Thursday, January 01, 2009

Rules and Facts of the blog

1. You will be addressed in the style you choose. If you come in here slinging insults and acting disrespectfully, you will be treated with a contemptuous and derisive disdain that will, based on past experience, probably upset you. This is particularly true for visitors who are under the impression, mistaken or not, that they are far more intelligent than the average individual here. If instead, you elect to offer substantive and civil criticism, then you will meet with a similarly civil response. Because we are equally capable of polite intellectual discourse and appallingly creative verbal cruelty, the form the interaction will take is up to you. Vox Popoli is not an echo chamber, but it is also not the typical Internet cesspool where you can expect to get away with spouting factual nonsense or blatant illogic with impunity.

2. You are expected to back up your assertions, so don't be surprised if you happen to get called on them. If you fail to back up an assertion when called on it, but refuse to retract the statement, understand that we reserve the right to delete the relevant comment and all subsequent comments you attempt to make. If you are asked a direct question relevant to the topic, then you will be expected to answer it in a straightforward and non-evasive manner; providing links in lieu of answers is not acceptable. (Links providing additional information in support of your answer are great, of course.) The dishonest and evasive tactics that are so common in Internet argumentation are not permitted here. If you refuse to either answer a question or admit that you cannot answer it, then you will not be permitted to comment here and all of your subsequent comments will be deleted.

3. Cross-comments and off-topic comments will usually be deleted. If your comment gets deleted, deal with it. Don't try to argue with use about it. We don't care. If you have a serious problem with the deletion of a comment, then email us. More than one individual has managed to get himself banned by refusing to accept the reality that his precious comment was seen to be of no value here and deleted.

4. This is not a democracy. Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. If you are instructed not to comment here, for whatever reason, then please go share your unique gems of wisdom somewhere else. There are thousands of blogs out there and perhaps some will value them; we clearly don't. So, just go away, this isn't an appropriate venue for you to work out your personal issues for our entertainment. On a related note, please don't respond to the trolls. There are at least fifteen people who have been banned that insist on trying to comment here from time to time under different names; just ignore them as someone will get around to deleting their comments as well as the comments of those who respond to them soon enough.

5. You are expected to be polite to your fellow commenters, especially if you don't know them. The regulars, who have been commenting here for years and know each other reasonably well, often engage each other in a vicious and vituperative manner that you should not try to imitate because you are not an accepted part of the group yet. Take your best shot, by all means, but attack the idea, not the individual.

6. The long-time regulars will always be favored over drive-by commenters.

7. Don't make assumptions about the regulars here. They're not all Christians, much less Creationists. Most are not libertarians. A fair number are not Americans. And some don't even play computer games or read SF/F fiction. They do, however, tend to skew much more intelligent and broadly educated than you're probably accustomed to encountering.

8. If you haven't read The Irrational Atheist, don't bother trying to critique it sight unseen. You're wrong. Your arguments are not new and they have been brought up many times before, usually by atheists who are smarter than you are. While you won't be banned, you will be humiliated, and even your fellow atheists will point at you and laugh.

9. Do not attempt to hijack posts and direct the discourse towards a subject of more interest to you; if you are interested in a discussion of a particular subject, email a request. Any insertion of evolution or Creationism into a post that is not directly and specifically related to either subject will be deleted. Repeated efforts to do so will result in banning. Monomanias of any kind are not permitted.

10. If you have made several comments that lead a moderator to observe you have nothing interesting to contribute to an ongoing discussion, we reserve the right to tell you to stop commenting on that post. A refusal to abide by that decision will lead to a bann.

11. In general, you will be well-served if you stop to think for thirty seconds and read everything twice before responding to it. It's also wise to ask if your assumptions are correct before launching critical attacks. This blog has been around for 12 years, so the chances are fairly good that your argument was presented and successfully dismissed long before you first formulated your thoughts on the subject. Remember, there are few original thoughts under the sun.

