You touched on some things that I have been trying to say in blogs where ever I can.
That comment was made on one of my recent posts, referring not to what I’d written, but to someone else’s comment. The exact subject matter isn’t important. I’m curious what others think of the tactic. I’ve noticed some people that go around and comment on other people’s blogs in what seems to be an agenda-driven way. That is, they have a certain issue they are passionate about, and look for every chance they can to expound on that issue… on other people’s blogs.
Is that how it should work? To my thinking, if you’ve got something that you feel needs to be said, enough that you will try and expound it on numerous blogs, it seems that you should be writing your own blog. I’ve cut off one commenter who tried to drive almost every discussion to a discussion of one particular doctrine. Was I incorrect in doing so? Shouldn’t comments follow the general topic of the post? Or am I being dictatorial in expecting everyone in The Kitchen to discuss what I want discussed?
What do you think, o gentle readers?
I think you know my opinion, since that particular commenter used to get mad at me for policing other people’s blogs.
Of course they should follow the general topic of the post – at least in the beginning of the string. You can’t control what happens after about 10-15 comments – and you never tried.
But when you blog about the pros and cons of white bread vs. whole wheat, and the first comment is: That reminds me! Jesus is not God! – over and over and over for years – that person is being insulting and hindering the kingdom work you’re trying to do with your blog.
It’s your blog. You make the rules. Keep up the good work.
I appreciate your thoughts. In the past, I have had to eliminate some blatantly negative or agenda driven messages. I believe that Shannon is correct…it is your blog — you should not feel bad for keeping your place of discussion decent and reasonable. I also believe that you are correct…there is now the means for anyone to have a forum to share their thoughts and opinions, if they choose to do so.
I agree – if someone has an agenda they should keep that on their own blog, or at least on related posts. No one’s really going to listen anyway if the comment is obviously not related to what was written in the post. And if it happens quite often, as it did with your other commenter, people are going to start ignoring them the second they see their name.
Then again, I know what comment you’re referring to specifically in this post, and I didn’t take offense at the time.
I agree. One, that it is your blog and you have every right to set the rules. And secondly, when people do what you are describing, I skip them or, on a list, delete without reading.
As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to a person discussing a specific issues which they are passionate about on other people’s blogs so long as that specific subject is the topic of discussion in the original post. Since bloggers, like myself, allow for comments, it assumes a reader is fair to respond and share their thoughts provided it is on point with the original blog post and a few other matters which best left for a discussion on the ethics proper decorum and ethics of blogging and commenting on blogs.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Did you ever wonder – in light of what Paul says about “super-apostles” in 2 Corinthians – if Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” wasn’t necessarily an infirmity … but a person? A “messenger of Satan” who bedeviled him? Somehow, that helps make God’s answer more understandable for me: Don’t think too highly of yourself, Paul; there but for My grace ….
Tim: I agree that you have the ability to censor. But what is the point?
If we are using the bible as a basis of discussion and thru discussion points of view are discussed and backed with scripture, it only adds to the spice of the blog. Obviously if we all were in agreement, it wouldn’t be much fun. I look at opposite points of view as stretching the mind. Believing and discussing what beliefs you have and looking at every side of an issue is good for Christian thought. I think none of us think we have all the answers and challenging each other is how we grow…..in my opinion
H.B.,
I don’t think I mentioned censorship here. I was just struck by the practice of going to other people’s blogs for the purpose of presenting one’s ideas, rather than organizing them and presenting them in a blog that others can come and read.
I like conversation and interaction on a blog. That’s why comments are on. I think comments that thoughtfully disagree are especially helpful.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
P..S.—BTW, I wasn’t talking about the person Nick thought I was talking about. I don’t know that he ever made the statement quoted above.
Tim: I am wrong in using the term censor. It is different from the word dictatorial. You mentioned cutting off a commentor about driving the conversation toward a particular doctrine. How was that done?
Oh, OK, I shouldn’t write at 5 a.m. Yes, I guess there was some censorship in that case. I had warned this brother several times, pointing him to posts that addressed the subject he wanted to talk about and encouraging him to discuss it there. When he persisted, I did delete a post of his.
The point of such censorship is not to still the voice but to organize discussions. Several requests were issued to post comments in the appropriate place. The brother in question once told me something like: “I don’t care if you delete my comments; I write them so that you will see them.” I took him at his word. Had he truly wanted to discuss the matter in question, he would have interacted with the posts I have on this site that address just that.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: Thanks for the explanation.
Tim, I agree with you. Period! I’ve noticed some people do the same thing in face to face conversations too.