Thursday, June 7, 2007

Some Comments on Comments [Serge]

In the comments in this post, this blog was accused of not allowing opposing comments on this site. This is simply not true, as evidenced by many of our threads in which we deal with opposing points of view. In fact, we have never rejected a comment for the reason that it disagrees with our point of view. We welcome and encourage those with opposing points of view to make their case in as persuasive a way as possible.

However, this is a moderated blog. Some comments are inappropriate and are rejected by myself or the other blog contributers. Obviously, a comment that uses profanity will be rejected. Also, a comment that is submitted to a number of posts or other blogs will be rejected as spam. Comments have to also be appropriate for the post, and materially address the content of the post in question.

In other words, a comment will never be rejected because it opposes our view. It will be rejected if it fails to address our point of view. There were a number of comments from CRTL folks that fell into this category. We repeatedly asked the commenters to address specific points that were made in our posts, and they refused to do so. Instead, they repeatedly challenged Scott to a debate on their forum and spammed us in regards to the letter to Dr. Dobson. Such comments were rejected, and further of that type will be so in the future.

On the other hand, if followers of the CRTL strategy, whatever it is, wish to challenge the views expressed on this blog, then they will be posted and responded to. Furthermore, I wish to issue a bit of a challenge. If anyone from CRTL wishes to make a positive case for an alternative pro-life strategy that they believe will save the greatest number of human beings than the ones presented here, then I will not only allow the comment, but will initiate a separate post for it. Note that this needs to be an actual strategy, not merely stating that present policies are evil or that the recent court rulings are bad. Cursing the darkness is not enough - please explain what you wish to do in place of the present strategy. If you do so, then we would be more than happy to respond.


  1. Why are you guys afraid to post a link to the Dobson letter here?

  2. James,
    It's our blog and we'll post links when we feel like it. It's not my job to act as your publicist.

    For the record, we did post a link to one of your replies to Dobson here:

  3. James,
    I visit the LTI blog regularly, so have become familiar with many of your comments, here and elsewhere.

    Do you know the meaning of the word redundant?

    Serge wrote that comments are not posted that contain profanity or are redundant. Where do you fit in?

    There will not be a debate between Scott and Bob. That's quite clear, otherwise by now he would have accepted your offer.

    Please, stop being redundant, and move on.

  4. James,

    Why do you insist on using the term "scared?" No one is afraid that the devastating indictment against Dr. Dobson will get out and the public will finally know the truth. We just think the content of the letter is wrong and not helpful. For the record, Scott has responded to the repeated claims that Dr. Dobson and other incrementalists are legal positivists and relativists. Perhaps you would be interested in addressing the actual substance of that response and leave the “scaredy cat” comments for the grade schoolers? This hysterical name-calling is really tiresome.


  5. Seriously James, what Jay said....Lori


All comments are moderated. We reject all comments containing obscenity. We reserve the right to reject any and all comments that are considered inappropriate or off-topic without explanation.