Comments on: The More You Want

By: Eric Rasmusen

Eric Rasmusen — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 02:40:10 +0000

It’s interesting that somebody claiming to use cocaine in the White House is not noteworthy enough to make the newspapers.

I wonder–could that actor be convicted of federal drug law violations using his admission as evidence? Of course, Mr. Obama is unlikely to allow him to be prosecuted, and could even supply the cocaine and get away with it if he wanted to, so long as they stay in DC away from state prosecutors.

By: Eric Rasmusen

Eric Rasmusen — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 02:38:08 +0000

Every website I know deletes too few comments for low quality, so I will guess that this was a wise editorial decision. Delete more! Bad talk drives out good. Remember what Strunk and White said about useless words in writing: delete every one, because anything that is not useful is harmful.

By: Ancius

Ancius — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:32:43 +0000

I think you’re jumping to bad conclusions Mr. Carter. First, no one is challenging your right to delete comments. Second, if there is something problematic about a comment, you might consider letting it stand next so that others can object to it, correct it, or instructively learn. Often a comment that first appears unhelpful to someone (especially to a third party observer, like yourself) will actually stimulate a relevant and productive conversation (about devotional literature, instead of about censorship). As an person who deletes the comments of others, I would even suggest that you review the insights of J.S. Mill.

By: Joe Carter

Joe Carter — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:44:58 +0000

And my observation stands: the editorial censorship here appears to be unprincipled and indefensible.

Commenting on this privilege is not an immutable right. The staff of FT gets to decide what comments will appear and which will not. Yours did not because we found it to be unhelpful, rude, and unnecessarily crude.

By: Tom Gilson

Tom Gilson — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:38:23 +0000

I will be glad to bring your observation to the attention of the editor.

By: Ancius

Ancius — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:30:09 +0000

And my observation stands: the editorial censorship here appears to be unprincipled and indefensible.

By: Tom Gilson

Tom Gilson — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:23:19 +0000

Ancius, you are contributing to other discussions, and you are more than welcome to do so. You’re welcome to contribute here, too, if it’s a substantive point you’re making.

Regarding your earlier comment here, however, an editorial decision was made and it stands, whether you understand it or not, and whether you agree with it or not. Enough said.

By: Ancius

Ancius — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:02:14 +0000

This response is not credible. Was it my use of the word “toilet” that required the deletion? (So will you now have to delete this comment?)

By: Tom Gilson

Tom Gilson — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:02:43 +0000

If I answered I would have to delete my own comment.

By: Ancius

Ancius — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:36:41 +0000

So what did lead the web editor to delete it?

By: Tom Gilson

Tom Gilson — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:16:31 +0000

Please feel free to comment, Ancius.

Please note, however, that I wrote this post intending it to be devotional literature, and I think most of us here do have an appreciation for it. Among the several things you mentioned in your comment, “devotional literature” was not what led First Things’ web editor to decide to delete it.

By: Ancius

Ancius — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:25:16 +0000

I see that my last comment was deleted. Would it help if I added an affirmation of devotional literature’s value?