Let me share the types of comments that I won’t approve going forward. They are the types of comments that present themselves in some sort of editorial role that I never
asked for. They might come across as passive-aggressive, but their sheen remains that superficial. I’m not interested in being grammar policed by essentially anonymous people (this particular commenter left his name, but I won’t be sharing that here) who seem to be using their “policing” as a mechanism to give themselves a sense of intellectual superiority vis-à-vis me (but who am I?). It is functioning like a rhetorical device with an aim of positioning oneself in a certain way in the (potential) forthcoming dialogue. This has always been a pet peeve of mine, particularly, online. I am not offering up my blog posts in search of editors who will approve or disapprove of my grammar, per se. I clearly have typos, certain grammatical errors at times, and other like mistakes in some of my blog posts. But in a way that is the nature of writing quickly for blogs, and other social media outlets. Even so, I would venture to say that much of what I write still has acceptable grammatical quality; that is, as they are typically rough rough rough drafts for what, at times, might have the potential for further development and grammatical finish work.
So, the following comment was posted on my last post. I approved it at first, and replied back. But as I reflected on it further, I began to think that in fact the intention behind it was just as I have sketched above. Even if that wasn’t the author’s intention, I almost always assume that when the grammar police show up their intentions aren’t as pure as they would make them appear to be. Now, did my last post have some awkward phrasings, and maybe a run-on sentence here or there? Yes; which I realized even as I posted it. I was particularly pressed for time when I put that post together. Not to mention, the heft of that post was made up by me sharing posts I had written for X/Twitter and Facebook. When I post on such websites I surely am not worried about my grammar, or how polished it might come across. Beyond that, as you will see with this comment, the commenter attempts to offer a psychoanalysis upon my state of mind as I composed that post; which is sort of strange. Here’s the comment:
Actually, while I believe in the vicarious humanity of Jesus, and as I watched the ADS during the game, I thought too that the “He Gets US” was clearly missing the point. Your blog, and very much unlike you, had lots of grammar and typing issues, which seem to point to your “anger” or “frustration” where you mind was working faster than your hands. I am not sure it upset me as much as made me sad that some christians simply do not truly have an “incarnational” understanding of who Jesus is pro nobis. But that is where teaching and conversation comes in. After Jesus says to the disciples “Do You Not Yet Understand,” even in his frustration, he teaches them. Better sermons and clearly biblical articulation of the vicarious atonement are needed. Thanks for put this out there.
Ironically, his comment has some grammatical errors and typos itself. I don’t think my blog post had lots of grammatical etc. errors, it had some (which I was aware of when I posted it). Anyway, don’t be the grammar police 😊; for me, it immediately shuts down any meaningful discourse we might have had otherwise.

