It’s great that this blog attracts a range of views in the comments on the posts, but I’d like to ask for a curbing of enthusiasm if you start to notice from the icon count in the right-hand column that you are starting to dominate the discussions. Even I get embarrassed if, after catching up with comments I find I have my name and avatar appearing more than three times in the currently visible list.
And please do aim for conciseness in comments. I doubt many take the time to read lengthy comments anyway. But if you find you are compelled to write regular lengthy posts in the comment box then it would be more appropriate if you started your own blogs. It is not really appropriate to use another’s blog as a regular sounding board for your own lengthy views. From your own blog you can still comment upon posts and other comments here and link to them.
Lately several comments are going well beyond merely “commenting” on the thoughts on the posts or on others’ views.
I have had to place in the spam filter a few commenters who have tried to use this blog as a platform for regular evangelization or other forms of preaching, racist bile, and personal abuse. I recently removed one comment that included an inappropriate term of address for Stephanie Fisher. (I regret not noticing the same term used in several earlier comments.) A little joking and humorous cutting down arrogant and other nonsense I don’t mind, and calling a spade a spade is okay at times, too. But we can draw the line at using this blog as a public platform for sneering and insulting expressions.
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Varieties of Atheism #2 - 2023-05-21 02:18:55 GMT+0000
- Varieties of Atheism - 2023-05-20 07:10:56 GMT+0000
- The Troubled “Quiet” before the Jewish Diaspora’s Revolt against Rome: 116-117 C.E. - 2023-05-10 07:58:29 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
11 thoughts on “Comments on Vridar”
Is this comment too long?
Hoo boy. There’s always one in the crowd. I do hope that readers do notice that I spoke of “regular lengthy posts in the comment box” — nothing wrong at all with the odd gem that does require some lengthy explanation.
Hey, I hardly ever comment…mind you I did write a thesis comment about two years ago. Thus I am just as guilty as my fellows…
Good post Neil.
I have followed this blog for several months now as it is informative and thought provoking. However, some commentators should do a better job editing the length of their posts. Mark Twain said it best, “I would write you a shorter letter but I did not have the time.”
I’ve always said, if it can be said in less than 10,000 words, then what’s the point?
Problems is, when you’re arguing with the likes of Larry Hurtado, former dean of the School of Divinity Edinburg, 1) if you’re too short – he dismisses you for lack of evidence. But 2) If you go long, with lots of evidence? He dismisses you for too much stuff.
No honest person can win in the religion racket; the game is rigged. Time to change the rules.
Bretton Garcia, your comment has missed the point of my post and is an example of the larger problem I am trying to address.
Some sites/blogprograms let the commenters rate the comments. Then they put the high rated comments at the first. Also if you have a long comment, put the gist in bulletpoints first. WDYT?
My main concern is relevance and generally (there are exceptions) the longer the comment the more likely it is expressing a theme that belongs on another venue. It’s really a question of social etiquette.
Admittedly OT, but I thought worth it. Can you provide an example for Dr. McGrath: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/08/arguing-for-jesus.html#comment-612597723
I’d much rather the McGraths, the Caseys, the Verennas, the Ehrmans, the Fishers, the Hoffmanns apologize to Earl Doherty and Rene Salm for the outrageous falsehoods and personal attacks they have dumped upon them. It is their libellous and false attacks against them that have incensed me. (A couple of instances spring to mind, though — if time I may try to dig them out this weekend — but McGrath has been led a few steps down the path to new beginnings at least a couple of times before only to pull back very quickly again.)
It’s one thing for McG to argue “for Jesus” — but quite another to engage in discussions that challenge him on assumptions and reasoning that strike at the very heart of his professional identity.