Wednesday, September 22, 2010


There is some dirt out there (written by people banned from my blog) that I do not post things with which I disagree. This is a lie. Just look at the recent post by "Atheist Missionary," for example. Some times I post things that criticize what I have written and never even respond to them. This is usually because I do not have the time to do so.

The issue of whether someone gets rejected or banned is the tone and tenor of the pieces. If someone merely hurls insults and invective, they don't get posted. If they do it long enough, I enforce an a priori ban, which means that posts from X go to spam automatically or I reject them unread. There are probably a total of five people on this list. (However, I just offered a banned person the chance to reinstate him or herself if the posts are not in the objectionable category. I also happen to know this person outside of the blog "world," although not well.)

And who thought the Internet would improve social discourse?


Timothy said...

So is it true that you banned Jeffrey Shallit for writing this:

And do you stand by your statement that Dr. Shallit's comment is "insults and invective"?

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. said...

Prof. Shallit had a long history of abusive posts, something he is well known for in the ID community. So, it was not just one post that caused me to ban him.

But I'll offer the olive branch: if he wants to start submitting posts again, and if he can remain civil, I will post and try to respond.

Ken Abbott said...

Frankly, sir, it's your blog. You have the right to determine what gets posted here.

I have never understood the mindset that insists that as a virtual guest I have the right to come in and plant my muddy boots on the coffee table while dripping ash from my cheap cigar.