That’s all fine. Ideally, Dr. Charles should be willing to accept comments on his own blog. But he seems to be getting plenty of criticism elsewhere. For example, Chuckles1 suggests the following:
I’m asking all readers of Science Blogs to delete their bookmarks and RSS feeds until this coward either deletes his post or opens up the comments for discussion….
Take a minute to email the Science Blog company Seed Media and tell them to give this whippersnapper a good spanking.
Now here’s the thing: Seed has no editorial authority over our content. None. That’s part of the deal, and I wouldn’t want it any other way. Plenty of the other ScienceBloggers say things I disagree with — happens all the time. Each blog has its own commenting policy, too — that’s because some of us are busier than others and can’t handle the volume of spam comments might generate.
Furthermore, most of Dr. Charles’ post in this case simply quotes the WSJ (no comments) and Wikipedia (comments allowed, but banished to a little-viewed back channel). Why doesn’t Chuckles1 ask readers to tell Wikipedia and WSJ what’s what?
I do agree that it’s a little sketchy of Charles to suspend comments on this one post while allowing comments on others, but again, he may just not want to deal with the volume of shit that’s inevitably going to be generated by the post. Chuckles1 may not like it, but there are plenty of other public forums (like Kos) where he can complain about it. But Chuckles1 shouldn’t go whining to Seed to deal with Dr. Charles. It’s called free speech, Chuckles!
Funny, I would have told him in his comments section, but guess what? You have to register in order to comment, and in any case, you can’t comment for at least 24 hours after you register (even that function appears to be broken). So non-regulars can’t comment on a post there before it’s doomed to blogging obscurity. Who’s the coward now?
Certainly it isn’t Seed. They’re the ones who’ve given all ScienceBloggers the freedom to say whatever we want.