Perhaps the limited flow of comments haven't spurred a reconsideration of policy.

exactly, the effect compounds itself

then you cant be sure

John has much more people commenting on his articles.

"is this all there is?"

"what am I doing?"

"is this any use?"

not realizing that the problem was you in the first place

at least partially you

it's just sad, it's not really anyone's "fault"

everyone is thinking well

good intentions

Wildblood has a good attitude to comments, but a more esoteric group of topics

Bruce Charlton is one of the seminal figures of what became the "alt right"

nester and fallot finally meet

his low key influence has been extremely potent

he himself realized this somewhat

not specific to himself

but that apparently not-a-big-deal stuff can be important

it's important to speak the truth even in case one person hears it

It also has to do with what's talked about in the article, and how elaborately. In this regard, bruce articles don't invite as much comments as john's.

you just don't know how important or not it is

John expects comments to complete his articles.

that's true

yes, it's a welcoming attitude

Bruce doesn't.

occasionally Charlton does this as well

and when he does, he doesn't get many comments

John will often leave things open ended, to be possibly concluded in comment discussions.

his tone is open ended more so than his conclusions

"come in, lets talk, this is what I think"

vs.

"this is what I think, oh are you listening? have something to say? you better else scurry off"

There's a great bit of the later as well.

Bruce also is more of a loony, that discourages participation as he's hardly matched.

I think the only word that suffices is genius

Bruce Charlton is a bona fide genius

and like the great geniuses of the west of a not-so-old time

Yes, people are humbled, acting humbled(shutting up and not commenting).

a polymath, a man of great learning

he says "crazy" things often