Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Deciding When to Delete Comments

posted by David Klinghoffer

It can be a bit of a dilemma. I take down defamatory comments when I catch them — e.g., from the guy who hides behind religious-sounding pseudonyms but wants to use the combox to defame other people by name and then calls me a “coward” for deleting him. I want normal people of whatever view always to feel comfortable about reading and leaving comments, not like they need to take a shower afterward. Crude comments spoil an interesting if contentious discussion for everyone else. So they have to go.

On the other hand, sometimes the puerilely insulting remarks from anti-intelligent design folks are just so wonderfully revealing of a mindset that I actually treasure them and wouldn’t dream of deleting them.


And no this is not a plant or a put-on. It’s from a guy who signs himself as Bobxxxx, responding to a post he didn’t like.

David Klinghoffer is one of the retards who work for the Discovery Institute, also known as the Dishonesty Institute. It’s a Christian creationist organization. Their only goal is too destroy America’s science education to defend their idiotic belief in magic.

The retard David Klinghoffer calls his magic “intelligent design” as if calling it that makes it any less childish.

What’s your problem David Klinghoffer? Why are you so terrified of modern biology? Grow up moron.

Does this not sound like something straight out of junior high school? It’s not so unusual either. What more can one say? Thanks, Bobxxxx, you made me laugh on a dark, rainy Seattle spring day.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(18)
post a comment
Anton C.

posted May 6, 2009 at 9:43 am


Anytime you deal with the public you’re going to get a few cranks. I enjoy the creative cranks who can get by without name calling and actually have a point. The real weirdos hang around the MSN money chatrooms (yes, I’m sure Jim Cramer is conspiring to steal your 10 shares of Exxon Mobil) and AOL. I have to wonder why people are so passionate about things they say they don’t believe in.



report abuse
 

Ben

posted May 6, 2009 at 11:51 am


First God or gods and then comes Darwin with his brilliant theory of Evolution as evidence of progression of design, presumed, understandably at that time to be nature.Given that our scientists are approaching the first rung of the ladder of the creation of life, is it not about time to consider progression of design by our scientists, today and in the future? Then our scientists will become creators, like those whom our ancestors mistook for being gods. It is not a question of believing in ID but understanding the basis upon which scientists are working.While evolution is an excellent theory it does exclude a lot of issues, such as a reasonable explanation for the existence of the world religions, and the possibilities of advanced intelligence in other solar systems, and a testable prediction for the future. We should keep an open mind.If evolution is correct then that is fine, but we can still look at other ideas At the same time.I believe there was an advert in the UK on buses,saying, ” there, Probably is no God”. By the same token I would suggest that Darwin was probably not a god either. If the theory in Message from the Designers is correct, then I would not wish to be a die hard evolutionist, especially when I look in a mirror, and realise I have become what I thought man had descended from. Come on the debate has to move forwards from progressive evolution of design by nature to a more advanced theory which includes progression of design by advanced science, that is if you believe science can advance from where we are now.We should have a new scientific framework, which allows us to respect the old understandings in a 21st century scientific framework.
Though scientists may be uncomfortable with the idea, but they may have to go into the past and look more closely at the evidence in history and connect that up with what our scientists are doing today. We should respect the past and that includes Darwin and all the older understandings without living in it



report abuse
 

Major Ray

posted May 6, 2009 at 12:07 pm


As a Christian, who is also a scientist, I will continue to educate people to the fact that it is okay to mix science, art, and spirit. Unlike modern scientists, Intelligent Design theorists can use the attributes of a real designer to prove creation. A real designer may be more than a scientist. He could also be a theologian and an artist, who wishes to express all of these attributes in his creations. The fool is the scientist who attempts to describe the creator’s work just based on the science, an artist who admires only its beauty, and the theologian who recognizes that we have a creator, but accepts the opinions of atheists. Finally, scientists refuse to recognize the existence of the Divine Matrix despite all the scientific proof presented. Science should seek truth wherever it takes us. That is not what science is today!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 6, 2009 at 12:11 pm


Bobxxxx is right.



report abuse
 

jmmj

posted May 6, 2009 at 12:42 pm


If there was no God we would have to invent one.



