Anatomy of a malicious lie

A response to Lou Martuneac

SI: Censorship by Omission?

The claim:


Is it possible that the site publisher’s decision to ignore and bury the Haddon Robinson/CBS story is due to the fact that they accept advertising revenue form CBS? Isn’t it possible that SI will not risk putting up a story of interest to readers because they fear the subsequent reaction might generate sharp criticism of Calvary? Isn’t it possible that SI is practicing censorship by omission to protect a source of sorely needed revenue to keep the site viable?

I believe it is more than reasonable to believe censorship-by-omission to protect a needed source of revenue is why SI will not publish this story from Calvary Baptist Seminary.

... [Note ... quotes are not in order]

I, furthermore, utilized SI’s Contact Form, completed the required fields and submitted it to SI for their attention. There is no way SI can claim they were not aware of this important news item

Comment: Note the above comment about the contact form. I'm the one who receives the filings suggestions via the contact form. I received it at 12:52 p.m. Central time yesterday - Sunday October 9th. The image below illustrates this fact. (click for larger)

Lou alleges that we did not respond to his contact form. Note image below which is a snapshot of his blog post above

The time of his original comment was at 1:15 p.m.

Back to yesterday. I returned from church about noon. Frankly email and web stuff is not exactly my highest priority. I think I had a Pepsi and took my shoes off and turned on the Vikings while Kathee grilled burgers. Along the way I did post the Haddon Robinson event as a filing at 3:42 p.m.

In Lou's little pathetic universe we were remiss to not post it as a filing .... AND when we did post it as a filing it is called "easily manipulated with the right kind of outside pressure." There's a phrase that describes this: "prating against us with malicious words" (3 John 10)

I posted a comment on Lou's blog explaining this timeline but he chose not to publish it. Comments on this blog are open (although I do moderate them because of spam issues). And even Lou may comment if he wishes


  1. 1) I do not accept and do not publish any comments submitted by you Jim Peet at either of my blogs. With maybe one exception no matter what the content I have not posted anything from you for many months.

    2) Any one who were to closely read the very first paragraph of my article (that you link to above) will immediately realize that you were not the first and not the only SI representative to be informed of, given links to and copy from the Calvary Baptist Seminary website from me directly so that SI could not only run the news, but be the first as well.

    I will not be adding any new comments here.


  2. Jim, having taken a look at Lou's blogs, suffice it to say that an old country adage comes to mind; "Don't wrestle with a pig. You get covered with manure, and the pig likes it." You've got better things to do than to respond to such nonsense, dear brother.

    Lou, having looked at your blogs, methinks you ought to reacquaint yourself with the Gospel. It is not showing in your writings, to put it mildly.

  3. @Burt

    Probably a mistake to even mention him. I will not become a pugilist

  4. Lou can go on and on all he wants, but his blog about SI is one lie after another. It is for the express purpose of disseminating misinformation and exacting his own brand of petty vengeance.

    It's time for brethren who are really interested in truth and the proper reasons for separation to separate from Lou.

  5. Susan, probably more dangerous than outright falsehood; false inferences from real facts. It is a fact, for example, that Dr. Bauder does seek to learn from the experience of conservative evangelicals, and that some of those conservative evangelicals have taken stands that both Dr. Bauder and I would disagree with. At some point of separation, tertiary or quatenary, he's linked to a theological liberal.

    Just like Paul was linked via his interaction with those who interacted with Judiazers with the Pharisees, so I guess if Dr. Bauder has compromised the faith, so did Paul. And Moses, and Christ, and....wait a second, this line of thinking isn't going very well, is it?

  6. Bike Bubba- I have no idea why you addressed your post to me.

  7. Susan; you mentioned that his blog is a bunch of malicious lies, and having visited his sites, it seems to me that his MO is to take a kernel of truth and then twist it logically.

    And so I'm hoping to encourage you--as gently as possible--to take a look at how he's really working. OK, he's got some lies in there, but most of it appears, IMO, to be simply really bizaare logic.


Any anonymous comments with links will be rejected. Please do not comment off-topic