A couple of days ago I criticised Adrian Warnock for censoring comments. He has shown the inconsistency, or at least the arbitrary application, of his comment policy by accepting the following comment – not written by himself, of course, in fact from an otherwise unidentifiable “Mark”:
every time I hear/read Driscoll he gets more and more obsessed and more and more extreme
while rejecting my much less ad hominem one, even when toned down to present the “accusation” as a question, like Adrian’s (in post titles) “Is N. T. Wright Preaching Another Gospel?” and “Does Piper Neglect the Resurrection?” But I am pleased to see in the latter post a critical evaluation of one of those I have called his idols.
Well, Adrian of course has the right to accept or reject comments as he wishes. But if he wants his blog to retain any respect or credibility the comments he should be rejecting are ones like anonymous Mark’s rather than mine.
Now I can understand Adrian wanting to get rid of the problem of comments completely. He wrote in a comment here on this blog
I am thinking seriously of nuking the whole concept of comments over at my place. I do hope you guys understand my dilemna.
Yes, Adrian, I understand your dilemma. Justin Taylor faces a similar one, and is also considering disabling comments. But I still feel that your problem is that you are over-sensitive. Blogging is like a kitchen, if you can’t take the heat you need to get out of it. Continue reading
