News-Record.com

John,

There's a segment of our modern-day American population that lives for ugly discourse.

It's taken over much of our entertainment and politics, and it even thrives in many parts of the news media.

It's not surprising that it exists in the blogosphere.

A lot of people seem intent on "being right."

For us to comfortably navigate our own lives, it's important for each of us to think that we have some sense of "being right" about our own beliefs, decisions, and actions.

By extension, we often like to think that everyone else should come around to our way of thinking and acting.

When individuals reveal thoughts or actions that contradict our own, there's potential for conflict to arise.

We are wonderfully sensitive people, but too often, that sensitivity is most reserved for ourselves.

We don't like for people to step on our toes, but seemingly without thought or concern, we step on other people's toes.

We demand that others be civil and then practice incivility ourselves.

Instead of seeking to discover what we might learn from others, we prefer to stay focused on how well we might enlighten others.

There's nothing wrong with feeling that we have information, thoughts, ideas, concerns, suggestions, and opinions to share, but when we're only interested in outputting, it's less likely that individuals sincerely interested in a civil, two-way conversation will be interested in joining in.

I'm sure that there are many people who visit the blogosphere and ultimately decide that the tone of many "conversations" are plenty reason to stay away.

The blogosphere probably suffers for losing many of those potential voices it never even realizes it's losing.

There's arguably not enough ambassadorial behavior among bloggers, but again, I think that's a symptom of our greater society also.

I agree with you that the blogosphere has greater potential to foster a search for common ground, greater understanding, and improved community.

But those ambitious goals are not necessarily what some people desire.

The issues you've raised are definitely worth further consideration.

Thanks for sharing this post.

Sincerely,

Hardy

I'm so glad that Hardy is blogging & commenting again.

(It's 101 in DC; will revisit this later tonight when it drops to 95.)

I too am glad that Hardy is blogging again. He typifies an expansion of the civil and thougtful in the local blogosphere that John says he doesn't see.

I welcome you back, too, Hardy.

But, Roch, I'm afraid that one blogger -- one who went silent for months and has just now reappeared -- isn't what I'd consider growth in thoughtful civil discussion.

In addition to Hardy's new blog, other recent interesting and civil additions to the local blog scene include:

City Council candidate Greg Woodard's Lessons Learned from the Woodshed

The Starry Dynamo

ARTicles

Atelier of Alacrity

Debris

JoeMaMa is stuck in Greensboro

The Musings of CFW, Jr

And the News & Record's own Culture Schock, Unbottoned, and Your Voice at the Table.

The local blogosphere is growing with new, civil and interesting voices. Many, many established local bloggers also maintain interesting and civil blogs.

A few established local blogs sometimes write about contentious issues. That contentious issues inspire disagreement is no surprise. That some of that disagreement is uncivil is unfortunate but no more reflective of blogs than human nature and it hardly represents the bulk or direction of local blogs.

Don't assume that just because there's not a lot of response on this thread that no one's taking it to heart.

I for one read it earlier today, started to respond, then decided I need to really think about what you and Hardy had to say before launching into my own comments. Maybe others are taking a breather, as well. Maybe we're all asking ourselves how we can contribute to civil discourse rather than bludgeoning each other with our rhetoric.

Maybe this post has done exactly what you wanted it to do, John.

Let's hope.

My last comment (made before Elizabeth's) was held for moderation. Not sure why. Hopefully it will appear soon.

For some reason, Roch, your previous comment went into a junk file, perhaps because it had so many links the computer thought it was comment spam. Sorry about that. It's been restored right above Elizabeth's comment.

Thanks, Roch, for the links. Fine blogs. I was thinking more about blogs that (1) post more on civic affairs, and (2) post either more frequently than a couple times a month or have a longer history than a month or two.

And I hope you're right, Elizabeth. I asked Mark Binker to edit this post before I published it. He suggested I might want to start with the comments closed until today so that people wouldn't read it and fire off a comment, for precisely the reason you state. Obviously, I decided not to do that.

