counter customizable free hit
About This Website

This blog is intended to showcase my pictures or those of other photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment - photography that aims at being true, not at being beautiful because what is true is most often beautiful..

>>>> Comments, commentary and lively discussions, re: my writings or any topic germane to the medium and its apparatus, are vigorously encouraged.

Search this site
Recent Topics
Journal Categories
Archives by Month

Photography Directory by PhotoLinks

Powered by Squarespace
« civilized # 2416 ~ Il buono, il brutto e il cattivo | Main | civilized ku # 2415 ~ intelligence both acute and supple »

ku # 1229 ~ never neverland

Falls / Au Sable Chasm ~ Keeseville, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenOn 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.

December 10, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterSven W

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."

December 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterSven W

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>