One problem with blogging as a medium for philosophical exchange is that it's so easy to simply ignore your interlocuter -- even when they solidly refute your arguments! Sometimes one might simply tire of the debate, of course, and fair enough. And sometimes one may intend to respond later, but just never get around to it. Such silences are not so bad, though it might be more considerate to inform one's discussion partner of the explanation. But other times it seems like the blogger just doesn't want to acknowledge their mistake. (A few even refuse to acknowledge my emails when I politely inform them of a post of mine which responds to their claims.) And that seems awfully immature.
Anyway, for sake of promoting intellectual honesty, I'd like to invite any miffed readers to remind me -- in comments here or by email -- of any "silences" on my part that they'd like addressed. I do try to acknowledge when readers aptly identify flaws in my posts (which are to be expected fairly often on a blog, after all!), but I may have missed some, in which case I'd like to set that right.
(Note that in some cases I might continue to disagree despite not wishing to continue the debate. I count that as an intellectually honest explanation (assuming I could present adequate reasons for the disagreement if pressed), and you'll have to be satisfied with that.)
As for others, I'm half tempted to write up a short list of "silences" I'd like filled. Would that be insufferably rude of me, do you think? I wouldn't presume that all are of the blameworthy sort, of course. Most would probably be of the "tired of that debate" sort. Still, it'd be nice to know. And if presented in recognition of this, i.e. as a "friendly reminder" rather than an accusation, then I don't imagine that those mentioned should mind too much. If they were to pick up on the practice themselves, it might become a regular feature of the deliberative blogosphere, an accepted and useful way to track the dialectic, provide 'closure' for "tired" exchanges, and promote norms of intellectual honesty. What do you think?