Etc. I think that you can take it from there.

-16: Commenter granularity (based on IP): 0 old comment(s) (karma avg: 0.000000), 6 recent comment(s) (karma avg: -13.580000).
-8: Commenter granularity (based on email): 0 old comment(s) (karma avg: 0.000000), 6 recent comment(s) (karma avg: -29.580000).

The “recent comments” criterion I’m taking as a new commenter making a bunch of comments. That should cause a spam filter to get suspicious.

I can probably live with a stated policy (considered it done, for me) on such mild moderation as excessive annoyance since it should not interrupt blogging too often.

In fact, I have already commented on such blogs. My real reference bar, which I probably should have mentioned, is Uncommon Descent (additions in comments, removal of comments or entire threads, unwarned banning – all of which leads to unreadable or uncommentable threads) so your blog has some space. :-)

-27.1

0.5: Comment has no URL in content (but one author URL)
-4.1: 1 blacklist match. (3365 = nnn.nnn.nn.nn [x1])
0: Encrypted payload valid: IP matching.
0.5: Valid Javascript payload (can be fake).
-16: Commenter granularity (based on IP): 0 old comment(s) (karma avg: 0.000000), 6 recent comment(s) (karma avg: -13.580000).
-8: Commenter granularity (based on email): 0 old comment(s) (karma avg: 0.000000), 6 recent comment(s) (karma avg: -29.580000).

and

-28.5

0.5: Comment has no URL in content (but one author URL)
0: Encrypted payload valid: IP matching.
0.5: Valid Javascript payload (can be fake).
-9: Commenter granularity (based on IP): 0 old comment(s) (karma avg: 0.000000), 5 recent comment(s) (karma avg: -4.800000).
-4.5: Commenter granularity (based on email): 0 old comment(s) (karma avg: 0.000000), 5 recent comment(s) (karma avg: -13.800000).
-16: Retro-spanking triggered by comment ID: 18166

This was an automated response, and I have manually restored the comments. No, I won’t be turning off SK2. The alternative to using an automated system with occasional false positives is too horrible to contemplate. I’d just have to turn off comments, or go to some very restrictive form of registration and validation.

My comment policy is, basically, don’t be excessively annoying. I consider my weblog to be an extension of my living room, and if someone deposits a load of trash, it will get taken out. I’ve been participating in online fora since 1987, and moderated fora since 1990. I tend to be pretty lenient, but if you are looking for the free speech purity of a Hyde Park corner and soapbox, you will want to move on. It’s your call.

Is there a comment policy on this site?

Isn’t “science is a tool — it has no realm” somewhat of a non-sequitor? Tools certainly do have particular spheres of usefulness and areas where they are not so useful. While it is always possible to find a new use for a particular tool, we scientists need to be careful to not view every problem as a nail simply because we have such a good hammer.

As Bill Gascoyne points out, science is sometimes the wrong tool for the job. While morality must deal with reality and any morality that ignores reality’s complexities (as the morality of our fundies does — in many cases, their morals indicate you cannot help but sin: how is morality effective if it doesn’t give an indication of which of a set of admittedly bad options to choose?) is nor morality at all — and thus morality must respect what the tool of science tells us about the world, you cannot infer morals straightforwardly from scientific principles. Indeed, those who do are in the same boat as those who oppose evolution because of its so-called “moral implications”. Those who ask science to be a tool, e.g. with which to discover morality and metaphysics (what lies beyond physics — and I am not using metaphysics in the sense of Popper, which concept I would call peri-physics for clarity although perhaps metaphysics is the best term for what Popper’s talking about and what I’m referring to should be called trans-physics or something clearly implying “beyond” rather than “about” — and yes, I am one who would argue that a positivist is making a metaphysical statement: that what is beyond scientific inquiry is meaningless … and, as you might expect, I disagree with that), are in the same boat as those who ask science to reproduce their peculiar metaphysics and morality and accept or reject scientific results on that basis. A hardened theist like me might throw around the label of “scientism” but apply it to the ID crowd even more than people who expect “Darwinism” (don’t you just love how that term is used — as if we worship the guy?) to explain everything.

Of course, one could certainly argue that religion is not the best source of moral instruction either … but the point still stands: there are plenty of areas in which the tool of science simply is a hammer where a spanner is really what’s needed.

I am not sure if I follow this argument: science is a tool, therefore it has no realm. Isn’t that somewhat of a non-sequitor (not that there’s anything wrong with that — I make more than my fair share of them, that’s for sure)?

All tools have their spheres of usefulness. While it is always possible to discover a new use for a tool, we must be careful that, just ’cause we have a hammer in our hands, we don’t mistake any problem for a nail.