"How would we know it was America if we didn't hear regularly from the nincompoop faction?"
Molly Ivins

Thanks to Roch not only for plugging my blog, but for terming it "civil". As a newcomer to Greensboro, I've found several of the local blogs valuable resources in getting to know what's going on the City, and I look forward to joining in the conversation.

I'm commenting less and posting less in part due to business busy-ness and other times because I'm tired of the snark that greets my comments and I consider myself one of less vitriolic voices in the blogosphere.

At one point, I encouraged Ed to do something about the nastiness in comments on his blog but he's got this first amendment thing - wants a "free and open" exchange. However, he's banned someone recently for off-topic, personal attacks and I think that's a start.

One hoped that the local online conversation would mellow and the natural order would dissuade the nasty voices. I think we can agree that there's a small group of omnipresent nasty-commenters who, if they'd just stop being so personal and negative, would elevate the conversation dramatically. From that, I'll ass.u.me that the particular small group simply does not want to elevate the discourse.

My old song? We're at a sad place nationally and inside our city where our conversation sometimes cannot be held without yelling and screaming (virtually) at each other, perhaps because we cannot and/or will not in person. Perhaps those who don't live or work in Greensboro should refrain a little from commenting about Greensboro and focus on their own burgs. New voices should be encouraged (and no one coddled, it's a real world out there) and we hope, again, that ConvergeSouth will help fence-sitters to join the conversation (or run away, screaming in fear:).

Your post is well-taken, JR. I hope it has a positive effect.

I agree with Roch! No, I agree with John! No Roch! No John! No........ Ah heck, I don't know what I think.

John, what does two plus two equal? 4, 6 or 8? Or is it four?

Roch and I haven't even begun to disagree yet, Billy.

But how did you get in here anyway. We added that addition requirement to keep you comment spammers out!

Eric, welcome to the local blogosphere and welcome to the conversation. I, too, appreciate Roch pointing you out.

Sue, yes to all that. Thanks for adding.

As noted today at my blog, I've modified my free-for-all policy on comments after five years.

Policing of comments is still very light, and many warnings are given, and I'm still hoping that the community will police itself, but I've started to intervene more actively because too many worthy commenters had dropped out and the signal-to-noise ratio was not good.

And I agree with Billy -- I didn't know there would be math on this test.

Thanks, Ed. I'm equally disappointed about the slow growth in the number of bloggers. Perhaps I'm impatient, but I have expected the circle of people writing constructively about civic affairs would have grown gradually larger. Again, I may be looking in the wrong place, but It SEEMS as if the core bloggers haven't changed much in the past couple years. You know us corporate types: when the solutions we're trying up don't work, we want to try something else.

After my disappearance from blogging for a significant period of time, I too was surprised to discover that more individuals had not added their voices in the time I'd been absent.

There are other reasons why individuals don't choose to blog.

Time has to be a big factor.

It's one of the factors that interfered with me staying in the blogosphere.

My dad's suggested I make a post soon about how my blogging will almost certainly take at least a dip once the school year begins. (I'm in training this week, I've already had one meeting with my teammates to plan for the coming year, and I've been by the school 4 or 5 times during the last couple weeks, so the school year's already all but begun.)

As I've told Mr. Stench, I'll either keep blogging. Or I'll fade some. Or I'll disappear again. (Maybe I could become a summer blogger. Kind of like an old Alan Alda movie I heard about where he plays a married man who gets together once a year with a married woman to carry on a once-a-year long-term affair.)

My real hope is to figure out the proper balance.

I've appreciated everyone's voices and comments above.

I'm hoping to take this issue further on my blog, if I can figure out what else I want to say on the subject.

Good night, everyone.

"As noted today at my blog, I've modified my free-for-all policy on comments after five years."

Indeed you have.

It's a good way for you to cover up YOUR culpability and your contribution to the problem.

I am not alone in pointing this out to you and to the greater local blogosphere.

