"Blogs and social networking sites like Facebook are ablaze with discussion of concerned listeners who are trying to piece together information about the show's demise."Hey, that's us!Wait...we're ablaze? ablaze?!I guess the program is working...
"Blogs and social networking sites like Facebook are ablaze with discussion of concerned listeners who are trying to piece together information about the show's demise."Pretty hilarious quote from the article.
Ha! Glad I'm not the only one who thought so!
Why does the article's headline seem to imply that only being pro-life is THE issue?? Because they consider "pro-lifers" to be crackpots, so the protest over the show's cancellation can be written off as the grumblings of nut cases?Are there any websites *celebrating* the cancellation of this radio program? If so, THEIR points of view might be very enlightening, as reflecting, perhaps, the views of whoever cancelled the show. It may even be that some such websites are serving as "proxies" for the views of Dr. Kieschnick et al.
A.T.-- it looks like the whole site and staff are pro-life by definition. This article is no doubt by someone who was disappointed by the Issues cancellation and finds it highly pertinent that unpopular or controversial views (of which being pro-life is but one) may have been reasons this show was cancelled.
Thanks for the link to this article, Pastor Weedon. And I agree with the others, the "ablaze" line was great!
Post a Comment