12. If you have repeatedly shown yourself to be the sort of petty, ankle-biting critic who has no genuine interest in discussion or debate, but merely wishes to criticize by any means necessary, it is very unlikely that you will receive a response. This failure to respond should not be interpreted as the difficulty of the former or the strength of the latter. If you are not willing to argue in good faith, then there is absolutely no need to pay any attention to you. Furthermore, if you are one of the small group of persistent anklebiters who insist on making the same tedious and incompetent attacks over and over again, your comments will be deleted.

13. Attempts to claim that a refusal to further engage with a commenter whose arguments have repeatedly been demonstrated to be flawed are the result of cowardice or an inability to respond are false and will be deleted.

14. If you give a moderator reason to believe that you are not interested in honest, straightforward interaction, he will simply spam your comments. Continued attempts to post comments here will be considered harassment and dealt with accordingly. The police have already intervened twice to deal with cyberstalkers harassing this blog and it will not be a problem to identify you and contact your local authorities if necessary.

15. Vox Popoli is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to

16.  No data from visitors is collected, used, stored, or disclosed except for information provided via the Blogger comments and whatever data is collected by Google and used, stored, or disclosed by Google.

29. These Rules may in no case be interpreted contrary to the purposes and principles of Vox Day, as solely determined by Vox Day.



Blogger Unknown February 11, 2013 6:35 PM  

Mr Day: My name is Floyd Sours and I am the author of a book called Burnt Offerings. I am in process of writing a book on New Deal Economics and have spent considerable time reading your book, The Return of the Great Depression. I have two questions: first, your graph on page 106 titled US GDP vs Fiscal and Monetary Policy is very interesting. Can I have you Email a copy of it to me for use in my book? I'll, no doubt, need your source for that graph as well as permission to use it. Second, You state in your appendix that FA Hayek's book, The Collected Works of FA Hayek Volume IV is your source for the Austrian Business Cycle Theory. I'm having trouble finding that book and The Road to Serfdom seems more a philosophical argument against governmental central planning than a economic theory. Can you tell me where I might get a book that can depict the Austrian theory? By the way, your book is very readable and has enlightened me considerably concerning other economic theories. Keep up the good work. Floyd

Anonymous bob k. mando February 15, 2013 6:12 AM  

Vox's email is in the upper left under the 'contact' tag. and Vox Day is a pseudonym.

Blogger Redric is Lost October 18, 2015 10:51 AM  

Hello. My name is Benjamin. I happened upon SJW's always lie on Amazon and it hit me right where it counts. I am an avid SF reader as time permits, and I have been lamenting the state of the genre for some time. I thought it was just me slowly petrifying. I have appreciated and enjoyed what I have read here. I have enjoyed some of the authors that you mark as SJW's, but in general I don't read *about* the authors I read until I have bought a couple of their books. I do find some of the themes that surface in modern SF disquieting. I am capable of rational thought on occasion, and I can string words together to say stuff so it's like, the stuff I mean. I don't actually have much to add, but I am new and wanted to hail the house as I entered.

Blogger Kallmunz December 27, 2015 1:46 PM  

It's amusing to see Doctorow refer to the cow as Scalzi's "amazing" wife. Have you ever seen a woman referred to as "amazing" or "awesome" that wasn't a complete bore? In years past we would have said that she "has a nice personality" now it's "amazing."

Blogger Harris March 04, 2016 7:59 PM  

At CPAC, Kasich predicts brokered convention. Rubio stops campaigning in all states except Florida, in hopes of denying Trump enough delegates so there will be a brokered convention. Mitt Romney is trotted out on Thuraday, encouraging everyone to vote in whichever state for the most popular non Trump candidate. The Establishment has conceded that they cannot win, but refuse to drop out.

Meanwhile, Cruz tells CPAC today that a brokered convention will cause a revolt all across America. Cruz us going to pull out all the stops to beat Trump head up. But he refuses to take part of the Establishment plan to block Trump by spurious methods. If Cruz loses, he will take it like a man, not be the whiny birches that the Establishment guys are promising to be.

It is worth repeating. Between Trump and Cruz, they have 545 delegates. The rest of the field, who incredibly still think they can find a way to win, have 150 delegates.

The Establishment is losing, and losing badly.

Blogger Wayne Phillips April 07, 2016 10:02 PM  

I read The Irrational Atheist a few weeks ago. Your figure of roughly 215,000 deaths during the Civil War surprised me. Did you only take into account the Confederacy?