"As noted today at my blog, I've modified my free-for-all policy on comments after five years."

Indeed you have.

It's a good way for you to cover up YOUR culpability and your contribution to the problem.

I am not alone in pointing this out to you and to the greater local blogosphere.

"As noted today at my blog, I've modified my free-for-all policy on comments after five years."

Indeed you have.

It's a good way for you to cover up YOUR culpability and your contribution to the problem.

I am not alone in pointing this out to you and to the greater local blogosphere.

Bubba, you have been a rude and off-topic commenter for some time at my site.

I asked you repeatedly to modify your behavior, and finally suspended you commenting privileges for a few days.

If you want to make it permanent, that can be arranged.

Great comeback, Ed.
You learned well from Lex---just squelch those who disagree with you or don't toe the party line. Off with their heads!!
So much for the liberals "tolerance" and love for fairness and free speech. Heaven forbid anyone point out your deliberate misinformation and trollish behavior.

Jaycee, I let it go on for about two years. During that time I asked nicely, and I asked not so nicely, for it to stop. I tried ignoring, I tried joking about it, and I tried asking other commenters to help mitigate the problem. Finally I took action because of the number of people who had stopped commenting due to the constant off-topic hostility.

It has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. I have banned two other people -- one a way-out lefty, who also made constant personal attacks and rambled off-topic, and the other a commenter who phoned the employers of other commenters in an attempt to get them in trouble for their comments.

I never touched a comment for about five years. That experiment failed.

Ed lasted longer than I did. After nearly three years, I lost patience with two commenters and banned them although I'd bring them back if they promised better behavior.

In an attempt to raise the standards here, I've set this unofficial rule: If your contribution contributes to the conversation, even in the smallest way, fine. But when it's consistently abusive and, frankly, stupid, well, you can leave the comment on someone else's blog.

"I never touched a comment for about five years. That experiment failed."

I won't begin to list the amount and the content of the support I've received since you pulled your little stunt, but it's a clear indication that you bear the majority of the blame for the situation at hand.

You have consistently and deliberately misrepresented other people's contributions to your blog, and have continuously instigated the trouble by your own words and actions. You are the classic troll on your very own blog and your "who, me" disclaimers are wearisome.

Your obnoxious and insidious reaction to those with whom you don't agree is legendary.

You are not fooling anybody.

Do what you need to do.

I'm tired of being a convenient excuse for your own bad behavior.

My two cents is that open comments only work when a blog's circle of interest is small, i.e. it's concerned with an obscure or non-hot-button set of topics.

There are just too many jerks out there. And too many people who don't see any difference between advancing the discussion and derailing the debate. "Winning's not the main thing," etc.

There's no good way for "the community of other commenters" to act like a community and do something constructive. Condemning "trolls" in the comments turns the conversation away from the poster's topic, and towards... the trolls... which is what most of them desire, after all.

So: registration of commenters, or constant policing/warning/banning, or ditching comments.

At one group blog, I serve as one of the "Marshals." I post infrequently, but can log into the site, delete spam and obnoxious comments, and issue warnings and bans. And correct errant html and similar formatting faux pas (faux passes?).

Of course, the blogger better be darn sure that the volunteer marshal's on the same wavelength, or trouble's sure to follow.

Still, many great sites with vibrant comments do have a stable of regular, appreciated commenters, some of whom would, I'd expect, be willing to serve in this auxiliary police role. I'm surprised it hasn't been tried more often.

There's a related worry, too, supporting comment moderation: the Falafal Factor. O'Reilly recently tried to make the Kos site responsible for the comments/diarists (because they didn't moderate, wanted free expression of opinion). If some are going to try to paint the broad stroke of culpability for the comments of others, I can see why Ed might want to start limiting comments rather than be painted with the brush that includes the off-topic, personally insulting comments that have been posted on his blog.

Blame some of comment control on people like BOR and add it to the fact that such repeated hostile comments also limit conversation by driving others away.