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted May 6, 2009 at 12:43 pm


This post, too, is a part of David’s pattern of merely smearing the pro-science side as immoral, never mind how many inflammatory misrepresentations Melanie, David, and the rest of the DI have told about honest, decent folk.
Then again, what do you do when you’ve spread untruths, and have nothing with which to support them, but to fault the victims of your defamatory rhetoric for getting angry at such calumny? Well gee, if it wasn’t true, why do they get mad?
Typical bully tactics, of course. The victims get mad because the ID side has never provided data or arguments that support their claims, and the endless reasonable responses pointing out the numerous fatal flaws in ID are either ignored or misrepresented.
If a group could sue for defamation of character (and fortunately it can’t), we’d sue and win in any honest court.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 6, 2009 at 1:00 pm


David–When I read your blogs on Beliefnet, I often disagree with the way you interpret the Bible and/or the Talmud. I also often disagree with the way you often mix your political views with passages from the Bible and/or Talmud. But that does not mean that I have the right to rant and to insult you. Discussions of the Bible and Torah can only be done in just that–discussions. Ranting and insults have no place in the discourse. In my opinion, they only profane the Bible and the Talmud and do damage to our religion in the eyes of the world. The Jews of the world do not need to help the Jew haters of the world.
You have two choices–delete the ranting insults or let them be so that those who deliver them embarrass themselves in front of those who read them.
With respect,
R.



report abuse
 

Cliff Snoates

posted May 6, 2009 at 4:40 pm


Is the “Discovery Institute” like the “Family Research Council” that does no actual research of actual families, yet still feels free to, er, pontiff-icate on things on which they evidently know not much at all?
Sorry, but I have to agree with pretty much everything bobxxx has posted.
Odd how the free speechers like Klinkhoffer and his mentor Rod Dreher are the quickest to delete disssenting comments.
The anti-intellectual, anti-science crowd can now go join their high priest W. in ignominy.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted May 6, 2009 at 10:49 pm


David, I attempted to post a comment documenting the inherent link between religion and ID in Phillip Johnson’s own words. It did not imapugn anyone’s character, morals, or intelligence.
Therefore, I can only believe that the comment was not approved because it controverted your own position with hard evidence. If not, please tell me why it was suppressed.



report abuse
 

mary

posted May 6, 2009 at 11:13 pm


I couldn’t agree more. Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t make it okay to use the word retard. Why would anyone except a middle school student use the word retard anyway? Plus the triple x at the end of Bob’s name is a dead giveaway for someone who doesn’t get any. Thanks Bobxxx for bringing ignorance to a whole new level of fun.



report abuse
 

ploni almoni

posted May 7, 2009 at 2:08 pm


Names are irrelevant. Arguments are not. Thus, Rambam:
For anything whose rationale is clear and whose truth can be
demonstrated by indisputable proof, we do not rely on the person who said it or who taught it, but on its proof and reasoning.
— Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sanctification of the New Moon, 17:24



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted May 7, 2009 at 2:46 pm


If names are irrelevant, why does the Talmud spend page after page trying to attribute opinions to the correct person by name? Your citation from Rambam only speaks to looking at the strength of arguments, rather than relying simply on authority. It says nothing about anonymity, and certainly doesn’t intend to convey a blanket approval of it for all religious and other discourse. Obviously. Regarding insults and accusations with which the Internet is rife, American jurisprudence holds that one has a right to face his or her accuser. It needs looking into, but I think you could probably trace that great American tradition back to Jewish law, where giving testimony as a witness is not done in secret from behind the veil of a made-up identity. That’s how society and “justice” operated in the Soviet Union. But thanks for at least trying to offer an argument here, however off the mark it may be.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted May 7, 2009 at 10:04 pm


No, Olorin, the software on the site can’t distinguish comments that controvert my views from those that don’t. :) When a comment is rejected it seems to be most often because it included a bunch of URLs and therefore seemed like spam. Why don’t you try again but putting the info in your own words rather than pasting URLs.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 8, 2009 at 11:38 am


Links are a source of proof for the poster’s arguments.
Olorin asked for a reason a submitted comment was rejected, not one that the software rejects because of the stoopid CAPTCHA crap.
It is more than evident that it was you, David, who rejected it, not the software. Such a cop out. No wonder so few of us believe what you type.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted May 8, 2009 at 3:29 pm


David: “When a comment is rejected it seems to be most often because it included a bunch of URLs and therefore seemed like spam.”
My comment included no URLs at all. Somehow I don’t think it was the software that rejected it.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted May 8, 2009 at 3:46 pm


I omitted all the sources for the quotations, but the comment was rejected again—or, it was “held for blog owner approval,” which seems to be the same thing. I think the software does recognize comments that controvert your views. Perhaps you should consider selling it to other creationists.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted May 8, 2009 at 3:52 pm


I’m really not trying to censor you, Olorin. As you may notice, probably 80 percent plus of comments on this blog controvert my views. Is it possible your comment was too long? Maybe try to be more concise. I would encourage Glen D. along similar lines. Other readers, including the blog author, are also more likely to read you then.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 9, 2009 at 3:17 pm


“probably 80 percent plus of comments on this blog controvert my views”
That alone should tell you something.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.