I had the great pleasure of learning about blogging and commenting from someone who paid for his own site and moderated it himself as well. I, being a brash person at times, continually challenged him when he decided he may have to delete some of my comments. I argued that he was restricting free speech, he said, “This is my site, you do not have free speech here.”

That stung a little because I was then embarrassed that had I assumed I could just write anything I pleased on other people’s sites with impunity. I was ashamed of myself.

This site is mine. I pay for it. I own it. I moderate all comments.

I learned to moderate all comments instead of allowing them to auto-post, when I became a target of the green movement, and they posted 57 or so comments on my site about the way I look and other non-substantive things in order to scare me into silence.

If you comment on my site, and I accept it, you are automatically on my subscription list. As you can see, you may email me directly to subscribe or unsubscribe.

If you comment on my site, and I do not accept it, I am not censoring you, I am rejecting your comment. There is a big difference. I am not anyone’s personal publisher, I am my personal publisher.

This is not a forum, but I do know some great forums out there if you wish to get into arguments online.

Thanks

 

2 Responses to Comment Policy

  1. Gary Cobb says:
    March 19, 2013 at 10:32 am

    Redefining dignity and, Humanize God.
    Beware! Hillary Clinton (as is true of many others of her kind) NEVER makes a statement or makes an appearance that is not intended to plant a seed or in some way further her political career. I see her latest appearance with the attempt to redefine “dignity” as somehow to say that this is something that God would approve of. Nonsense.
    In her latest statement about same sex marriage she said, “I believe America is at its best when we champion the freedom and dignity of every human being,’’ What is this but an attempt to position and present herself as some authority on the meaning of dignity. What she has done, either purposefully or by accident is to endorse or foster a new religion of humanity by redirecting fundamental human concerns of dignity or morality. To make such a statement would indirectly propose that God would approve of such arrangements. It reduces God to the human as opposed to the supernatural. It makes Him, not the Creator but, only an equal and member of the part of the created. If those created and the Creator are one in the same then the created can redefine dignity, morality, and benevolence to fit their human desires or in her case political ambitions. God is benevolent, just, and wise but He is not human. HE IS. And, He demands obedience to His commandments.
    Is Hillary Clinton a non-believer? Probably not but she is a product of the “60′s, a Social Progressive in every since of the word and a social reformist extraordinaire. God has little significance within her ambitions beyond a topic of convince and tool of persuasion when the need arises.
    But you don’t have to take my pea brained opinion for fact. Her philosophy is not new,,,refer to GodLudwig Andreas von Feuerbach’s writings and you will perhaps see a connection to removing or redefining God and religion while traveling the road toward a socialist society. But in any case beware and alert to the silent chipping away of what in fact made this country great. Ask questions and demand answers.
    Let no one, no politician redefine to all God fearing Americans and Constitutional Conservatives, what dignity and freedom is. To suggest that Americans are not benevolent, charitable, understanding or tolerant toward all human beings is stupidity out of the mouth of an ignoramus. We are and will remain the great nation on earth because of who we are and what we believe. AND, will remain so if we stand up and stand firm against what we DO NOT believe in, accept, or condone.

    • task says:
      March 19, 2013 at 2:31 pm

      Gary,

      Hillary is not a product of the sixties as much as the sixties are a product of deceptors like herself.

      The good news is that Barack Obama beat her and I doubt if she can survive against a generic constitutionalist. The bad news is that the RINOS's will be the favorite media hogs that the Tea Party constitutionalists need to smash through and beyond to cross the finish line.

Leave a Reply