A vibrant and lively debate is not a symptom of a lack of civility.

There are people out there who bait others and who engage in personal attacks, but some of what is being deemed "nastiness" is nothing more than strong disagreement.

There are factions in the local blogosphere and when they collide, there is going to be some strong disagreement, but that's the way life is.

I am more amazed at how genuine disagreements end up being categorized as trolling or incivility depending on the forum and those who frequent it.

There are people who really contribute nothing, but they shouldn't be lumped in with others who are dealing with often complex issues that can have many areas of disagreement.

Regardless of what you post about, your blog is always in some way going to be about you. If you can't defend yourself without complaining, maybe blogging isn't for you. What you choose to write about and the positions you take are a reflection of your beliefs. If someone thinks your nuts or out of line, they aren't trolling. They are just saying what they think.

Mr. Robinson, I made a comment on this thread that ended up being a discourse, so I took it to my own site. The following is only the last paragraph for the information of any who may wish to know what I have to say.
***********

"One other comment I really must make before I sign off. Every time I read a post about blogging and civility I notice the same people commenting. Strange that so many of them are the very ones I referred to in the previous paragraph. Sincerely, Brenda Bowers" http://triadblogs.com/BrendaFayBowers

I just thought I would make a comment here. Reading this makes me pat myself on the back for ending my blog.
Since I have stopped blogging I have had the opportunity to speak with people on a personal basis all over the State at different engagements and have had honest and open-minded conversations.
The more I see of the blogging world the more I begin to believe that it has little or no impact on issues or social redeeming value.
It looks to be the universe of the narcissistic.
There are a few execptions in the Greensboro area but not many. Most of the blogging community reminds me of the female journalist at the New York Times that couldn't believe George McGovern lost because " all her friends voted him" Their world seemes limited to a three foot space around him.
Proudly signed,
Marcus Kindley

Agreed, Samuel. And I'm not opposing passionate debate. I even tolerate the personal attacks, although I consider them nothing but evidence of a weak argument.

Thanks, Marcus. That's precisely the point of my post. While I'm not as far along on the blogging misery scale as you, I fear that we're headed to confirm your evaluation. And my hope is that we don't.

As a contributor to a blog, I can tell you that its owner was subjected to all manner of cyberstalking by a gang of individuals who disagreed with him. The blog owner was blogging about the field in which he had a PhD, but that didn't stop some contrarians with no advanced degrees and, in some cases, no affiliation with the field, from outing him, dredging up his non-published telephone number and address, creating libelous dossiers, and threatening his family and co-workers. There is no anonymity in blogging. Even here, where some of you are using an assumed name, an experienced information systems professional can find a way to access your computer's IP address, google that IP address, and more likely than not, find your name and e-mail address, a starting point for other information searches in Zoominfo, Intelius, and if the gang includes a hacker type, an excursion into the Credit Bureau database. Those within each of the professions who have learned enough about the Internet are counseling their peers not to participate in message boards, blogs, or social networks of any kind, which is why as we move into the future, you should expect the Internet to get dumber, b/c professionals and subject matter experts will avoid putting their observations or analysis out there.

Sue, I'm much less concerned that someone will read a hateful comment at my blog and tar the entire site -- although that is a serious problem for some sites -- than I am with repetitious off-topic and personal sniping that derails the conversation and chases away other commenters.

Disagreement and vigorous discussion, even trash talk, are all fine. Constant ad hominems and thread hijacking, less so.

For what it's worth, the only person to have been permanently banned from my blog for online behavior was banned in some part for constantly attacking Bubba.

Sometimes part of the debate requires that you remind people that the snake is in fact a snake because that is often very germane to the debate and how it is being executed.

The credibility of the blogger is always a relevant issue.

"The credibility of the blogger is always a relevant issue."

Particularly when the blog owner feels he/she can start the ad hominems and hijack his/her own thread if it suits the general purpose, resulting in the breaking of an agreement made just two days before.

