Sniping from the mud tower

Looks like I've provoked a clarification in AC Chase's comment policy. I think this is funny.

For one thing, you know, the term "troll" is too easily thrown around these days, it seems. That makes twice in one week that my on-topic comments, posted under "Rhology" with a link back to my own blog (that is up-to-date), have provoked the appellation "troll". People need to learn a bit what "troll" means. While they're at it, I'd like 'em to look into the definition of "objective" as well...

I hate also to leave comboxes unanswered, but I've had to recently. Oh well. I figure the reader profits most from the interaction, and I'm here to help the reader.
If a comment goes unanswered, it's up to the reader to figure out whether that unanswered comment really did respond substantively to the points it allegedly answers.
It's the philosophy of giving the interlocutor enough rope to hang himself. Apparently Alex does not subscribe to that idea.
But let's see if I didn't comply with his rules:

1. Stick to the topic at hand and be clear and concise.

Check.

2. If you expect respect, show some.

Check. And look how he responded to ME...

3. Anonymous commenting is not allowed, so don't do it.

I commented with my regular blogger ID.

4. If you are looking for a fight, argument and/or pointless, endless debate, don't waste your time. My readers & I won't be wasting our own time by sparring with you ad nauseum.

Look how I worded my original comment. It was intended as a clarification. It was only after he pretended to correct me that I came back. I'd say the argument is HIS doing.
And of course, if he doesn't want debates, why does he post such argumentative material? He's content to snipe behind adamantium walls rather than get his hands dirty. He's welcome to that approach!

5. Know when to comment and when it is more appropriate to e-mail me.

Why would I email him when I intend my clarifications and responses more for his lurkers than for him?

6. No spamming.

Check.

Basically, he's just excluded me b/c I made him uncomfortable. Like I said in the previous post, I thought he was all for free exchange of ideas and communications and such. I guess atheists get freer expression than others. This, my friends, is partly what we're up against in political discourse. Intolerance is not only redefined by the other side, it's redefined inconsistently.

He said:

A Comment Policy has been on my To-Do list for a while, but became an immediate priority today when an obnoxious, antagonist Christian

Let the reader judge who wins the gold star for being more obnoxious or antagonist.

I deleted the entire conversation, not wanting to give him, his blog or his childish tactics a venue (which is why this Christian, who I am sure is proud of himself, is not being identified now).

Haha, he didn't want to give me a venue? My heart is broken! As if I need pub from his blog. It would seem that I'm doing him a favor by linking to him and giving him all this attention. He could sure use it - check out his profile views as of 4March08:


As opposed to my own. There are tons of blogs out there with tons more traffic than mine, and that's totally fine with me, but for someone like him to throw that kind of rock at someone whose profile views outnumber his more than 10 to 1 is kind of funny to me.

Anyway, this was a fun sideshow, but there are greener pastures out there.