Pooh’s Think

… with comments

An Internet Judge Is Running For Office

For those of you who know of our friend Xon, the following might be of interest:

My friend Xon has recently attempted some initial staging for what he hopes will allow him to provide judicial services for the reformed blog-world. His goal is a noble one, . . . albeit a bit plagiarized from what I gather. The primary topic of discussion that gets Xon’s project off the ground is “Metzler vs Wilson.”

I do believe that Xon desires to be judicial, and he evidences this desire in many ways. However, as I have expressed to Xon many times in the past, I believe he is highly committed to Doug Wilson qua holy man of God and cutting-edge reformed teacher. I am grateful that Xon remains charitable, but I concluded a long time ago that Xon remains a committed “apologist,” and even now his goal is to vindicate Wilson against all criticism with regard to his character (an endeavor that can hardly remain limmted to the Wood). I don’t see any evidence for changing my mind about all this after skimming Xon’s new attempt at creating a popular blog by talking about me: what is implied and stated explicitly about Pooh’s Think is inaccurate and does not express some of the most basic aspects of the history of my blogging and the nature of my connection to Christ Church and Doug Wilson.

There are also some alarming inconsistencies in Xon’s new blogging enterprise, such as his claim that Pooh’s Think is filled with nothing but slander and false reports, claims not backed by appropriate “evidence.” Xon does not provide any evidence for this sweeping claim (!). Perhaps a weaker claim would have been more appropriate before Xon demonstrates the ability to refute a single assertion found in the Wood.

More disturbing is Xon’s comments about the debate he “attempted” to have with me. The implication is clear, and the rhetoric appears dishonest. Here’s the real story for the record: Xon offered criticism in the form of a post; honoring my word I posted his criticism. I also responded to the criticism. I kept my criticism brief and referenced documented facts without explicit citation. I proceeded this way since I took Xon’s criticism as fairly weak; I am still baffled over Xon’s inability to acknowledge some of the most basic documented facts over the issue he chose to challenge. Xon further replied, but I found his follow-up less helpful than his previous post; in fact, I found it too unfocused and untied to the content of the Wood to want to spend any further energy with the “debate.” I was certainly willing to continue the dialog, but Xon expressed to me that it was ok if I did not take more time responding to him. Given how burdened I was with mistreatment from the Kirk and multiple duties, and given the fact that I took my first response as already sufficient to put an end to that particular “debate,” I was happy to cease the discussion on the that particular topic. As Xon likely knows, I would have continued that debate even at this late date if he had asked.

Strangely, I had to discover indirectly that Xon was even blogging about me regarding all this.

Wilson, other elders of Christ Church, and other Wilson defenders have had an entire year to correct misstatements on my web site (among other reasonable actions); and in fact some have made some aggressive attempts at doing so. Early on, Wilson aggressively took me on at two different times when he thought he had me, but both times ended up a bit embarrassing for him; and now he is left to only dishonest and staged attacks against my character. On my view, time is up. The public record doesn’t look so good for Wilson, and Xon is certainly right to now worry about leaving the documented arguments here unanswered. But I think he is a little too late. Perhaps late is better than never, but it is not clear that Xon is up for the task.

My suggestion to Xon is to take some argumentative baby steps and gain a bit of credibility before running for office: internet judge, Wilson’s defense attorney, and the accuser of Pooh. Deleting my own comments to his blog is not the best way to begin. I would also suggest he not waive aside our recent work on Wilson’s attack on the PCA’s courts and our defense of Scott Clarke as “silliness,” not worthy of a fair read. Xon’s claim that I was acting like an internet “troll” because I informed a few blogs interested in the PCA and Wilkins that we were providing analysis of this topic is also an example of what Xon needs to stop immediately if he wants to gain the kind of credibility he is apparently seeking. It was likewise a bit damaging to his goal to claim that I had provided no argumentative support for my claim that Wilson’s recent attack against my earned reputation for honesty was willful deceit; I in fact provided thousands of words throughout a number of posts in support of this claim.

As always, Xon is free to post a criticism to the Wood. Given the censorship on his blog already I doubt I will go there for a hearing. If anything, I can always replublish any interesting posts from him here and respond, although I doubt this will be necessary.


January 9, 2007 - Posted by | Uncategorized


  1. Michael,

    Your hypocrisy is awesome.

    What I mean is that the fact you cannot see your own hypocrisy fills me with awe. Romans 1 is certainly true. I will be praying for you, brother.

    Comment by Samuel Evans | January 9, 2007 | Reply

  2. Michael Metzler accuses another man of being an \’internet judge\’? I\’m filled with awe too Samuel.

    \’Given the censorship on his blog already I doubt I will go there for a hearing.\’ Michael Metzler, the man who won\’t even permit anyone to comment on his blog accuses another man of censorship? \’Hypocrisy\’ is a term that doesn\’t even begin to cover the magnitude of Metzler\’s mendacity.

