Saturday, January 17, 2009

Where it began for me


It all started for me after a person on my regular email list to which I have been sending my writings for several years, notified me that one of my articles had been used on a blog called The Calvinist Flyswatter -- which I had never heard of -- and the Founders' blog had referred to me as a "goofball."

I had never blogged, and as a matter of fact, had shunned the idea of doing so after being unimpressed with what I had seen in the blogosphere. But since one of my articles had been used on a blog which I had never heard of before, I tracked it down and thanked the blogger ("Charles") who had used it. The article was entitled, "White Smoke Again," and can be read in its original form at Selected Writings of Bob Ross.

Once I had found the blog and contacted Charles, I had a "change of mind" about blogging and the rest is history. The Hybrid Calvinists over at the "Flounders'" blog have regretted the day they ever published on that blog that I was a "goofball."

Thanks to Charles, there are about three years of refutations of Hybrid Calvinism and Flounderism on The Calvinist Flyswatter. Check out the Archives.


  1. I have a difficult time believing Tom Ascol ever called you a "goofball," Bob.

    Would you care to provide the proof?

  2. Reply to Rev:

    I said the blog published it. You can contact Ascol and ask him if his blog published the comment, then he removed it when I told him this was no way to "win friends and influence people."

    Ascol excuses himself of a lot of stuff like this -- letting his "choir" post comments which he himself might not have the gall to say.

  3. Link:

    The following is where I quoted the post which called me a "goofball."

  4. Bob:

    I am happy you decided to enter the blog realm three years ago and have started The Reformed Flyswatter to continue writing and interacting with those who comment. I have appreciated your writings over the years and wish you many more productive years to come.

  5. More for the Rev. --

    It was called to my attention that you, Rev., had posted on the "Sweet Tea Theology" blog (Dec. 16, 2008) that Bob Ross "appears to be a very angry man who hates Tom Ascol," etc.

    Now, that is the same type of thinking which produced the comment on Ascol's blog which referred to me a "goofball." It's the old diversionary device of attacking the messenger in the effort to discredit his message. Depict the person as a goofball, angry, and one who hates, and thereby discredit his materials.

    And that seems to work -- at least with a certain type of mind, especially the Hybrid Calvinist types who are wed to Hybrid Calvinism, such as James White, Gene Bridges, and their kindred who have nothing better to offer than such personal disparagement of those who differ with them.

    But the fact is, the only persons who are discredited by that type of commentary, Rev., are those who are so desperate they choose to resort to its use.

  6. To the Rev.

    Your latest has been rejected. The Comments section of the Reformed Flyswatter does not entertain personal attacks upon the Moderator. If you want to publish attacks on me, you have your own blog.

  7. For the Rev.

    The only "evidence" you presented in your rant against me was that I used the term "Flounders" in referring to the Founders.

    I commented on the use of that term on the Flyswatter at the following link:

    Those who are interested may consult it there. It is defined in Webster's Dictionary and is appropriate where there is "floundering."

  8. Garbling Galyon

    For those interested, we have an article about the Rev. on the Flyswatter. It begins --


    Our sometime poster and professed friend to the Pedobaptist "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinists, the Rev (otherwise known as James Galyon), has an item on his website which appears to be a garbling of the 18th century Baptist, John Gano.

    Read the rest of the item on the Calvinist Flyswatter at --

  9. Rev. defends Ascol

    In your comment which I rejected, Rev., you allege that Tom Ascol is not responsible for calling me a "goof-ball" since it was another's post.

    The fact is, I have noticed where Ascol often rejects posts, yet he did not reject this one. He only removed it after I complained, and he did not offer one word of apology for its being posted.

    May I suppose, if Ascol published a post by someone which was filled with cuss words or blasphemy, you would also not hold him responsible?

  10. To Rev. about Ascol

    Why did Tom Ascol post that deprecating remark by another person on his blog that "Bob Ross has proven himself to be a self-promoting goof-ball not really worthy of being taken seriously"?

    You may want to consider, Rev., that Ascol did not like it because I had critiqued Ernest Reisinger's objections to "public invitations." See my article at --

    A Critique of Brother Reisinger's Article Against the Use of a Public Invitation

  11. Another rejection for Rev.

    Rev., you latest is of no consequence. Why don't you just ask Tom Ascol why he published a comment on his blog which called Bob Ross a "goof-ball" and relay it to me. He has never explained why he published it, and never offered an apology for doing so. Only after I confronted him about the comment did he take it down. If I had not objected to it, it might still be on the blog.

    Your nit-picking about how I referred to this is of no consequence. You accused me of "hating" Tom Ascol and said I was an "angry" man, yet your only "proof" offered is that I refer to the Founders as "Flounders."

    You, my brother, are not embellishing the "Rev" title you use.
    Why not opt for "Dev," suggesting your "devilish" practice of making unrighteous judgment about me?

  12. Rev. clarifies himself.

    In another one of Rev.'s nitpick comments, he says:

    I didn't state that you hated Tom Ascol or that you are actually angry, I said these things appeared to be so. There's a difference there."

    Appeared to be so? How so, Rev? Can you refer to any one thing that "appeared" to be "hate" or "anger"?

    At any rate, thanks for the "clarification" that you did not say I "hated Tom Ascol" or was "actually angry."