I’d really prefer not to have a comments policy at all. I’d really prefer not to moderate comments at all. But this is not a perfect world, alas.
So here, in a nutshell, is the policy for comments on this blog: politeness. If you don’t make it polite, it probably won’t get published. Period. It’s not “censorship”. This is not a government agency telling you what you can’t say. It’s a free country, and you can say whatever you want, somewhere. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that you can say it here. It’s editorial discretion, as any other site or publication has. It has nothing to do with whether or not you “agree” with the facts I present.
That’s the only absolute requirement, but there is one additional guideline that is strongly encouraged: relevance. Your comments should have something interesting to say. Opinion is vastly overrated; ideas and information are what make opinions and discussions interesting.
Do your homework; I certainly do mine. If you’re going to say I’m wrong about something, you’d better be able to back it up. I’ve certainly made a few mistakes in these posts, and I’m always grateful to people who point them out — although I’d probably spot them myself sooner or later, as I do retroactive quality checks. But I’ve never been wrong about the main thrust of an article, because I research exhaustively before hitting the Publish button. So don’t waste your time arguing that guns really do prevent millions of crimes a year, or that the moon landing really was faked.
Finally, don’t bother making comments about me personally. You don’t know me, and I’m not here to discuss myself. I’m just not that interesting, compared to the topics I write about.
It’s possible that some comments will violate all of these principles and still be published; sometimes they offer something of value despite the intentions of the writer. But you’ll certainly improve your chances of seeing your comments posted here if you follow these commonsense recommendations.
The Propaganda Professor 
Hello POP,
I like the looks of your new website design but it seems that comments of mine are not being published (even after submitting them twice–and/or according to the rules).i.e. this is a problem I have encountered periodically, Many times I have grown used to websites like this–but when a single update tosses out all the rules and leaves confused again! POP, It would be great if your websites are actually recorded real and verified facts to make everyone aware of the many politically motivated websites that are distorting the very real and large numbers of issues that are being ignored after partisan politics make them seem insurmountable,or less significant than they truly are?–So what gives?
Sorry, I haven’t noticed any comments from you lately but this one, and I’m not aware of any problem.
i just spent a couple of hours leaving a comment on you Sky Hook post, but it could not be posted unless I tried all of the passwords I have used over more than a year, or if I paid $60 to start my own blog. needless to say none of the passwords worked–what gives?
Sorry, I really have no idea. It’s a problem with WordPress, apparently.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second Amendment dilemma
In some 229 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.
I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.
If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)
The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.
It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned bt the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these right were to be applied to that “person.”
Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?
Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.
In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.
Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..
And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”
“[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;
The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall not infringe or encroach on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”
Finally, clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by common interest.
In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.
William Heino Sr.
Interesting comments. Thanks for your input.
Hello POP,
I have recently resolved my issues with wordpress and have left some comments on your website successfully. However, the first four comments of mine under your article about Christopher Columbus were meant to get your attention concerning a mistake I initially made by leaving a comment that was really meant for your article about whether the Internet censors conservatives. I found that I could not simply select and delete them, nor could I use the “cut,” option which is sometimes available for commenters, I also found I could not just backspace to delete all of my erroneous comments. So, could you please do me a favor and delete the first four (which should have been posted under your article about whether conservatives are being censored by the Internet)?
The last comment really is about Columbus, so you can keep that one. But, I wish you had a commenting program that allows commenters to edit their own comments, or at least gives writers the ability to delete their original posts and start again.
Sincerely, Peter W. Johnson
I believe I have approved and posted the one comment you wanted posted on Columbus. Check to make certain.
Hello POP, today March 7th 2022, I tried responding to your latest post but my comments were not posted after i finished them. I usually use FB where al lot of other strange things have been happening –Just wanted you to know about my difficulties.
Okay, thanks.
Several hours ago I left a comment under your article, “And Now for the Worst Response to Las Vegas,” but it still has not been posted. Does this mean I have done something wrong?
I think so far, “Anonymous” and I have been pretty constrained and proper in our responses to each other except for some of the usual snarky comments that have been made when we are frustrated by the others persistent failure to see our points. But, if it just takes a while for you to proof read comments, and you have just not gotten around to giving the green light to my most recent comments, than my apologizes for being unnecessarily concerned.
Is it common to delay comments for a day or two before you publish them? Or am I just letting my unnecessary concerns show by wondering about what seems to be an uncharacteristic delay? It just has always seemed to me that my comments have been posted more quickly than this. So forgive me if I am being anxious about something that is a normal part of your editorial approval process.
Respectfully Peter W. Johnson
Hi Peter, I just posted them a little while ago. Sorry, I’m been offline all day. Happens sometimes.
Thanks, I know that many websites take a while to post comments, but you have always seemed to post them promptly. So I guess, while thanking you, I should also accept that you might need to take a little time before approving my comments (if you need to).
Hello POP.
Once again I posted a comment under your “How I became the Propaganda Professor,” article and even thouogh you have me listed as doing so under the recent comments section also, I cannot find it at the bottom of the thread, or when I click on my own name in the recent comments list.
I know we’re all way too busy and I have a family medical crisis to attend to today, but never fear, I have left a copy of my comment in my word program and can post it again if that’s necessarry.
Something very strange is going on. I do see your (revised) comment on my administration page, and I show it as being approved. And on the actual web page, there are 3 comments noted, included yours. And yet it is not there. And after several attempts to post it again, it’s still not there. So yes, maybe you’d better just post it again.
I tried to get Geek squad to offer some feasible reason to explain why this happened but the best they could do is repeatedly telling me to try another browser, so this one is with wordpress on Google. First, they said “we haven’t heard of you for a long time’ (even though they gave me a tuneup only a few days ago)? And although I offered to show them exacty what my issue was (if they just opened a remote session with me). it seemed like they kept giving me the run around. So anyway, with this one I used wordpress on google along with my other email address. If it doesn’t work this time I’ll have to try and contact them tomorrow–hopefully they won’t give me more double talk and will then examine my PC with a remote session if my comment is not there once more?
Thanks for posting the better copy of my most recent post, under (I Want To Believe). I hope it doesn’t sound too preachy. I don’t really think that Christians have the market place of religious beliefs cornered. And I don’t really think of myself as a Christian–I just love to read about the life of Jesus, as well as the teachings of Buddha and other religious Icons. And sometimes I feel teh need to explain what makes intuitive sense to me, although what I perceive that what that is cannot be proven.
OOPS!
I meant to say–“And sometimes I feel the need to explain what makes intuitive sense to me, although what I perceive that to be, cannot be proven.