    \’The implication is clear, and the rhetoric appears dishonest.\’ Stacy, um, Steve, um, Michael accuses another man of being \’dishonest\’? http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=3004

    Pot -> Kettle -> Black

    Michael, I\’ll be praying too. Please take that beam out of your eye.

    Comment by Eeyore | January 9, 2007 | Reply

  3. Hi, folks,

    For whatever it is worth, I’ve accepted Michael’s invitation to post a response there on Poohsthink. I e-mailed it to him yesterday morning. So hopefully that will be up soon. He has, since that time, edited the main post on his blog a bit, but he hasn’t yet posted my submission in response.

    Either way, I will probably put it up at my own blog in the near future. http://www.afterdarkness.blogspot.com

    As for the substance of this particular post, I don’t really think Michael said anything out of line. I definitely disagree with his portrayal of how our earlier “debate” was begun and how it came to a premature end. But I have no interest in going through private e-mails to hash all that out. In general, I just take Michael to be giving his interpretation of how I look from his perspective. He’s pushing the rhetorical buttons that he needs to push, and I’m doing the same. Now it’s time for that to stop and for us to actually get to a substantive discussion of the evidence that normally appears on Poohsthink. And please remember, because I know there are a lot of issues Michael addresses on his blog, that my only concern in this is to look at the things Michael has said against Douglas Wilson. I’m not interested (for myself) in the things he’s said about RC Sproul, Jr., Howard Phillips and Vision Forum, MinistryWatchman, etc. In fact, I’ve only barely followed any of those particular discussions.

    The only thing I think is simply inappropriate in Michael’s post is the insinuation that my invitation to dialogue with him on my blog is disingenuous because of “prior” censorship. I explain clearly on my blog (in the comments under “An Aborted Debate”) why I deleted the one previous comment that Michael ever tried to make there, before I ever offered this invitation. His comment was a trolling attempt to get traffic to his site on a topic only peripherally related to the topic we were discussing, and so I didn’t provide him with a forum for doing that. This was the “silliness” I refer to.

    Thie section of Michael’s post in the second-to-last paragraph, beginning with “I would also suggest…” and continuing to the end, as well as the last two sentences of the final paragraph, are new edits he has made since he first put the post up yesterday. It was not in the post as it went up on Poohsthink in its original version yesterday. I find it a little odd that he added that section after I e-mailed him my submission yesterday, but still hasn’t put my submission up. It is hard for me to post a response to his original post if he changes that post after I have submitted my response.

    Just putting my own cards on the table.

    Comment by Xon | January 10, 2007 | Reply

  4. Sorry, guys, the comments in which I discuss Michael’s deleted comment to my blog are actually under the post “Rules for Accusations”.

    And the “sort of nonsense” I was referring to was not Michael’s argument about Wilson’s “attacks” on the PCA. I wasn’t commenting on the substance of those posts of his at all; in fact, I haven’t read them. The “sort of nonsense” I was referring to was simply the very act of coming on to a blog (mine) that is about Steve Wilkins’ situation in the PCA and trying to use that as a forum to advertise for your own blog posts about Doug Wilson and the PCA. It’s off-topic, and comments get deleted in Cyberland for far less all the time.

    Comment by Xon | January 10, 2007 | Reply

  5. Let me explain myself:

    Michael vigorously opposes anyone who disagrees with him, but refuses to apply the same standards to himself that he demands of others. Just to take two examples, Michael refuses to allow someone else to call themselves a judge of him, but he is happy to judge Douglas Wilson. Also, Michael derides anonymous opponents, yet is perfectly happy to appear under a variety of pseudonyms on Rev. Wilson’s blog. To my mind he undermines virtually all of his credibility by his obvious double standards.

    Comment by Samuel Evans | January 10, 2007 | Reply

  6. “I find it a little odd that he added that section after I e-mailed him my submission yesterday, but still hasn’t put my submission up. It is hard for me to post a response to his original post if he changes that post after I have submitted my response.”

    This is exactly why his invitations to post on Pooh’s Think are met with a roll of the eyes.

    Comment by esther | January 10, 2007 | Reply

  7. Esther is as honest as “she” is not anonymous. Once again, no act of unjust censorsuip from me exists; you won’t find the story. I wish Xon would have given me sufficient time to post his reply before advertising to the internet that “it isn’t up yet.” That only gives fuel to the Watchman and kinist shills. As for Evans remark, I said that Xon’s goal for being an internet judge is a noble one, and I meant it. But I doubt Evans is really concerned about what its actually the case in the first place. Nice rhetoric.


    Comment by Michael Metzler | January 18, 2007 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: