Leaving comments on an Ephem

A visitor to this blog has suggested that it’s not terribly easy to leave a comment on an entry in it: "You can access the site, but the options on leaving a response are
rather limited (in that they could discourage potential readers)." Actually, it’s not that difficult. At the end of each entry there’s a link that says "0 comments", or "1 comment", or whatever. If you click on that, there’s an invitation to post (i.e. write) a comment: click on that, and there’s a space for you to write your comment. Click first on the button next to "Anonymous" (but it’s nice if you feel able to say who you are, with an e-mail address ideally, at the beginning or end of your comment). If you get a screen asking for your username and password, just click on "Or post anonymously" underneath, and you’ll get the space for your comment. When you have finished, click "Publish your comment". That’s all there is to it. Let’s have a discussion!

PS (September 2005):  Since this was written, Ephems has been extensively re-modelled, and it’s now even easier to make a comment.  Just fill in the brief form under each entry (at the end of any comments already there), and write your comment.  It asks for your e-mail address so that it knows you’re for real, but the e-mail address won’t be shown on the comment when it appears.  The comments are often even more interesting than the original entry!


2 Responses

  1. 10 says:

    Your site is realy very interesting.

  1. 16 November, 2007

    […] In another country, with another name In a comment thread on his blog, Brian Barder writes:

    You [meaning me – PJE] take a more generous view than I do … of the opinions, implied or explicit, of those many commentators who have been saying (and continue to say) that because Blair must have known that UK participation in the invasion and occupation of Iraq would be used by Muslim extremists to generate additional anger and resentment against Britain, and that this would increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack in Britain, therefore Blair has a share of responsibility for the London bombings. Attributing responsibility in this way has two unavoidable implications: (1) that Blair deserves a share of the blame for the bombings and (2) that the increased likelihood of a terrorist attack in Britain ought to have been a factor influencing Blair against his decision to join the Americans in invading Iraq, even if on other grounds he believed it right and necessary to do so.You come perilously close to adopting this view, it seems to me, when you [PJE] write:

    the Iraq invasion created new opportunities for terrorists, created anti-British feeling which was likely to make it easier to recruit new terrorists, and created disaffection among British Muslims which was likely to produce active or passive support for terrorists – and that all these consequences were probable, could have been predicted and should have been weighed in the balance when Blair & co were contemplating joining Bush’s invasion. To have overlooked predictable consequences like this in a good cause would be bad enough (pace Geras); when the cause in question is the Iraq war as we’ve known it, Blair’s responsibility is heavy. […]

    Brian writes:  The full text of this exchange, dating back to August 2005, can be read starting hereI'm sorry to see that  I never got round to writing a full and considered reply to the majestic critique of my (and others') position on this on Phil's blog, posted at around the same time, despite my rash promise to do so.