Blog Operations Policy

Down yonder a situation arose which I thought I might ought to comment on in the main blog area as it pertains to how I do things generally on the blog.

Basically, I linked a story that I wrote on St. Patrick some years ago, and a reader challenged some of the things it said. He didn’t provide any scholarly sources for me to look stuff up in, he simply said that some of the things were wrong.

Then a couple of days go by and he writes back and says:

Gezz, Jimmy; I was hoping you’d have proved me wrong by now. If not, then I think your article should be revised accordingly.

Just a thought.

I think this would be a good occasion to explain how I handle such challenges, as from time to time they get made in the comments box.

I operate on the rule that not everybody has to agree with me. In fact, that’s Rule 1. It’s why I don’t delete every comment disagreeing with me or feel the need to argue against it vociferously. I don’t have to have the last word on everything.

A converse of this rule is that I don’t have to agree with you, either, and so we can just politely disagree. I may, therefore, choose to let stand both what I wrote and the comment disagreeing with it and people can make up their own minds about it.

I also often sit back and let others weigh in on a subject rather than jumping all over it myself. I may have an answer handy, but I may let others kick the issue around and have their say. The blog is a community, and it’s a friendlier place that way.

I may eventually respond, but only when I have time. That is a commodity in short supply for me. When I have 276 e-mails in my Gmail inbox awaiting answers, that’s almost 300 new issues I have to deal with. Going back and doing research to deal with a challenge to an old issue  may not be at the top of the priority list–especially when it involves an article I wrote years ago and when the challenge is not sourced in a way that makes it easy for me to look up the basis of the challenge.

Also, given the amount of activity on the blog, I may simply forget that the challenge is there, especially if it doesn’t get e-mailed to me per my prior request.

The upshot is that I can’t promise to respond to every challenge. So here’s the compromise that I can offer: Except in Rule 20 situations, you get to have your say, other people get to see it and make up their own minds, and if I’m able, I’ll try to respond at some point if my schedule permits.

Hope that’s satisfactory.

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

5 thoughts on “Blog Operations Policy”

  1. I was the one who made the quoted comment, and I apolgoize if I did not do so in a polite, tactful manner.
    Regarding Saint Patrick, it’s common knowledge that there is no documented evidence for his evr having any direct or indirect contact with the Pope. By all accounts, it appears he conducted his mission without any recourse for papal approval.
    The only authentic writings of his are his “Confessions” and “Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus.” And there is nothing in these that runs contrary at least to Anglican Protestantism.
    Does this make Saint Patrick a Protestant? No, of course not. Ecclesiology 1500 years ago was not such where papal approval was necessary for every episcopal consecration or missionary venture. This only came about later.
    We know Saint Patrick was Catholic because of all the other documented evidence available which show that the orthodox Church that he belonged to was Catholic. We can quote Catholic distinctives from his contemporaries.
    This is how we should demonstrate his Catholicity, not by appealing to late apocryphal details which give him more Papal affiliation than he actually had in real life.
    And since you’re the one, Jimmy, who wrote the apologtic tract to begin with, I was rather disappoiunted to see how many of the specific facts you mentioned were not documented; at least not the ones regarding Patrick’s ties to the Papacy.
    I’m sorry if I came across haughty, just plain rude. You don’t deserve that, Jimmy. You’re a far more learned man than myself, and you run a terrific blog.
    Eric

  2. Hi Jimmy!
    What if I decide to disagree with your permitting diagreement on the blog?

  3. Jimmy,
    Since I am one of the ignorant masses, I can’t ever imagine that I would disagree with you! I do, however, thoroughly enjoy your blog!

Comments are closed.