Jim Peet: In the Jaws of a Lion

SI Administrator Jim Peet has a long history of bullying and berating people at SI who's opinions rub him the wrong way. He cites SI policy in selective application to give himself an advantage and silence legitimate discourse that is not favorable to him or SI’s known bias and favoritism. Today at SI Jim closed a comment about Dr. R. V. Clearwaters with this comment, “Not afraid to acknowledge that dead fundamentalists were not perfect!” Dr. Rolland McCune replied as follows.

Jim: On principle only, not my personal fondness for RVC, what, in the name of common decency and all that’s Christian, is the point of introducing Doug McLachlan’s first tenure at Fourth into this discussion? Because (1) knowing Doug (one of the finest and brightest students I’ve had, 1st of a small handful of summas from CBTS) as well as anyone, he would eschew vigorously such an act, (2) coming from a former fundamentalist who converted to a conservative evangelical always carries extreme prejudice both in motive and content, and (3) posting a website for the cyber world to see is nonsensical. Your parting shot that “dead fundamentalists were not perfect” was gratuitous, inflammatory and unconscionable. If this is any kind of resemblance to the apparently newly discovered and coveted kind and gentle fundamentalism, you have discredited them and embarrassed yourself. The mean, bad, unholy ‘ole fundys usually were not as resourceful as you. This is as kindly and gently as I can put it. Comment Here

In his first comment at SI Dr. McCune wrote, “…bare their teeth and draw their swords in defence and propagation of truth itself along with doing so for the innocent and defenseless.”

Jim Peet, maybe you just learned what strength under control looks like. Maybe you learned a valuable lesson in humility. Well, it looks like Jim didn‘t learn anything. Instead Jim responded with an exclamation point laden angered reaction. Jim responded with an acerbic, acrimonious and arrogant tone. The only missing part of Jim’s reaction is the threat to ban and pulling the comment* so that he (Jim) could assail the author with impunity, his common course of action when he takes personal offense. (Although no telling what Jim might have said if he sent a private message to Dr. McCune.) Maybe the caliber and reputation of the author (Dr. McCune) caused Jim some restraint that is certainly not common to him as SI administrator.

Who might be counted among Kevin Bauder’s contemporary “‘pugilistic and bellicose,’ ‘alpha males,’ ‘big boys,’ ‘bullies,’ ‘chieftains,’ etc.?” Jim Peet’s caustic reaction to Dr. McCune qualifies him for inclusion. And there is nothing about Jim Peet’s teeth and sword that can be considered “a defence and propagation of truth itself along with doing so for the innocent and defenseless.” Bottom line, IMO Jim got his feelings hurt and instead of a careful, courteous response he let his emotions lead the way.


LM

* For prime examples see, SI's Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Off Another

SI Gang-Tackles “Doc” Clearwaters...

Site Publisher's Invitation:
If you are visiting for the first time, or the first time in a long time, I encourage you to review and read any of the other articles you will find in the right column of the Iron Skillet. There are numerous, thoroughly documented articles that irrefutably detail SI’s bias and hostility toward historic, balanced Fundamentalism and its corporate favoritism toward the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism, its star personalities and their fellowships.