Anonymous Dave June 16, 2016 8:51 PM  

From about 1957 to 1962 my aunt wrote two novels and a bunch of short stories and tried to get them published, but all were rejected. I found the manuscripts in her house, under fifty years of spinster clutter, after she died in 2012. I read a few of the short stories and threw them away, but haven't attempted the novels yet. It all read like something an over-educated upper-middle-class white girl with no real-life experience would write.

Anonymous Anonymous September 03, 2016 9:37 PM  

I listened to you on Molyneux and was impressed enough to follow your link here. Alas, as so often is the case, a closer inspection disappoints. The format of the site is not engaging, and neither is the tone. There’s an imperiousness, an intemperance about the writing that any traditionalist should find off-putting. The rules regarding commenting strike me as especially heavy-handed and narrow-minded. There appears to be an imperative need to delete everything and anything outside the privileged in-group’s wonted expectations. And the sneering boasts about superior mental attainments sound juvenile and absurd, especially given the gaming provenance of so many of you. If a commenter comes up short in debate (by what criterion we can only guess), why would that necessitate deleting his entire argument? Arguments stand or fall on their own merits and have nothing to do with “regulars.” or cliques. You brag that it’s “not a democracy.” Fine. But does that mean it’s a police-state? Your “finish him” attitude toward the intellectual arena would seem to owe more to Nintendo than Socrates.

Blogger Unknown September 09, 2016 1:20 AM  

Hey VOX!!

Saw you on Molyneux RE Alt-Right. You stated around 17:00 that Germans and others don't understand English common law because they aren't English / indigenous to the concept of this form of law. Sorry, but you are WAY wrong. Common Law, also known as Anglo Law is known as such from the Anglo Saxons, a GERMANIC TRIBE that dominated 5th century Brittany and conquered over 90+% of the indigenous DNA. .

According to Britannica's web site, Common Law: The Origin of the Common Law, "...The Anglo-Saxons, especially after the accession of Alfred the Great (871), had developed a body of rules resembling those being used by the Germanic peoples of northern Europe. Local customs governed most matters, while the church played a large part in government. Crimes were treated as wrongs for which compensation was made to the victim..."

"...Elements of the Anglo-Saxon system that survived were the jury, ordeals (trials by physical test or combat), the practice of outlawry (putting a person beyond the protection of the law), and writs (orders requiring a person to appear before a court; see below The development of a centralized judiciary). Important consolidation occurred during the reign of Henry II (1154–89). Royal officials roamed the country, inquiring about the administration of justice. Church and state were separate and had their own law and court systems. This led to centuries of rivalry over jurisdiction, especially since appeals from church courts, before the Reformation, could be taken to Rome..." (Glendon, Klralfy & Lewis, 2016) .

Also attached is a PDF from Harvard of an Oxford dissertation on Anglo-Saxon law, describing the progression to common law. Though common law did not exist in recognizable form until the Norman conquest era (Normans from Frankish (also Germanic) lands) known as France today which took these existing principles and evolved them into the familiar common law format we recognize.

They did IN FACT ORIGINATE from Anglo-Saxon I.E. GERMANIC LAW STANDARDS AND PRACTICES WHICH INSPIRED THEM. In the preable the autor writes, "...Historically, though, what made the Common Law common was that fact that it was the system of law which was common to the whole of England, as distinct from the various local customary laws from which the common law was drawn. It is not always realized that the Common Law can be traced back through these customary laws to Anglo-Saxon times and to Anglo-Saxon law - but I am sure that in so learn_d an audience as this I need hardly make this point." (Burr & Inn, 2007)

So you see, this "English" common law you tout that the Germans can't understand, is at its earliest beginnings, its root; PURELY GERMAN!!! You might be better served to do your own research if your help can't do better than this for you............

C. Franks (Surmise the origin of THAT last name! ;-D )

Anonymous Anonymous February 06, 2017 2:56 PM  

GJ Tryon: I too shared in that sense of disappointment, which impatience stems from decaying civilization. I had failed to acknowledge the fact that civilization *was* in decay. My resentment of that decay was misdirected at those, such as Vox, who had already acknowledge the facts of life and were acting upon them.

