Rules On Comments May 3 09
By bock - Posted on May 3rd, 2009
We have been wrapping up the semester and news has been slow. So we have not posted new entries for some time. I still am responding every day to comments on previous posts, something that is taking more time because of all the posts that are now up--and the comments that are coming in. However here is a rule all who comment need to be aware of from here on. If you post and leave an embedded web site so in effect you are advertizing on this site, then the entry is automatically removed and never posted. I have probably pulled one a day of these over the last few months. You can offer all the compliments or engage the topic, but if it has what is in effect an ad, then it will not be posted. So everyone is duly warned. Comment, engage, but do not advertise.
There is some discussion among bloggers about this post which has led to confusion. Do you mean that bloggers can't have a clickable name, or that bloggers can't link back to their own blog or another if there is a conversation related to or directly caused by your post? Or are you simply rejecting spammers who blatantly drop a comment as a pure advertisement for themselves with no relationship to the post?
Kind Regards...
Steph:
I am really after spammers, but if you wish to point to information on your own blog relevant to a discussion, I'd prefer you mentioning the site in the post and explaining its relevance tothatpost (a generic reference to the blog is not what I mean here either). Does that help?
dlb
Very much appreciate your blog and thanks for the guidelines; will certainly seek to abide accordingly.
I know you've commented briefly before on the New Perspective on Paul ala Wright, Sanders, but will you be adding a more elaborate post in light of Wright's response (his book "Justification") to Piper? Would sincerely appreciate your views here.
Paul:
You have an embedded cite, but I am responding. Yes, I will blog on the New Perspective soon because some of this conversation is excessive in its heat with both sides guilty of exaggerating the situation some in my view. Romans 4 is a problem for the new perspective, while traditionalists are slow to appreciate the value of understanding Judaism in first century terms when it comes to how it handles grace and law (without this cancelling the idea that Paul justly did accuse his opponents of legalism). How this works out I will try to explain down the road.
dlb
Does this mean you can explain the relevance and include a link to your own blog (on which there would be a link back to this blog) or will you not accept that link? I don't know what you mean by a generic reference to that blog .
Steph:
If the entry is relevant, and the link gives details on a point, then that will work. To cite the blog, just to cite the blog does not work. The blog must be relevant to biblical studies. I already had a violator today for beauty products, so it was not posted.
dlb
Post new comment