Sizergate and the moderation of fools (2)

Further to the recent kerfuffle over a Christian priest who breaks bread with antisemites, the victim of that spat, one Joseph Weissman (aka “Seismic Shock”), writes on his own blog and also over at Harry’s gaff about Stephen Sizer’s attempt to portray himself as an opponent of the current regime in Iran. This when the anti-Zionist theologian and occasional pastor to the well-healed of the Surrey stockbroker belt is in fact right up the Khomeinist collective arse, and thus morally as well as intellectually compromised. Weissman’s 10 numbered points are worth reading in full.

We turn our attention now to fools.

Roger Pearse – scholar of patristics and defender of Stephen Sizer – was the subject-victim of one of my blog posts from three weeks back. Since then he has popped up in the comments following a few other posts.

Following his contribution to my recent reflection on Augsburg bishop Walter Mixa’s bizarre views concerning priestly paedophilia, Pearse was banned from commenting on this blog. The straw that broke the camel’s back was Pearse’s insinuation that the much respected human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell condones the sexual abuse of children.

Following the ban, Pearse tried to leave another comment, in which he accused me of threatening him. “Do your worst!”, he said. That so-called threat can only be my stated intention to inform Tatchell of Pearse’s libellous comments; there has been no communication between me and Pearse other than in the comments published on this site and his blog.

If this were not silly enough, Pearse yesterday gave voice some quite frankly paranoid thoughts about malice on the Interwebs. It is entirely conceivable that I am the “someone rather unpleasant online who started threatening me”.

Pearse has now removed all contact details other than his Google email address from the whois database, contrary to ICANN rules which state that owners of .com domains must be traceable through that publicly-accessible database. There is no need to include one’s home address, but it must be possible to trace a site owner through a whois search. But Pearse is surely aware that it is always possible to trace a website owner through the domain registrar, in cases where actual or potential legal action is involved.

This is all very peculiar, as Pearse has on his own blog made scathing reference to anonymous blog commenters, yet seems unwilling to be accountable.

Am I missing a trick here, or is Roger Pearse lacking something altogether more vital?