Don't comment unless you love me....

Here's an amusing comment policy.

While I think it's perfectly reasonable to reject comments from people who are raving, a couple of points about this seem designed to stifle any dissent. Not including links says that posters are not allowed to provide references to support their arguments, even though that's a cornerstone of any good analysis of a topic. And it's difficult to make a serious argument in one hundred words, not to mention that such a limit prizes quantity over quality.

Do you want to people to read reasoned argument against your posts? Or do you  want only comments saying, "Oh, you're so right"?

I managed to keep the last two paragraphs to one hundred words, and submitted them as a comment. Do you think they'll post it? I think it conforms to the letter of the rules, but not the spirit, so my bet is not.


  1. Oh, and I just noticed again the tagline of that blog: "Open to all people - Influenced by none." The first phrase is wrong, though I won't say that's entirely a bad thing. But the second phrase, sadly, appears to be quite true. Does anyone have a good picture of someone with his hands over his ears yelling, "I'm not listening"?

  2. Just want to know Curt why you feel the need to dictate the rules of other people's blogs? Just curious?

  3. Well, I lost my bet, sort of, since you posted my comment, though you chopped off the last seventeen words, reducing it to 83. Thanks for participating in this discussion.

    I am certainly not trying to "dictate" how your should run your blog. (Do you seriously think I am, or is that just a knee-jerk reaction?) I'm merely pointing out that your policy, whether designed to do so or not, prevents people from making good, reasoned responses to your blog entries.

    If you don't want to know about other points of view, and are the sort of person unwilling to change his mind in the face of new evidence, your current policy, or simply disabling comments entirely, is quite suitable. Is that what you're aiming for?

  4. Let me present an example of the sort of measured, reasoned discussion that I'd like to see prevail in blog comments. You'll note that, though it makes a fairly simple point, it's well over two hundred words long, and includes a link. These break both your rules.

    Yet removing the link that supports the argument that Abdulmutallab's attack was successful would require hundreds of words of extra explanation. Those would interfere with the main flow and point of the post, as well as be unnecessary for those who already understand that point.

    Trying to reduce the rest of the argument to less than one hundred words and still make it coherent and well supported seems impossible to me. Do you think you could do so?

    So I submit that as evidence of the sort of comment you appear not to want on your blog. Am I incorrect? If so, how do you reconcile that with your rules?