THINKING ANGLICANS

About Comments

The editors of Thinking Anglicans (Simon S, Peter and Simon K) have recently discussed the question of comments on TA, and we are agreed that we should encourage ‘good commenting’. WIth that in mind, I am republishing a post I made in June 2007

We have noticed an increasing tendency by some commenters to make ad hominem or derogatory comments about other people — sometimes about other commenters and perhaps more often about people in the news.

We want discussions here to be conducted in a spirit of Christian charity and we are going to take a strong line on this. We will not approve comments that include ad hominem remarks. Comments on someone else should concentrate on their words or deeds. People should be accorded their proper names and/or titles, not a pretend or derogatory name or sarcastic title preferred by the commenter. Please note that this applies to people on all sides of discussions.

Secondly, we reiterate a plea we made a year ago: ‘please consider seriously using your own name, rather than a pseudonym. While we do not, at this time, intend to make this a requirement, we do wish to strongly encourage the use of real names.’

We hope that if commenters were to respond in this spirit then discussions would be better, the level of debate would be higher, and we would be doing a little more to bring about the kingdom of God.

23
Leave a Reply

avatar
23 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
22 Comment authors
Stevie GambleevensongjunkiePat O'NeillJCFDavid Keen Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Cynthia Gilliatt
Guest
Cynthia Gilliatt

Thanks for this timely reminder. I know I have been guilty of snide ad hom comments, and am glad that y’all have gently not posted them.

We have just had in the States a more nasty mid-term election than I can remember, and am in my 60s. It coursens public discourse, and is, sadly, like the flu, catching.

Thanks again.

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

Thank you, Hosts of ‘Thinking Anglicans’ You have given all of us food for thought – on the need for courtesy on this site. I feel that the witness value of good argumentation that T.A. encourages – without resorting to personal invective against fellow commentators – is one of the reasons this blog site is so popular – among both liberal and not-so-liberal visitors. I, personally, will do my very best to comply with the ethics of the site, and ask that anyone who may have been insulted by me in the past will forgive me. I publish under my… Read more »

Lister Tonge
Guest
Lister Tonge

I had for a long time thought that ‘Feeling…’ would have been more accurate in your title than ‘Thinking…’ so I am glad to see the policy restated. The sheer level of bile in the comments sometimes keeps me away from the site for long periods (partly because I want to resist making a similar, reactive response). Having once been savaged for something posted in all innocence but presumed to be sardonic, I’d also draw attention to some wisdom of Ignatius Loyola: ‘…it should be supposed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy

Let’s see exactly what you mean by this.

Am I permitted to characterize the Archbishop of Canterbury as “spineless”?

In my view, his deeds and words fully warrant that description.

Leonardo Ricardo
Guest

Sorry, I´m a violator. I won´t qualify my apology but simply will try harder to not get furious with the various realities at the Anglican Communion that upset me.

Thank you for providing this top notch information source for me and others throughout the Anglican Communion.

Leonardo Ricardo/Leonard Clark Beardsley
Central America

Chris Smith
Guest
Chris Smith

I am just as guilty as others when it comes to my instant emotional reactions to statements made by leaders of both the Anglican and Roman Catholic Communions. I apologize if my comments have hurt others and I will make a concerted effort to be more sensitive and charitable. Sometimes it is quite difficult to frame all of my comments based solely on another person’s words and deeds because those words and deeds have serious ramifications and consequences to the disenfranchised, but I do believe a higher level of discourse is always the best way forward. I heartily agree that… Read more »

JCF
Guest
JCF

Or how ’bout ad hominems ONLY if they’re as catchy as Tim Minchin is about Josef Ratzinger? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0 😉

But seriously, I will TRY to clean up my virtual mouth. I do see ALL people as being made in the Image and Likeness of God (and *infinitely loved* by their Creator) . . . but sometimes Yours Truly’s Imago Dei gets caught w/ a bit of a log in the eyes. Bother…

Sara MacVane
Guest
Sara MacVane

Thank you. I too have been guilty and am grateful to be reminded that discourteous remarks are never helpful.

Richard Ashby
Guest
Richard Ashby

Thanks. I wonder if I ought to adopt a policy of not responding to posts until 24 hours after I have seen them. Then it would be clearer whether it actually matters very much and whether I want/need to say anything at all.

