rcrocket wrote:I don't want to have to deal with the spam. If there is a solution to it I'll listen.
I don't get the complaints about anonymity. Robert Crockett had how many screennames on this board before his current one? Arguably, he's had more anonymous pseudonyms here than anyone.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
I don't have much to say about this. I can see why Bob would say that about me. I would quibble with one thing: I'm not active in the church, but my wife and 5 of my 6 children are.
Talk about pure cowardice. At least we dish it out here where critical feedback is welcomed.
You have been lurking here for more than a year and it turns out that after all is said and done, you're just another intellectual wussy who is looking to avoid debate while writing up apologetic pieces attacking those you're to scared to debate. Same as DCP's obsession with RFM. Avoid debate, but write up all kinds of stuff in a venue where critical feedback is not permitted.
What a puss.
Translation: Welcome back to the 8th grade, LifeOnaPlate.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
John's even-handed, articulate, informed opining really irks me, too. I don't think he should have strong opinions about anything!--least of all a religious institution that has shaped his life in a very significant way. Even if he just has to have them, the least he could do if keep them to himself. There's no need to burden others with his "opinions" in a public forum. Who cares, really?
What would really seal the deal for me though, what would take the proverbial cake, would be if John were to start a blog here in which he expressed his strong opinions about other posters while disallowing (contrary or even affirmative) comments to be posted. That would be too much.
I've got my eye on you, "John," if that is your real name (which is doubtful).
Talk about pure cowardice. At least we dish it out here where critical feedback is welcomed.
You have been lurking here for more than a year and it turns out that after all is said and done, you're just another intellectual wussy who is looking to avoid debate while writing up apologetic pieces attacking those you're to scared to debate. Same as DCP's obsession with RFM. Avoid debate, but write up all kinds of stuff in a venue where critical feedback is not permitted.
What a puss.
I don't want to have to deal with the spam. If there is a solution to it I'll listen.
Oh! I think there is a solution!
If you go to the link near the top of this page that says Blog CP, it will take you to a page where you can make administrative decisions about your blog.
One of the things you can do on that page is choose whom you wish to allow to respond to your blog. You can choose guests, registered users, friends only, weblog owner (you).
It is in a drop down window. If you choose registered users only option, then you won't get spammy responses.
It doesn't limit who views your blog (there is another option for that). It only limits who can respond.
rcrocket wrote:Blog is over. Hijacked and I am locked out. It was fun!
Bob
Throwing in the towel already, eh? Ah, well---it was fun while it lasted. by the way: there is no way you could have gotten "locked out", as you put it. The only contributors listed are Runtu and Kevin Graham. Are you trying to tell us that one of those two posters has made it somehow impossible for you to post to your own blog, Bob? I don't think that's very honest!