[gloob]

Hypothetical answer: I'm not a blogger, nor do I want to be one. Gruber is free to do as he wants, of course - he is perfectly free to only respond to emails encoded with EBCDIC, if he really feels like it - but that doesn't somehow remove any legitimacy from complaints against him.

Secondly, I suspect the desire to comment on his blog arises more from a wish to engage (read: inform) other readers, rather than Gruber himself.

[tptacek]

And your point is? Nobody is entitled to comment on someone else's site. "Lack of comments" is simply a bullshit criticism.

[gloob]

No-one is entitled to have a window manager on Linux either, but I'd probably still be using a Mac if there weren't any. The OP of this thread is not, to my understanding, making a moral claim about how Gruber should or shouldn't have comments - he's saying that the inability to comment, combined with Gruber's factual inaccuracies, frustrates him sufficiently that he no longer pays much attention to the blog. Is he allowed to make that decision? Or is Gruber entitled to his attention?

[garret]

he no longer pays much attention to the blog

He pays attention enough to start comment threads about it.

[chc]

That requires almost no attention at all. IIRC, that's a large part of the reason why John doesn't want comments on his blog.

[gloob]

You'll have to take that up with him; I'm afraid that my insight into the minds of complete strangers is rather circumscribed.