Suem
Guest

I agree completely and consider this a wise move. Unfortunately the instantaneous nature of commenting can cause all of us to sometimes make comments that we might later regret. Also, when feelings run high, it is not always easy to discern the boundary between strongly expressed opinion/ feeling and offensive personal attack.

Dodgy_Vicar
Guest
Dodgy_Vicar

Thank you for this timely reminder.
I post only rarely, yet use a pseudonym for fear of victimisation by Mother Church and her representatives here in the CofE.

The Rev'd Prof James Meredith Day
Guest
The Rev'd Prof James Meredith Day

Bravo! I have contributed comment here, faithfully, diplomatically, and with good will, and found, even when I was not the object of, well, to put it politely, caustic, remarks having little or nothing to do with the gist of what I’d written, there were so many postings that were just plain cruel, and meant to be, with the poster obviously relishing the hurt that was to be inflicted, or had been, that I’ve not even read the comment sections of postings in months on this site. Here’s hoping things improve. Thanks, as ever, for your efforts!
James

Sarah
Guest
Sarah

Thank you, both for providing a wonderful service, and for this reminder. I also appreciate how quick all the above commenters have been to apologize for their part in any debasing of discourse. However vitriolic the debate can sometimes be here, it’s great always to know that the authors are ready to repent. I’ve been lurking a while, and even when people are at their angriest, I’d reckon that most commenters here are generally well-intentioned and considerate, and I get a lot out of reading the comments as well as the main posts here, so thank you all.

Peter Gross - peterpi
Guest
Peter Gross - peterpi

Thank you Simons & Peter for your reminder. Forgive me, my brothers and sisters, for I too have strayed, mea culpa.
If it’s real names you want, I’ll use both it and my pseudonym.
I can get testy when I see statements I consider outrageous, but then those who disagree probably see some of my statements as outrageous as well.
But …
I second Jeremy’s question on Saturday, 13 November 2010 at 12:39am GMT

Robert Ian Williams
Guest
Robert Ian Williams

There should be no more hiding behind false names…..then this reformation can really be valid.

Counterlight
Guest
Counterlight

I will add my mea culpa to the list.

Simon Sarmiento
Guest

Concerning pseudonyms, we have said that they are discouraged. What I really do find irritating though is that a few people change their pseudonym frequently. This really is unnecessary. You know who you are…

Simon Kershaw
Guest

Jeremy asks: ‘Am I permitted to characterize the Archbishop of Canterbury as “spineless”?’ I suggest not. That would be an ad hominem comment. But it would be reasonable to outline why you consider a particular stance taken to be ‘spineless’. We don’t want a banal, boring place. A bit of colour is a good thing. But it should be within the bounds of decency, fairness, good taste, etc etc, and as noted before, Christian charity, towards those we disagree with as well as to those with whom we might agree. (And of course on different topics these might be the… Read more »

David Keen
Guest
David Keen

I clearly wasn’t paying attention at school, can I ask what ‘ad hominem’ means?

All in favour of a focus on the ball rather than the player. Thankyou for restating this.

JCF
Guest
JCF

Re pseudonyms: when I first started posting on TA 5 years ago or so, I used my real name.

Then I began thinking realistically: I could be forthright about being queer, queer, queer—or I could give myself HALF a chance to be employed in a Christian context. But probably not both. I’ll happily switch back when Christian homophobia has expired!

Pat O'Neill
Guest
Pat O'Neill

“Ad hominem”–from the Latin, literally “to the man”

It means a statement that discusses the person, as opposed to the person’s position or comment. Think of it as the difference between “You’re stupid” and
“What a stupid thing to say”.

evensongjunkie
Guest
evensongjunkie

I know that I’m more than guilty at letting my temper fly away on this blogsite, but when I hear the ‘bigot’s have got rights too’ arguments in many variations, my blood boils. I’m sorry if I’ve offended, consider it my hillbilly background. Now that’s one area you can make fun off, ’cause it’s true!

Bradley Upham
Lakewood, Ohio USA

Stevie Gamble
Guest
Stevie Gamble

I have been in very considerable physical pain for some weeks now, and when it reaches that level of intensity it is extraordinarily difficult to focus on anything other than one’s pain, even though I am far more accustomed to it than most people and should, therefore, be able to deal with it more easily. It occurs to me that perhaps the same thing is true of intense spiritual pain, and that as a consequence we lash out at the people we perceive as causing us that pain simply because it hurts so very much; we may then fail to… Read more »