Read here.
And in case the blogger named Miranda finds this (she replied to Prof. Shallit's post): No, civility, or alleged lack thereof, has nothing to do with Groothuis banning people. Groothuis routinely uses worse invective (ok, equally bad) towards others than I or other banned invididuals ever used against him. Only, since The Constructive Curmudgeon is his blog, he can capriciously ban people rather than accepting a challenge or engaging dissenters in debate. He is very good at finding the speck in other people's arguments while displaying an uncanny ability to ignore the log in his own.
As another blogger pointed out, calling someone a hypocrite, who is demonstrably in fact a hypocrite, is no more "invective" than calling a spade a spade.
4 comments:
I post all manner of comments that disagree with me. I only ban those who do not contribute to the discussion because they use invective, ridicule, and insult more than argument. I just posted something from "Atheist Missionary."
I suggest you start submitting posts to my blog again, and we'll see where it goes!
I don't ban or not post most critical comments, only those I deem more ridicule than argument.
I suggest you start posting on my blog again, and we'll see where it goes.
Best,
Doug
Olive branch accepted, whether I actually decide to post comments on your blog or not.
I still don't like the idea that some of your posts do not allow comments at all, nor do I like the fact that others remain banned, regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty as charged.
The only people I ban here are spammers; everybody else is free to post their comments and ideas freely, and I leave it to the (admittedly very few) readers to decide for themselves whether a comment is uncivil, unfair or ill-conceived.
Fab:
You are officially back! How about a real face to face meeting again. I enjoyed the one we had a few years ago.
Best to you and your wife,
DG
Post a Comment