I went ahead and converted the blog to an ID form of entry with the idea that the trolls and foul-mouthed juveniles would be able to identified and at a minimum the sock puppeting would be more of an effort for them, and easier to eliminate for me.
The result has been unexpected and rather spectacular. All of the commenters evaporated, except two long time denizens. I can't be sure whether this is merely a brief hiatus or a back-into-the-closet moment for those who don't want any ID at all.
I long ago shed my actual full identity when an Atheist took offense and cyber-stalked me. That was interesting until the underlying malevolence became too apparent. That's when I took down my personal information from the "about" section.
I will not stalk anyone by using their sign-in ID; there generally is not enough info in an online ID to do that, anyway. All rational and mature commenters are welcome. The rules of the blog stand, but they are not that strict. They affect only the persistently abusive and the dogmatically irrational who refuse to acknowledge logical failure.
4 comments:
Shining a light into the darker corner does cause unsavory critters to scatter.
Looks like this is using the same principle :)
Stan
On the off chance this works, we'll both know.
Stan
On the off chance this works, we'll both know.
It's only a little more trouble to make up a new identity on Google or other place in order to come back and continue sniping.
However, laziness is a hallmark of the casual atheist. If it wasn't, they would eventually shake off people like PZ Meyers, whose appeal appears to be mainly that he'll do your thinking and your insulting for you.
It's specious, of course. But you get what you pay for. And if anyone fit into the 'I want something for nothing' crowd, it would be a good majority of the drive-by AtheoLeft wannabees I've seen here.
Also, and as a side note, why is it that whenever an article pops up on the internet - Christian Science Monitor, et al. - one that addresses human behavior, you inevitably see the statement 'it evolved'.
"It evolved" seems to be the fallback explanation of every thing that exists. It's used by scientists who should know better to describe change on a cosmic scale. It's a bloody magic wand, used to cover every instance (and there are many) where the speaker (or writer) should either *say* 'change' or should admit they don't *know* why.
I tried pointing this out the other day to a friend. The very same folks who will shout you down when you even remotely suggest that God might have had a hand in causing something - are the ones who blithely accept 'evolution' in its place.
As if they cannot stand that anything other than something thought up by a man should have that kind of power over them. Unfortunately, since men can change the meaning of the word 'evolution' anytime they want, it always ends up meaning whatever the speaker wants at that moment.
Some of my friends are very smart, but also blinded by their intelligence to the debilitating effects of their own spiritual pride.
Post a Comment