follow-up comment was:
I did submit one more comment, but I got the message that it would visible after approval. Thankfully, I had copied and pasted that down and emailed it to myself just to be safe:
i.) I assume it was Hawk who has restricted my commenting abilities. My comments usually appear instantly, and only just now they’re awaiting approval.
ii.) This is why my first article on this website dealt with the It’s Good To Be A Man project. Their influence is already reaching people, including other popular bloggers.
iii.) Hawk said there’s often two sides to a story. He’s right. I linked him to mine. He then reports that, “Apparently Michael Foster also spoke with you over the phone.”
Yeah, that’s right. But there’s nothing “apparent” about it. I directly stated that at the beginning of the article I posted for him to read. Foster confirmed that it happened- why wouldn’t he?
If Hawk only learned about that when he communicated with Foster, then that tells me he didn’t read what I wrote.
iv.) Hawk’s final sentence to me was. “It sounds like no consensus was reached despite fair attempts to do so. ”
I’ll repeat what I said to him in my removed comment: What does that mean? What consensus? What were we trying to reach an agreement on?
v.) I assume Hawk is fond of Bnonn and Foster’s work. It’s not surprising. Many people are fond of Douglas Wilson’s work too, despite how terrible it can be at times. However, Triablogue tends to be run by the most intelligent Christian bloggers around. For any of them to bury his head in the sand is beneath what I expect from their writers.
vi.) Hawk appears to be a
new later addition to the Triabloggers. I assume he has some freedom to moderate comments. Maybe he’s a new guy, and he’s not accustomed to knowing when and when not to censor commenters. I’ve had intense sparring with Jason Engwer, for example, but he didn’t restrict my commenting abilities. As a 10+ year reader of Triablogue, I’ve seen plenty of obnoxious, rude, aggressive, harsh commenters that were permitted to comment at length on many occasions. There’s no way my comments to Hawk even came close to violating their standards of permissible dialogue.
vii.) Hawk has accepted what he learned from Bnonn and Foster despite proof of their dishonesty being placed in front of him. That’s disappointing, but not surprising. Feminism and complimentarianism wouldn’t be big problems in the church if Christian men were in the habit of scrutinizing teachers of biblical sexuality.
I’ve done what I can, and I will reply once more with a link to this article, just in case it persuades Hawk to give this subject further consideration. Hawk is more than welcome to comment on here if he likes. His comments will not be moderated.