"Sometimes part of the debate requires that you remind people that the snake is in fact a snake."

Hmm. I think the rhetorical rule against ad hominem arguments is there for a reason.

I don't think labeling people as "snakes," and then using that contention as the basis of an argument, is going to lead to many productive conversations.

It's more productive to judge a given argument on its merits, not on its messenger.

For example, if a blogger links to a columnist who makes a factual assertion, coming back with a comment that the columnist is awful really doesn't add anything to the conversation -- it may in fact be a way of avoiding a look at the asserted facts themselves. And doing so every time the columnist is linked is tiresome.

There is a lot of personalization, politics, projection, and downright hostility out there, and those elements can wreak disproportionate damage on a comment thread. That's what inspired this thread in the first place.

The problem occurs when a "factual assertion" is merely an opinion, in which case as I stated before, the credibility of the person becomes relevant.

If the credibility of a columnist is an issue, than anything he asserts as a fact is suspect. That's just common sense. Further, whether there even is a credibility issue is also the subject of debate.

You simply cannot always separate the messenger from the message. They are tied together for obvious reasons.

The snake comment was merely illustrative.

You do get tired of having the same arguments over and over again with the same people, with no indication that their absorption rate is greater than zero.

So as with any obstacles to getting somewhere, you want to label them for others' benefit and avoid them.

which is one hell of a slippery slope...

Oh dear. Is this what John and Hardy were talking about at the beginning of this thread?

Why can't there be a serious and sustained discussion of how we--each of us--can raise the blog-talk bar without degenerating into the kind of bickering that is driving many of us to throw up our hands in despair.

Because what people consider civil is often relative, and as we have seen here, also subject to a debate. This is probably why JR gets frustrated. But that is the reality of it as I and others have stated above.

What some see as civil discourse, others see as trolling. How can you reach a consensus with that disconnect?

I think it's more than that, Samuel. For instance, an ongoing fued between Bubba and Ed has spilled over here. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that any new ground has been plowed by their exchange. Jaycee piles on, dropping the two l-words: Lex and liberal, and we're off to the races.

And we all know about often the comments in this blog veer directly into how the N&R is responsible for "former chief" coming before David Wray's name. It's all be said many, many times. And it gets personal. Again to no clear end. Maybe we aren't thinking of the same exchanges but I don't know that they're civil.

That said, you and I have disagreed on many posts, but I haven't consider your comments the comments of a troll. I've considered them civil discourse between two people who passionately disagree.

I don't see this thread as off-point bickering, with perhaps an exception or two it seems to be a reasonably productive conversation about the issue at hand.

Here's the thing: I like spirited comments. I don't mind mixing it up, sarcasm is welcome, etc. That's why I didn't touch my comments for five years.

But after five years of hoping that some group dynamic would emerge to keep a small subset of commenters (not a static group, by the way, it turns over in time) from busting the joint up again and again, I decided to modify, however slightly, my strategy.

To follow Sam's point: suppose Paul Krugman makes a factual assertion in the New York Times.

If I link to that assertion, a comment that says (in essence) "Krugman sux" says nothing about his factual assertion or the larger point it is invoked to support.

Now, "Krugman sux" is going to get said sometimes, that's just the nature of the medium, but when it's said every time his name is mentioned, repeatedly, without ever addressing the accuracy of the assertions, then it gets to be a problem.

And when the repetition sparks arguments with other commenters, not just about whether Krugman sux, but about the point of saying so, and that argument gets repeated repeatedly, with insults lobbed again and again among commenters, and nobody is saying anything about the actual assertion of fact by Krugman or the post itself, well, the joint is busted up again, and that's what I have come to believe after five years I need to discourage more actively at my site.

Another issue is that people seem to take very seriously and personally things that other people in response to their comments, but seem unaware of the impact of their own words. This happens at a lot of blogs, including the N&R blogs. I tend not to take personally comments from people who don't actually know me, and so I'm no doubt guilty of overestimating the thickness of others' skins, especially when they dish it out freely. But again, what is the solution? I'm working toward it, I hope, but this is hardly a problem limited to a handful of local blogs...

