The situation has improved somewhat on both sides now. However, websites like Triablogue offer the worst possible example of sectarian Reformed theology and thinking. The recent post entitled "The neo-Manicheans" surely stands as the quintessential rubbish plaguing otherwise sound Calvinistic thinking today (//link). To argue as does the author that James Arminius in particular and contemporary Arminianism in general are essentially Manichean is too historically ignorant for words.(source)
Of course, Mr. Lumpkins doesn't care to include things like supporting arguments. That would be far too Calvinistic.
Nor does he care to actually delve into an analysis of the article that goes beyond reading the headline. That type of depth of reading and analysis, no doubt, would be far too much like those evil Internet Calvinists.
No, Internet Lumpkinsianism is so much better: you just insult someone with colorful verbiage, demonstrating that the extent of your perusal was the title of their post, and go merrily on your way. Why "Lumpkinsianism" instead of Arminianism? Because most Internet Arminians are at least able to demonstrate that they read articles that they flame.
N.B. For the reading-impaired - this post relies heavily on mockery of a flaming post with no substance. I'm not seriously suggesting that anyone should engage in Lumpkinsianism. I'm also not disagreeing with the idea that if one wants to learn about Calvinism, one should not rely solely on the blogosphere, but one should get a book (such as Turretin's Institutes, Calvin's Institutes, Witsius' Economies, or Hodge's Systematic Theology.