One of the biggest complaints about Slice and the rest of the watchpoodles out there is that they moderate comments in such a way that legitimate criticisms are never seen, while letting through mostly complimentary comments thus shutting down any real sort of conversation as well as creating the impression that most of their site’s viewers are in rabid agreement. Now Ingrid has decided to push back against such criticisms in this hit piece:

This morning I had to raise an eyebrow at the protestations of one emergent pastor we’ll call “Mike”. He was shocked, just shocked, that I wouldn’t post his rage-filled comments. He was angry at this blog for daring to question the public promotion of filthy movies by another “pastor.”

Ah… I get it now, the only people who oppose Ingrid are people who are “rage filled”.

She continues:

I have wondered many times at the boiling indignation of emergents who can’t understand why Slice will not let them have free reign in the comment section, regardless how personally nasty, profane or heretical they may be when these same men are really, really good with the delete button on their own blogs when Christians try to defend those they like to shred for upholding biblical truth.

Ah, not just “rage filled” but also “personally nasty”, and they even censor their own blogs! Why, I bet Ingrid would be fine with people who point out her various distortions, personal nastiness, and poor Biblical interpretation if they weren’t all blog censoring, potty mouths with a penchant for rage.

Of course we all know that’s not the case. I’ve had comments that disagreed respectfully with Ingrid that somehow never made it out of moderation, several individuals I know both in real life and over the internet have had the same experience. And somehow, we’ve all had most of our comments deleted.

And just in case you’re thinking that I and everyone I know are “rage filled”, “personally nasty” and are busily censoring comments from anyone who thinks like Ingrid check out this comment on the Submissions page from a gentleman named Ian.

Ingrid has recently promoted and is selling through her site and radio show an album of Hymns by Huddersfield Choral Society. I live in Huddersfield (a random little town in England) so I know this group quite well, I know that they are not anything to do with a church or ministry, they are a purely secular society. They take people on based on their musical ability, not religious persuasion or lifestyle. With around 200 members, there will be adulterers, fornicators, yes – probably even homosexuals within their ranks – and Ingrid feels this is a suitable group to be promoting on her blog and radio show?! Ah well, anything that helps the Huddersfield economy!

Anyway, I tried to point out this hypocrisy to her in a (very reasonable) comment, but it was deleted… Here’s what I put:

My goodness, how did my little town of Huddersfield get on this website! They are indeed an excellent choir, I saw them perform live recently in the town square and it was a fantastic performance.

One question though Ingrid, and I mean this in all sincerity: This choral society is a secular society – it is not associated with any church or ministry, its requirements for membership is based on musical skill not religious belief or lifestyle. I personally have no problem with this, they are a talented group and I enjoy listening to their performances, even more so if they are singing songs of worship to my God. However, I’m surprised at you promoting them after your recent post on Sinead ‘O Connar’s psalms set to music?

Now was that nasty or rage filled? Was that heretical in the least? Absolutely not. So why was that censored? The easy answer is that it made Ingrid look bad. It exposed her penchant for judging by appearances and style rather than actual content.

Give it up Ingrid. While there may be a few less than gentlemanly comments that Ingrid deletes, to generally characterize all of the disagreeing commenters as “rage filled” and “personally nasty” is dishonest. Of course admitting the truth would mean that she’d have to admit that the positions she takes, and the way she takes them are indefensible.

Edit: BTW, for those interested in seeing what Ingrid views as “rage filled” and “profane” I believe the minister’s blog she’s talking about can be found here. His responses and blog don’t strike me as all that outrageous at all.

Ingrid promoted the Huddersfield Choral Society recently on her site. Thanks to Ian, who actually lives in Huddersfield, he points out that this is not a Christian group. Here is his comment to Ingrid, which was not posted:

My goodness, how did my little town of Huddersfield get on this website! They are indeed an excellent choir, I saw them perform live recently in the town square and it was a fantastic performance.
One question though Ingrid, and I mean this in all sincerity: This choral society is a secular society – it is not associated with any church or ministry, its requirements for membership is based on musical skill not religious belief or lifestyle. I personally have no problem with this, they are a talented group and I enjoy listening to their performances, even more so if they are singing songs of worship to my God. However, I’m surprised at you promoting them after your recent post on Sinead ‘O Connar’s psalms set to music?”

Would Ingrid promote a cd done by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? Even if they did the old hymns?

Personally, I love the old hymns and would love to see them brought back into worship.