Thanks John for the vote of confidence. We have disagreed very strongly about a number of issues, but I don't think you're a bad guy.

The problem becomes Ed when someone flippantly says "Krugman sux" and 10 other people jump in to argue why the person thinks Krugman sux. The person saying Krugman sux may have only meant the comment as dismissive, but then people get bent out of shape.

The other problem is if a person disagrees whether Krugman's analysis is sound which must also take into account Krugman's motivation, and then the person is accused of hijacking the thread, etc.

As I stated before, what one person sees as fact, another may see as an opinion and is right to question the veracity of the comment and the commenter. This is what leads to most battles in my experience.

For example, quoting David Duke on race relations necessarily involves a discussion of Duke himself.

I think we can agree that there are people, e.g. David Duke, who are not really productive to quote. Comparing a hypothetical reference to David Duke with actual references to a New York Times columnist, or conflating opinions with statements of fact, seems a bit off-point.

Repeated off-topic personal remarks and messenger-killing have been problems at my blog, as they are at many blogs, which is why I trot the examples out here.

As I noted in my recent post on this subject, entrepreneur Jason Calacanis has joined the ranks of bloggers who have no comments at all. His argument is that people abuse the space, and if they have something to say they can set up their own blogs.

That's not a route I want to go, and it seems untenable for a newspaper site. I want to have conversations at my blog, but I need to figure out ways to deal with commenters who seem to lack social filters, or just dominate, intimidate, or insult rather than converse.

My long experiment in group dynamics failed to manage the problem, so I've slightly modified my approach.

The changes mean more work for the blogger; at an understaffed newspaper, that work may not be sustainable, especially as the audience grows.

To put things back on track: let's stipulate that the problems at my blog are of my own making, and that I'm a rotten host.

The relevant point is that the issue of hostile comments and degraded threads does exist across many blogs and forums, and that the method I applied for five years may not be the best solution to the problem.

Ah, but Ed, your respect for Krugman is relative. Many people won't be persuaded that he or others are worthy of greater consideration simply because they work for the MSM. Many people find the MSM every bit as sinister as David Duke in a different way.

So as I said before, factions collide and perspectives are relative. Welcome to the real world.

Edward Cone: "Let's stipulate that the problems at my blog are of my own making, and that I'm a rotten host."

So stipulated.

I'm late to this party. My feelings mirror Brenda's and like her, I'll just be posting a link and going on my way:

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2007/08/civilization-came-to-blogosphere-and.html

Krugman differs from Duke not because he works for the MSM, but because he's not a former Klansman and current racist agitator. I find the comparison reductive to the point of meaninglessness, but your mileage may vary.

In any case, if someone shows up at my blog, again and again, and makes generalized assertions that are off-point and ad hominem, again and again, from now on I'm going to ask them to stop, and then take steps to stop them if they won't stop themselves.

As an observer and rare commenter on various blogs it looks like a small number of local bloggers are fixated in riding on the coattails of better known blogs, for example the N&R, and at Ed’s blog, with tactics of venomous opposition to anything and everything posted. It seems that since they are not creating buzz on their own blogs they have to hijack more popular blogs. It is as if some, with their baited postings, are auditioning for jobs as pundits or striving for local celebrity status rather than contributing to civil discussions. I think it is time for the N&R, Ed, and other blog owners, that are pleading with commenters to discuss contentious issues in a civil manner, to apply to serial trollers the Justice Potter Stewart, “I know it when I see it,” test and ban them. I do feel that there are more than a few that would enjoy the give and take of civil discussion and some of us might actually learn something that we didn’t know about the other side of an argument. If we want to go to the extreme talking points promoted by the left and right we know where they are. Can those of us in the middle who are conservative on some issues and liberal on others have places for discussion that are not going to be hijacked? I’m not hopeful.

