imageAs a courtesy, after posting Response to ‘This Non-Religious Life – Episode 3’ on YouTube, below, I made a brief reference to the fact that I had created a response in the comments of the YouTube video page. I also sent an email to the the creators of the post. I was careful to point to my blog without creating a hot link because YouTube doesn’t allow them. This is it exactly: “I have posted a full reply at The Shroud of Turin Blog on shroudofturin wordpress com.”

For some reason my comment at YouTube was marked as spam. This resulted in this comment from someone named ChristFromDallas:

Why have you marked Dan Porter’s (innoval01) comment as spam? And you accuse others of intellectual dishonesty – what a joke! — ChrisFromDallas15 hours ago

One of video creators responded thus:

Calm down, the internet isn’t that serious. I don’t think it was intentionally marked as spam by any one of us (Jason, Bob or myself) seeing as we are actually excited to read what Dan has to say and will address all of his arguments in a later episode. We may even invite him on the show should he want to come talk with us. — kenxvx8 hours ago

To which ChrisFromDallas said:

Everything’s cool, but maybe you and your colleagues need to mature a bit more if you really mean to have fair and informed discussions about things such as the Shroud of Turin, even if it is on youtube. Not only did you completely misrepresent the facts, you called into question the integrity of renowned scientists with no basis whatsoever. Garlaschelli has NOT replicated the Shroud, as with the chemistry, 3D effects and superficial image he came nowhere near – see shroud(dot)com

I’ll take the show creators at their word that they didn’t mark out my comment on purpose. I’ll await their response. I hope they take to heart the advice they are getting. It is easy to go to the Internet and find arguments to support just about any position you have. I don’t think they were selective with evidence. I don’t think they researched the subject enough to be selective.