So in "The Catholic circular firing squad", I wrote:
And then I explained why parenthetically. However, this didn't prevent a Kind Reader from sending me an e-mail: "Go to the Catholic Champion Blog ... and read all the post [sic] on Mark Shea."Mark Shea is fair in a similar fashion — he’s just as sarcastic towards the idiots on the right as he is towards the idiots on the left. One day he defends Michael Voris and his webmaster Simon Rafe against unjust accusations; another day he tells us what Voris’ real failings are. How can you not like him?
Uh-uh. Nope. Sorry, that's a rolling "blue-on-blue incident" that needs to come to an end, rather than having half of Christendom take sides in it. I don't want to see a debate between Shea and Matthew Bellisario, far less a boxing match; for cryin' out loud, these guys are supposed to be on the same side! (Well, maybe an arm-wrestling contest ....) So no thanks, Kind Reader, let someone else dive into the bile.
It all comes back to the difference between making substantive criticisms and making personal ad hominem attacks. It's one thing to take something a fellow blogger has written and say, "Waitaminnit, that's not quite right." It's another to call your fellow blogger a "pompous blowhard" or to imply that he makes snide comments on your combox anonymously because he doesn't have the stones to do it openly.
Maybe this calls for "The Catholic Circular Firing Squad II: Under Friendly Fire".