An inconvenient comment?

An exciting new blog However, I’m insulted that An Open Mind has got on their bad-boys list and I’m not. I thought I was notorious for rejecting inconvenient comments? Anyway, *I* suggest that you all try to make a comment on this post here, I’ll reject them all, and you can get me added to their list of blogs. Of course, if they reject your comments then we can start a blog for that.

[Comments here are now closed]

29 thoughts on “An inconvenient comment?”

  1. Okay, I scanned through the latest ten posts over there. Past performance may be no guarantee etc. but I’d say that site isn’t going to the top of anyone’s must-read list.

    #10 has no inconvenient comments.

    #9 has no inconvenient comments.

    #8 has no inconvenient comments.

    #7 has no inconvenient comments.

    #6 has no inconvenient comments.

    #5 has no inconvenient comments.

    #4 has one inconvenient comment. Apparently someone submitted three rather silly comments to Tamino’s site and he declined to let them through moderation.

    #3 has no inconvenient comments.

    #2 has one inconvenient comment. In a RealClimate post, Eric Steig joked about both Hansen and Christie complaining about the peer review process (“If both feel the peer review process is biased against them, it must be working rather well.”) Somebody was apparently offended by this, and wrote a rather huffy two-line comment that doesn’t show up on RC.

    #1 has no inconvenient comments.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.


  2. After three comments on a thread at American Thinker I was banned and the comments deleted. I could try again and save the comments this time.


  3. [Deleted because I am a censoring propaganda machine, and my secret slush fund requires that I don’t free the code, data and blog comments – W]

    Has anybody tried to pretend to be you before?

    [Noooo… cunning. Hmm, I think I’ll leave this one up -W]


  4. That’s not a new blog, it’s ancient (but a dismal failure in its intent). The web isn’t a write-only medium you know. Obviously members of the scienceblorgosphere don’t bother to actually keep up with the real world (“real”? shome mishtake shirley).

    [You’re right, I did -W]


  5. Thinking of Watts and his contributions to science …

    It will be a CO2-snowing day in Antarctica before you dare to delete this!


  6. My comment deleted from here was also deleted at Inconvenient Comment! It’s a conspiracy!

    [Right, that means you need to start you *own* blog to post nonsense on 🙂 -W]


  7. W- Read this then delete:

    “All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.”

    Read more:

    [W00t! I’m not deleting that. Thanks for letting me know – apparently this is causing something of a fuss. I may actually be obliged to read this trash. Incidentally – despite the attempt to link this to swifthack – as far as I can tell, none of my nefarious off-wiki collaboration came out in the mails -W]


  8. Ha! You not only deleted my creepy crawly worm post (after 14, before current 15) but you also removed the evidence of that, as you’ll remove this evidence of that evidence of that. But I can post more evidence ….

    oh, wait, I’m done.
    Rules of Go about ladders ought to apply.


  9. Re #20: Luke, Solomon refers to things being wikidisappeared at William’s “hand,” but I happen to know that W., being of a poetic bent, prefers “mailed fist.”

    Re #24: That would be the ko rule, Hank. Ladders are allowed to run on to the bitter end.


Comments are closed.