I am fairly amazed at how much gravity is being attached to the opinions of Mark Shea, by the way. I noticed a debate raging in a Coalition for Fog combox about whether Jimmy should be "pressured" to come down on Mark for being so mean** - very ironically - to this small group, whose central thesis is that we aren't hard-headed enough about using "coercive techniques" to interrogate prisoners. I conjecture that if we wanted to make at least some of them crack under interrogation all we would have to do is expose them to Mark's disapproval.
The "raging debate," near as I can determine, encompassed all of three posters, one of them anonymous (and now deleted) and as one of the three involved I explicitly stated that I didn't want it to happen. IIRC, the poster who raised the issue (Joe D'Hippolito) had something very similar to the proposed boycott that Mark called for (and still does?) against Joe for stuff he wrote in Frontpage Magazine several years ago.
When confronted with the facts of the situation, he responds with the following:
I initially was going to dismiss the comment (I skimmed them rather quickly) as isolated crankdom until I saw the supporting comment I posted, and then another comment by one of the blog editors which failed to support the proposed boycott in the following way:
As far as organizing a boycott or what not, if you guys want to do that then go right ahead. My primary concern has always been his rhetoric towards those who disagree with him on this and other issues than it is anything else.
Zippy appears to have taken up Mark's style of "skimming" because if he had bothered to read further he would have seen this:
As far as organizing a boycott or what not, if you guys want to do that then go right ahead. My primary concern has always been his rhetoric towards those who disagree with him on this and other issues than it is anything else. While I agree that an intervention is badly needed by the other apologists part regarding his invective, I have no desire to prevent him from speaking to others via Catholic Answers and the like. As long as he continues to do so though, I think we are Biblically bound towards correcting his behavior the way that St. Paul did for Peter as described in Galatians and are honor-bound to hold him accountable when he behaves like he has on this issue.
The last time I read Galatians, St. Paul didn't propose a boycott of St. Peter and I don't think that Zippy's interpretation of my remarks is even remotely defensible. The goal of the Coalition, as Victor explained brilliantly in the comments, is to "I want Shea to mind his manners, not lose his livelihood." But apparently for some calumny is now acceptable as long as the choice of target is right.