One unhappy reader provided the title critique of the present blog (link):
Let's quickly investigate, expose, and discard his ad hominem.
1) "Francis Turretin's blog joins the many not worth reading with his recent performance,"
Notice the suggestion that it previously was worth reading. Interesting, eh?
2) "which is not publishing a single Orthodox response to his misapprehensions about what Orthodox believe."
a) The underlying problem with this criticism is that, even if there were some legitimate Orthodox response, the present author is under no obligation to permit his blog to be a soapbox for the other side. In other words, Orthodox's complaint here is not that the blog is really not worth reading, but that the blog does not provide comments from the "other side."
b) There is a second problem with this criticism, namely that it's not as though there was any significant amount of "Orthodox" response. It's not as though the present blog had to shut down the torrent of inflowing Orthodox comments, or something.
c) The third problem is that "Orthodox"'s real complaint is that his own comments were not posted. Of course, they were eventually posted (though not all of the endless tirade of ignorance that began "Arrghh. Bring some facts to the table before accusing us of not understanding" in response to a fact-filled post).
d) A fourth problem is that not only were "Orthodox"'s own comments posted (in part) but another Orthodox poster's comments (or perhaps "Orthodox"'s own comments posting anonymously) were also posted and responded to.
In short, Orthodox's claim is not true (unless "not ... a single" includes at "two"), not significant (because what was not published was rude and/or useless to the discussion), and egotistical.
3) "To add insult to injury, he's criticizing those who won't let people clarify their own position."
I invite people to read the post Orthodox links to (a post on a blog Orthodox says is not worth reading), and see what it actually says. Let the post speak for itself.
But notice the implicit confusion on Orthodox's part: he seems to have conflated himself with "Orthodoxy" at large. If he's not allowed to speak, I'm refusing to let "Orthodoxy" clarify itself. The idea that he, apparently a lay (and fairly new) member of the Orthodox church speaks for Orthodoxy generally would be laughable, if Orthodox were not so serious about it. The egotism of the claim is startling! The contradiction of classic Orthodoxy entailed in it is amusing. The reinforcement of the claim in the original post (that "Orthodox" and many others in modern "Orthodoxy" do not actually know what the "Orthodox" church historically taught) is ironic.
4) "This is hyper-hypocrisy at work."
I'll let the reader judge for himself. It is exactly this sort of comment that is the reason that "Orthodox"'s comments have tended not to get published in full.
5) "All the while he's starting on some brand new debate without bothering to conclude our debate. I can only conclude that Francis is in love with talking to himself in monologue, and presumably has conceded defeat on the debate front."
The conclusion will eventually be posted. How my not posting a conclusion (which will be the last post of the debate) is proof that I love talking to myself, or how engaging in a debate (with an opponent, and several of his commenters in his comboxes) is evidence of the same is certainly odd.
Is it just me, or this just more of the same nonsense as evidenced in numbers 1-4 above?
Well, "Orthodox" does not leave us wondering. He points out that he has been banned by the folks over at Triablogue.
He has not been banned from this blog, yet. Perhaps that's a moot point, as "Orthodox" has indicated that this blog is not worth reading, and we cannot believe that he'd waste his own time after going to such lengths to demonstrate just how worthless this blog is.
Incidentally, God willing, my conclusion (which is presently about 30% complete) will be ready by the end of the year, though I had hoped to finish it by American Thanksgiving Day.
UPDATE: More of the same from "Orthodox" (link). Orthodox doesn't salvage his position in any meaningful way in his attempted comeback, basically repeats his same points, and fails to apologize for his previous misrepresentations.