ku # 1229 ~ never neverland
On a recent entry, civilized ku # 2410-13 ~ the myth about talent, I deleted a comment left by Craig Tanner. Deleting comments is something I rarely do - deleting only 3 or 4 since I started blogging, nearly 7 years ago.
My reasons for deleting the comment in question were twofold - 1)the comment crossed my tolerance threshold, ad hominem wise. Phrases and statement such as "Hobsonian birthright " amongst others, and, most importantly, 2) Craig ended his comment with a little sermonette and an unsolicited endorsement for a self-help guru (borderline cult) - an action, IMO, somewhat akin to spamming.
Before deleting the comment, I gave consideration to editing out the ad hominem and self-help guru stuff but, quite frankly, the sermonette and self-help endorsement, whatever the merits of his comment, re: talent, just flat out pissed me off.
So, let me be perfectly clear ... Craig, or anyone, is welcome to comment with opposing points of view, re: my points of view. In fact, I encourage and welcome informed and cogent differing opinions. However, the moment a comment veers off course into ad hominem BS, the comment in question gets a one way ticket to never neverland.
Reader Comments (2)
I figured Craig Tanner would be pissed off when he read your post. A shame he went too with his response ... it could have made interesting reading! ;)
BTW Mark, you somethings get a little strident as well, but at the end of the day it's your blog. Peace, man.
Just to clarify my comment (which Craig Tanner has mis-interpreted on his blog), I meant to write this:
"It's a shame Craig went too far with his response (in Mark's opinion), as Craig's comment would have made interesting reading."