I just wanted to take a moment to reiterate my longstanding policy on comments. I reserve the right to delete comments that are slanderous, obscene, or glaringly off-topic. I also reserve the right to ban commenters who do not follow these rules even after being reminded of them. Anyone who accepts these simple rules is welcome to tell me why I am utterly wrong about the topic at hand, even if you think the world is six thousand years old. (And I am entitled to comment on why you are wrong, too.) But this is not the place for spam-like manifestos.
Let the conversation resume.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
At the time this post is scheduled to appear, I should be somewhere over the Midwest on my way to California to attend a surgical meeting for a few days. Don't worry, though, Orac-philes, I haven't left you in the lurch, without that Respectful Insolence that I like to dish out and that you (well,…
Last year Steve McIntyre insinuated that Gavin Schmidt was dishonest after one of McIntyre's comments was held up in moderation: (link in quote is mine)
Posting at realclimate is a little thing. I was once involved in trying to detect a business fraud many years ago. A friend told me that to look…
(Now that I look at the title, that sounds like an incredibly tepid harness-team command. "On, Moderation! Forward, with prudent speed!" I could clear that up by adding "Comment" in the middle, but I kind of like the image...)
Over at Boing Boing, Teresa Nielsen Hayden has posted a long explanation…
Thanks to everyone who participated in the unscientific survey on commenting. The results are back, and I'd like to share them with you.
As many of you have noticed, we've been talking about comments a lot here lately, both at BioE and on Sb in general. There's also a big session on online civility…
"A Comment on Comments
Category: Meta"
This made me laugh.
Aaagh! You just made a comment about the classification of a comment on commenting!
Come to think of it, I'm just digging myself deeper into this meta-hole, aren't I?
Oh my. I just followed the links to the banned commenter. He's a bit of a loon, isn't he? He actually said this:
"I am very confident that there is no physiological barrier to fertility in a cross made between any two breeds of dogs. If the Darwinians were so certain of their silly claim that dog breeds are separate species, they would test their hypothesis just as they would have tested Darwin's finches. They have done neither. They don't dare!"
Really? Who believes separate breeds are separate species?!?
Indeed, it appears that a lot of people in the canid field are classifying all domestic dogs under Canis lupus now.
Can I comment off-topic here? Reading Stephen Budiansky's "The truth about dogs" he makes the argument that dogs didn't actually descend from wolves, but they may have come into being from scavenger dogs like those in african cities today.
As for physiological reason, may be there aren't but certainly there's anatomical problems. I wouldn't want to be the chihuahua bitch fancied by a great dane. :-O
He is the internet definition of loon.
Anyone who accepts these simple rules is welcome to tell me why I am utterly wrong about the topic at hand, even if you think the world is six thousand years old.
I am not sure you keep your rules. The Loom guys are discussing off topic problem of dogs undisturbed here even quoting John Davison. Probably because they are darwinists there is no problem. Yet John Davison comment of breeds and species of dogs has been intercepted (as he informed on ISCID) - even if the topic itself mentioned John Davison and his Manifesto.