Civilizing is never as much fun as being civilized. It will not be pleasant for those who take responsibility for it. Those of us who choose not to participate are the prize - not the culmination - of the victors.

Blogger Jack Ward July 15, 2017 5:08 PM  

Milo is Milo. Probably a unique one of a kind. justified so, I say. Guess I'll have to buy the ebook to check out all the hoopla. And, support Milo, of course.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey August 14, 2018 8:12 AM  

Austin had worked at the Department of Housing and Urban Development for seven years before he took off on his bike ride in July 2017.

Just investigating what Section 8 is really like.

Blogger Blunt Force May 26, 2019 11:31 AM  

The FBI has always been more the political tool than actual law enforcement.

BTW, can't wait to see the new BBC docu-drama shedding new light on the Martin Luther King paradox.

I Made Her Scream

Blogger RebelNinja October 10, 2019 10:35 AM  

I just wanted to thank you for reinvigorating my frontal lobe. You are actually the first present day writer/philosopher who stimulates my brain with joyous contemplation. Owen brought you to my attention, for which I am very grateful and I hope for your continuing success while success is obtainable in the market place.
Thank you for humbling me on more than one occasion.

Blogger Writer of Britain October 03, 2020 4:08 AM  

I read through the rules. Have genuine appreciation for the wisdom and information I've gained from you. Not being sycophantic or anything but it has to be said.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein October 19, 2020 6:29 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Peter November 08, 2020 2:35 PM  

It is difficult to dismiss this prediction...

Blogger Les Garnet January 22, 2021 12:53 PM  

Hey I'm sorry but I don't know how to contact you directly, here it is January 22 2021. Why is Blieden not being flown on military aircraft, but President Trump is, Monkey Werx Milspecops latest, something is going on behind the scenes.

Thank you for your efforts and awesome blog.

Blogger dangerfield January 26, 2021 11:34 PM  

I don't mean to go off the deepend but I swear this is an android beta test

Blogger MordWa February 09, 2021 2:20 PM  

There is one (sideways) benefit to having Driscoll be able to post at Instapundit; he sometimes re-posts Jonah Goldberg, and the resulting comment sections are uniformly and hilariously brutal towards both of them. It's a hate-read, but I'm okay with that.

Blogger ZPhe February 15, 2021 12:31 PM  

Well, boomers will have to "Carry That Weight" of ruining the U.S.A. "a long time".

Blogger ฺฺ็Harry March 22, 2021 12:00 AM  

Every new day is another chance to change your life.

Blogger Roslyn Johnson April 09, 2021 2:10 PM  

Dear Prince Philip - Duke of Edinburgh - may our Lord Jesus Christ embrace you.

Blogger JB very important comments June 16, 2021 5:58 PM  

We are already noticing quaternary and higher functional information from DNA. The potential for emergent "intelligence" at the cellular and organism level outside of the CNS is enormous. Far greater than any concept of quantum computing that is foreseeable. Neuroscientists and molecular biologists have been speculating on this for years, but it is not like cosmology and some areas of theoretical physics where you can circulate wild untestable (currently) conjectures and get people taking it seriously. The scientists doing the work in these areas do take it serious. The ones with the imagination and intelligence to see the edges of some vary complex patterns.

I never felt that scientific and Christianity diverge from each other.

People are very protective of their concepts of self and consciousness. Very protective. There is ample evidence some of these protections are hard wired on purpose.

When you get down into the nuts and bolts of biochemistry it is not always elegant or efficient or even logical, but it gets the job done. I wonder have always wondered at how people can be so blind as to accept a Darwinian model of evolution. When I learn interesting new ideas it is pretty normal to want to find alternative explanations and see if they could also fit.

It is a real pet peeve of mine is when professors present evolution as some binary choice between extremes of creatio ex nihilo and pure random chance. Talk about dogma in science. They only like to label 'safe' dogmas as dogmas.

Blogger DerBullet June 18, 2021 3:11 PM  

Day of the pillow is just an accelerated finish for those who die with the most toys win.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts