Beginning immediately, I intend to considerably change the way comments are posted at SBC Tomorrow. Two recent incidences spurred my decision along this direction. First, I had an enlightening conversation with a trusted friend who regularly reads my site. He is well known, well respected in SBC life, and I value his friendship and wisdom. He correctly cautioned me to stop encouraging the continued flow of internet prattle which visits my site and logs on only to make the point I worked hard to clearly communicate in the original post a side issue in the conversation. In other words, I allow them to draw me into an exchange about me personally rather than sticking with the main issue. I confess I knew this a weakness to which I unhappily succumbed whether inspired by pride, the need to be right, or even more positive inclinations one could imagine. Whatever the reason, the point my friend made is, I am weakening myself as an influence by engaging prattle. I think I must agree. Too many times I've encouraged prattle by countering prattle. The fact remains, however, the only way to address prattle is ignore it.
A second incident regards an extended exchange when a new commenter outright questioned the sincerity of my words. Were I gut-level honest, I'd have to describe my inner reaction as anger. I write what I write because I believe what I write. I fully realize I may be dead wrong about what I write. Not because I have carelessly flung together a post or a response with haphazard thought apart from reasonable, sober reflection. The truth is, my pattern for posting whatever I post on the internet must meet some fairly rigorous tests before I post it, and that goes whether I'm commenting in a thread or posting an original piece. I do not take the words I publish lightly. But I am certainly not above making logical errors, misquoting documents, misunderstanding concepts, etc., etc. In other words, like all interpreters I can and do make mistakes--sometimes serious, sometimes minor--but mistakes they remain nonetheless.
On the other hand, literary exchange is what correcting mistakes is all about. An interpreter could make gross erros in his or her understanding of a particular idea or issue and remain a man or woman of intergity. The question, then, is not about honesty but ignorance. Dishonesty needs to be confessed and forsaken. Ignorance, however, needs correction--sometimes gentle, sometimes very strong.
To have then, a complete stranger question ones sincerity without a scintilla of sober reason or intimate knowledge about that person cannot be taken seriously. It is prattle plain and simple. My problem is, in light of my wise friend's caution, that is exactly what I have been doing--taking prattle seriously. Publishing on as many "hot-button" issues as I do surely draws more than my share of internet prattle. People will come and log on just to complain--and more times than not, they end complaining about me personally. For those who have followed my site, I'm confident you are aware that I am no stranger to exchange. Nor am I shy about defending a view I place in the public forum. Only the most biased individuals would argue otherwise. On the other hand, you have also perhaps observed with my good friend I have often encouraged prattle not by ignoring it but by engaging it. Hence, I must address this and immediately intend to. A sober reevaluation is in order for commenting at SBC Tomorrow.
Below are some initial commenting initiatives I am implementing beginning June 6, 2011. And, as before, while these initiatives are not either unchangeable, un-editable, or serve as "objective rules" I must follow concerning comments on this site (the fact is, in the end, most all commenting policies are thoroughly subjective), the statements offer a flavor indicative of what I'd want and not want to characterize future comment threads at SBC Tomorrow.
Furthermore, these initiatives are not designed to be democratic. Nor do they serve to make sure all has a "say-so" on the issue. In other words, if readers want to claim a breach in "free speech" or accuse SBC Tomorrow of "censorship" they have come to the wrong site. While I will attempt to post all of the best comments from opposing positions, I make no promises to anyone holding any position his or her comment will always be posted. I hope this remains clear.
Continue reading "a chronology of commenting policies since 2006" »
