Thanks to reader "Not THE Harry Harrison" for alerting me to this:
At first I thought maybe this was Ken's extreeeme attempt to deprive me of material. But no, it's about all of his blogs, not just Dump Bachmann:
At first reading it is tantalizing for what he doesn't say -- not I don't know, or There are technical difficulties, or even That god-damn Blogger. What it sounds like to a reasonable person is I've been told to keep my mouth shut.
And here is his explanation for public consumption:
Let's note that in general "I cannot comment" is a very legalistic expression. People say it when they're in trouble. They say it when arriving at the police station to assist with their inquiries.
Maybe litigation is occurring, or is in the pipeline, about something or things Ken has written in one of his blogs. Something serious and with merit, otherwise those blogs would still be up and Ken would be blogging about it. Of course, libel can be libel even if distribution is limited.
This is the "case" mentioned by AnitaMaria, but I can't believe that has any merit, coming as it does from a right wing whackjob. I certainly wouldn't pull down my blogs in face of a nuisance suit from such a quarter (unless I had written something that -- oh never mind).
Or maybe Ken simply doesn't understand that to be of value an archive needs to be accessible to would-be researchers. ANY researchers. Otherwise your archive enters the realm of conspiracy theory-style 'secret knowledge.' Yes, Stupidity would be the simple explanation.
More later (I suspect).
I suppose I COULD treat it as a victory