The case for banning, or Pogie’s Dilemma

One of the four people I have banned here was rightly shrill and angry, as the very post on which he attempted a comment (after only reading the last paragraph, his normal practice) was one in which I criticized Don Pogreba for his practice of banning people who are critical of him.

I do have justification, however. The people I have banned have nothing new to add, do not read posts (or books), and are deep in darkness. I saw this unattributed snippet [quote from French humorist Phillipe Geluck] on Facebook yesterday, and thought it appropriate to the situation here:


Banning them is not censorship so much as fatigue. They live in darkness and will never see any light. By definition, they cannot move forward in their thinking, because they cannot think.

Pogreba, on the other hand, bans for a different reason – he (and his stooges Talbot and Augustad) are hardly beacons on intelligence, but that is a side issue. They are caught up in groupthink. The characteristics of Pogreba’s groupthink environment are

  • He wants an environment of harmony and conformity;
  • He does not want his judgment (or quality thereof) questioned;
  • He does not want his blog to be a forum for critical evaluation of differing views;
  • And so isolates himself from outside influences.

That is quite different from merely removing some stupidity from the comment section. Pogreba is involved in serious censorship as a matter of self-preservation. He cannot survive in a free give-and-take environment.

Those not part of the Fantastic Four, on the other hand, are free to have at me, attacking not only my arguments, but bringing in their own views and sources too. They are also free to criticize my looks, demeanor and intelligence. I only ask that they be thoughtful and clever about it.

There! Seven enemies. I treasure them all in that role, do not want them in any other.

I rest my case.

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in Censorship, Stupidity and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The case for banning, or Pogie’s Dilemma

  1. Luckyman says:

    4 observations if I may. Your “house” your rules. Those that come into your “house” should be polite enough to abide by your rules. You don’t have to let anyone into your “house” that you do not want to let in. Those you don’t wish to let in can get their own “house”. Oh, 2 more observations. “never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience”. “never wrestle with pigs because you’ll get dirty and the pigs don’t mind the mud”.


    • “House rules” is fine if you understand I have no rules. I don’t mind confrontation, criticism, even nasty criticism. As I like to say, the only way you can hurt my feelings is to say something about me that is true. Things that are not true do not affect me. You can say I am ugly, have a large pimple on my nose, and it has no effect. If you say that I am easily misled, have missed important facts and clues, or am simply not intelligent enough to grasp a bigger picture (as I said in the black box in the post about the state of being dead or stupid), then I have to stop and take measure.

      Also, clever and funny helps. If I am boring, change the subject. Who cares. It is just a blog.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s