"Dr. Bauder has thrown Dr. Dollar, Dr. Beale, Dr. Moritz, Dr. Sidwell, and Dr. Pickering under the bus"

Crazier books have been selfpublished at the cost of many fine trees.

[RPittman] I think you’re on the wrong side defending those who responded to venom with venom… It doesn’t matter whose team I’m on. So, I think you’re way off base if I understand your post correctly.

No, I don’t think you are understanding my post. I am not defending anyone, but I am pointing out that when we respond to venom with venom, the substance of the debate gets lost in all the ‘witty repartee’. I also think when we start thinking in terms of ‘teams’ and ‘camps’, we’ve stopped dealing in sound doctrine or seriously searching for truth.

[RPittman] Brian has approved and posted the Ketchum comment but not the one addressed to him. There may be a reason because I took Brian to task for the off-handed way he made it look as if Dr. Bauder was not clear in his article. He thanked Dr. Bauder for clarification as if it was Bauder’s lack of clarity at fault. Wrong! Mr. Brian misconstrued Dr. Bauder and committed the error of making his folly public.

See my [brief] post #6 in this thread. Someone who follows that particular blog and agrees so often with its author would likely use exactly the same methods on his own blog that are so on display there. There is a reason the author of that blog no longer has posting privileges here. Now, what Brian does on his own blog is of course, up to him, and he is certainly welcome to follow blogs and allow posts from those who are banned here. However, such behavior as you are referring to will not be tolerated here. Dissenting opinions are fine, if expressed in the right spirit, sometimes even if expressed strongly (like Don tends to do, though he gets respect for being a stand-up guy, and admitting when he’s gone too far). Intentional dishonesty or repeated misrepresentation of others words will not be tolerated at SI.

Still, while it’s fair to point out that any criticism at the blog referenced in this thread is being suppressed, let’s not turn this thread into complaints about how other blogs are run.

I don’t have an argument with you. I made a comment about your comment, and now we are just commenting on each other’s comments, and we are in serious danger of becoming redundant. I’m allergic to redundant. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sick005.gif It’s also bad news to be lost in a morass. Do you know what that will do to your complexion?

[RPittman] No, it’s not worth the bandwidth. Are you saying that I ought not have posted my comment? Many of those guys over there read SI, although not members, and SI gave me a venue for redress of grievances. I would have taken SI to task for the same thing.

Yes and no. Yes, I’m saying that, because I understand why you posted it, but we really don’t want SI to become a place to post comments about other sites that should have been posted there, but couldn’t because they were censored. No, because I think it’s reasonable to point out that the discussion on the blog site regarding the post that was filed here at SI is being censored. Basically I’m saying the information was good, but we’re not a “venue for redress of grievances” that didn’t occur here, so it would be better to have left it more as info rather than as it came out, which was more as a complaint.

In any case, if you see SI intentionally misconstruing or obfuscating what someone said to twist its meaning, please *do* hold us to account (in the spirit of the site regulations, of course).