Saturday, October 18, 2014

In Defense of a Friend

This day I am anticipating getting my ears pinned back yet again, online, for having, yet again, publicly stood up for “The Hated One” of the Amiga Community, my friend, Bill McEwen.
An anonymous-coward poster asked me why I elect to stand alone, willing to display a forgiving attitude to those that the rest of the community chooses to unswervingly, and unreasoningly, vilify, accusing me of being gullible in an unfathomable degree. I, therefore, took the time, and forum space, to spell out the reasoning involved, pointing out the almost universal lack of direct knowledge of the man versus my friendship with him (thereby pointing out that, as opposed to the vast majority of the community, I am the one that actually knows and maintains contact with the man), to say nothing of the irony of accusing someone who refuses to believe the party line of being gullible.
I will receive the most hatred for having, yet again, pointed out the unreasoningly, unyieldingly, unswervingly, self-righteously and totally uninformed hate-filled attitude that the vast majority of the community holds toward a man that they have never had any direct experience of, and therefore no real knowledge of, pointing out, as well, that because I have an accurate view of my own failings and my own sinfulness I can, because of them, see through his, to the man, and call him friend.
So, what does that mean, really? It means that, because I am forgiven, I can forgive.
They, on the other hand, cannot forgive because they are not forgiven, and are not forgiven because they claim knowledge that they do not have. “If you were blind you would not hold sin, but because you claim to see, your guilt remains.”(John 9:41)
In my discourse I pointed out the various sites that claim to keep a public, running dossier of the man and his activities and yet have absolutely zero information that could even imaginably be mistaken as neutral, much less positive, which, of course, calls into obvious and glaring question the issue of their objectivity and therefore exposes the equally obvious issue of their bias against the man, to say nothing of the agenda that the vast majority of the community absolutely refuses to cast an inquiring eye upon.
How is it, therefore, that I can so easily ignore all of the supposed “evidence” publicly piled up against the man?
“When a person has—whether they knew it or not—already rejected the Truth, by what means do they discern a lie?”
You see, the answer to the question of how I can so easily ignore supposed “evidence” publicly piled up against the man is really very simple: I know the man. I, therefore, have an accurate gauge against which to measure the claims made against him, as well as to measure against those making those claims.
They do not measure up to him.
They, therefore, hate me because I expose the Truth about them, and make them face the Truth about themselves.