[Note the correction. I originally said, Ed Darrell, but meant John Stockwell. Sorry Ed.]
Given their incivility, insults, and annoying tone, Kevin Winters and John Stockwell are barred from this blog. Anything they post from now on will be deleted as soon as I see it.
I am the editor, and I don't want their contributions, although I have put up with them for years. They certainly have other venues to express their ideas. Mr. Winters has his own blog, which presents the ideas of a Heideggarian Mormon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Doug,
As you've pointed out, this is your blog and it's your right to do what you want with it. Still, I think you might want to reconsider. Yes, in the context of this blog, Ed and Kevin are contrarians and sometimes their tone is rather strident. But, with all due respect, those qualities shouldn't sound foreign to you. It seems to me that no harm is done in giving them voice here, and should the comments section of your blog become merely an "amen corner" something of value would be lost.
Just my (unsolicited) two cents.
Tom:
I welcome contrarians and curmudgeons on the other side. But Ed and Kevin have crossed the line.
I'm not looking for an Amen corner only, don't worry. Civil disagreement is welcomed. Sustained ridicule is not.
Boundaries, in all of life's choices, are necessary. Without these, we merely become other people's fodder. We are not called to be fodder, but servants of the Living God and of others.
This sounds like a good way to discourage circular rants!
I'm done after this, but it is "protocOl," not "protocAl."
Kevin:
Good chop! Since my wife doesn't edit these and the headlines don't have spell check, you do get me once in a while. Thanks and goodbye.
hi-
cool blog. i live in hollywood and work in the industry. this place is run by the devil but God is amazing.
I go to grace community church.
anyways wanted to say hi
<><
joanna
Dear Dr. Groothuis:
It is your blog and you can certainly do what you want with it, but I think you are making a mistake by barring people whose posts you deem lacking in civility or that you find insulting (as for annoying, that is a matter of taste). Short of a post being obscene, I think you should let people express their opinions and let readers be the judge.
On this blog, John Stockwell's almost single-handedly offers a well-reasoned counterpoint to Intelligent Design arguments. While you may sometimes find Mr. Stockwell's tone annoying, or his ideas demeaning to the Intelligent Design point of view, the ideas he expresses are grounded in science and should be debated as such. He might sound patronizing to you, but so do you at times (doesn't the Gospel say "let those who are without sin cast the first stone"), and so we all do sooner or later. Besides, patronizing comments are more likely to do harm than good to the opinions expressed by he who uses them. So, I suggest, let your readers decide on the merit of an opinion or a post.
Shaking off the dust from one's bête noir may be the most prudent move in an effort to retain a measure of civility.
I think that I agree with Groothuis and deny liberals a voice. They deny us fundamentalists (those who believe in inerrancy) in true academic debate and so we should deny them a voice in our arena.
Groothuis is often rude to others because he's dishing out what others (liberal academics) dish back to him.
At some point people need to stand up for themselves.
Besides, Mr. Stockwell is an argument, and as far as I'm aware is a scientist and uses a lot of scientific knowledge that we as evangelical philosophers and theologians can't really evaluate. We do have scientists like H. Morris, K. Hovind, and M. Behe who have top-notch PhD's who can answer Mr. Stockwell's questions better than we can. We can only evaluate his worldview and interpret the Bible as best we can.
SP
I can't tell whether "righteousness first" is serious or sarcastic. But either way, I believe he makes a good case for keeping Stockwell and Winters!
I think it is not fair of us to expect of Groothuis that he should put up with everyone just because it might seem interesting to us.
It is pretty clear that Groothuis is not some dictator practicing arbitrary censorship. He has given good reasons for banning those people. But even if his reasons were merely personal, we should still respect his decision.
Groothuis is the editor and he is forced to read all this stuff. It is not about free speech. This is a private blog run by a private person in his free time. I much prefer that he banned a few people who really annoy him rather than closing down his blog entirely because he got tired of putting up with them.
As for the banned people, they are not denied a voice. They can have their own blogs in which they can freely refer to Groothuis’ posts and comment on them in whatever way they like. Everyone who is interested in their opinion can read them there. It should not be Groothuis’ problem if they do not reach as many readers with their own blogs.
I'm with Bjorn: it's Doug's blog, and it's up to him who posts here. There's no free speech issue here.
I don't read anyone as saying there is a free speech issue here. The couple of us who have spoken on behalf of keeping Richard and Kevin have both recognized that the blog is Doug's and that he has the right to do with it what he wants. Our view is just that the blog is better off for having their contributions.
This is a losing battle for Dr. Groothuis, I am afraid. All Messrs. Winters and Stockwell would have to do to keep posting is register with a new pseudonym (for example, Righteousness First), and they could keep posting. You can have a blog that does not allow ANY comments to be posted, or you can have one that does. If you choose the latter, I think you have to take the good with the bad. Censorship, however motivated, is bound to make everyone a loser in the end.
Tom,
That has to be Doug's call. He's made it; at this point I don't see any reasons being offered. If there were an issue of infringement of freedom of speech, that would be different -- but there isn't. That was what my laconic comment meant.
You have a wonderful and stimulating and challenging blog. On the matter of propriety, you are free to ban whomever you wish, I believe. Amy
Anyone who has read this blog consistently knows why such a ban is necessary in this case.
Comments are supposed to be just that - comments on the posted blog or topic. These gentlemen consistently twist the topic or argument (or ignore it completely), as a means of getting on their particular soap box. There is a time and place for their position. These "off topic" arguments do not "add" anything to this blog.
For example, If I maintained a blog about football, it would not be appropriate for someone to use my blog to consistently post comments about their particular theological beliefs (or any other off topic issue for that matter).
Why the animus? Whence have I offended thee?
The Constructive Curmudgeon is gracious enough to allow people to publish comments on his blog. If he wanted, he could simply post articles and not allow any response. Additionally, the Constructive Curmudgeon sets the trajectory of the article and unfortunately, this blog is often diverted by some and then the main point is no longer the main point. I respect the Constructive Curmudgeon for using discernment on his blog. At times, I was disappointed that he was not more swift in cutting lose people who divert the trajectory of the post and hi-jack some responders into other points that are simply diversions. By the way, I love good counterarguments, but lets keep the main posted point the main posted point and The Constructive Curmudgeon is taking an appropriate step to keep his blog on the intentional trajectory track. Bravo!
I didn't mind Winter and Stockwell although the latter's tone was annoying most of the time. If the alternative is having this blog shut down then let them be banned, er... barred.
Post a Comment