That’s because Our Substitutionary Atonement’s general instructions regarding such circumstances – turn the other cheek and bless the perpetrators – are, to be perfectly honest, downright effeminate. Not to mention that “turn the other cheek” can be easily misconstrued so as to cause weaker brethren like Peter Ould to stumble in ways he’d normally restrict to the comments field of his own blog. Consequently my response has always been to get legal. As I taught little L. Ron Hubbard and his
But first a little background. Beloved Sinners might recall that about a fortnight ago an immature young man laboring under the foolish delusion that his identity is unknown to me left a comment on this important homily, in which he made a number of false allegations about a regular reader before then publishing their home address. In response I made the commenter a profoundly generous offer: give me permission to publish his personal details, and I’d in return permit him to indulge his habitual dishonesty. Sadly the ungrateful wretch failed to respond, leading us all to conclude that permitting others to do unto to him as he does unto them doesn’t figure highly in the boy’s soteriology. Bishop Quinine urged me to publish the pathetic imp’s details anyway, insisting “all your Beloved Sinners are longing to call him up in the middle of the night and shoot the breeze - or maybe to breeze his shoot”, but I refused: as a Christian I’m unable to sink to the same depths as our "anonymous" correspondent.
Then the person with whom he-who-will-not-yet-be-named is obsessed received the following:
Good Morning [NAME REDACTED],
Over the past few weeks, in comments across several blogs that you comment on, you were warned that your continuing behaviour of abusive and insulting comments would have consequences. Since then you have continued your behaviour, as though this was an idle threat. It is not. You have left us with no recourse but to now act to correct your behaviour.
You now have until Noon Sunday, February 12 2012, to publish a full and unequivocal public apology for your behaviour over the past few years. You will email us to this account the location where this apology may be found.
• If after posting this apology you make any further blog posting or comment of a derogatory or insulting nature, we will judge that your apology was not made in good faith and will act as though it had not been made. There is NO TIME LIMIT on the exercising of this judgement.
• If after posting this apology the apology then disappears off the internet, we will judge that the apology was not made. There is NO TIME LIMIT on the exercising of this judgement.
If you fail to make this apology we will provide to every single member of the Deanery that you currently reside in the full documentary evidence of your placing on the Archbishops' List for admitting Conduct Unbecoming a Clerk in Holy Orders. If you then persist in such behaviour we will widen the scope of those parties deliberately informed of your behaviour.
Furthermore, at the same time we will make publicly available for anyone to see the full details of your confession of the writing of highly offensive racist and sexist material and we will seek to propagate it as widely as possible on the internet.
There will be no further warning from us in this matter.
We will not enter into correspondence on this matter.
This charming epistle was sent via Gmail, so obtaining header information and originating IP address isn’t as straightforward as it might be (clearly the sender isn’t quite as stupid as his beady-eyed picture suggests), but rest assured the matter has been placed in the hands of all relevant authorities. Meanwhile those less familiar with criminal proceedings than myself, and whom as a consequence fail to appreciate the seriousness of our lurker’s strategy, should consider this advice from a helpful legal site:
The time and date of the sending of this email is 05:55 Eastern Standard Time, 11 February 2012 and the deadline referred to above is at 12:00 Eastern Standard Time 12 February 2012.
”Blackmail, in contrast to extortion, is when the offender threatens to reveal information about a victim or his family members that is potentially embarrassing, socially damaging, or incriminating unless a demand for money, property, or services is met. Even if the information is true or actually incriminating you can still be charged with blackmail if you threaten to reveal it unless the victim meets your demand.”While this source speaks from within a primarily Californian context, the law at this point is very much the same regardless of where in the world one may be committing the crime, and providing you’re not in a judiciary which considers expressing love for a person of one’s own gender more heinous than hacking children with machetes (which the threat's author isn’t), the penalty is also similar: “Under California law, extortion or blackmail are graded as felonies and are punishable by up to four years in prison and a maximum fine of $10,000.”
… which just goes to show how much a very arrogant young man is prepared to risk in order to unsuccessfully stop us guffawing at a former curate and his twin.
And now, and utterly apropos of nothing (perhaps) I’d like to lift everyone’s mood by dedicating a special song to David Ould (I’ve used your real name, Dobby, to help those searching on Google find you more readily.) When you’ve finished listening you might like to share the sentiment with a couple of your Jensenist uplines. Like you Dobby, they won’t realize on account of their obvious unfamiliarity with the Gospels, but I believe the lyrics are based on something Jesus said
We’re all Father Christian, and the Light of God laughs with us in their faces.
*To be sung to the tune of "Jesus loves the little children".