I agree with Sam (God, help me). Civility is subjective and Greensboro suffers from an infirmity that, thankfully, hasn't permeated the local blogs. The ailment? Taking offense to avoid confronting pointed disagreement. That trigger is slow to trip in the blog scene and I like it that way. We say what we think and good for us.

The Chairman stopped blogging because he decided to run for state Republican party chair and some things he said on his blog revealed some less than flattering things about him. So he not only stopped blogging, but also removed his blog entirely. It's no surprise that he now hides behind the Greensboro infirmity--that things were too uncivil. Boohoo and I'm not buying it. In truth, the man's bigotry and lack of intellectual rigor couldn't stand up to public scrutiny. My oh my, how impolite that that should be challenged. Tough cookies. If it were a lack of civility that bothered the Chairman he would have just stopped blogging. That he tried to wipe the public record by deleting his blog reveals his real motives and civility has nothing to do with it. Now, was that uncivil or brutally honest?

Sam and I duke it out probably just as hard as anybody locally. In the flurry of punches are some solid arguments, some factual refutations of the other's opinion and yes, occasionally, a snide or sarcastic condemnation of one's beliefs or abilities. Sarcasm and insults are unnecessary. If they are the byproduct of human frailties in the midst of heated discussion though, I'll accept them as the bad among the good, but I won't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Blogs are not a tea party. They are not a lemonade social at the neighborhood garden club. They are a place where ideas and opinions will be challenged. If that offends some people's sensibilities, so be it. Not everyone finds rigorous discussion appealing. Fine. Discuss your ideas in the echo chamber of familiar circles where people will lovingly smile and nod in agreement if you think that benefits you.

As for me, I'll continue to appreciate the education I get by engaging a wide variety of people. I'm learning about people and ideas that are different from me and mine. I'm also learning where my ideas are sound and where they are weak. I'm wiser because of blogs. I better understand people different from myself and I'm a better advocate for my beliefs. Bloggers are helping me grow.

I'm all for reducing the inane, ad hominem and disruptive comments. I wish those responsible would come to understand that such comments reveal the commenter as bereft of anything interesting or worthy of consideration. They are, in effect, shouting "I don't have anything to say! Ignore me." I try to oblige.
Excepting the useless, throw anything you've got at me. I want to hear what others have to say and I won't gasp, "Oh, dear, how impolite," when you do. I might lose my temper and call you an idiot, but I'll try not to and even if things occasionally get uncivil, we'll calm down and keep talking.

Roch,

Overall, I agree with your points.

I often read the comments left by dueling bloggers, and though they seem too focused on each other's personalities, I'm able to pick up on some of the good points all of them might be making.

I don't think I'm alone in experiencing that.

Sometimes, I don't even think their points are as diametrically opposed as they themselves seem to believe.

You're absolutely right about blogging keeping you on your toes.

If you state something that doesn't meet certain standards, you're going to be challenged on it.

When someone challenges your ideas, you're given the opportunity to reflect on your ideas more deeply and to evaluate those ideas and try to determine how to explain or defend those ideas better.

And you're also given the opportunity to consider what others are pointing out.

Is there a possibility that others are right and that you're wrong?

Or that what you think and believe is still right for you but that others have legitimate reasons for looking at the world and that issue differently?

Can you learn something about yourself in the process?

Can you walk away with a greater understanding of how far and deep diversity really goes?

It's all very complicated, and there are few--if any--absolutes. (Even if we prefer differently.)

Sincerely,

Hardy

Roch, I agree that blogs aren't a tea party. But the point I'd make is that that attitude, which reads like "love it or leave it" to me, is what will keep the civic-oriented blogosphere small and closed.

The real issue is respect. You can challenge my ideas but why would you make personal insults? (Not you specifically, Roch. The universal you.) All you have to do is read a few comments to see the personal attacks made on me and other commenters. This morning I deleted an insulting comment about me made by a blogger on the post about Eric Townsend. It was hostile, off-point, and had no purpose other than to harass me and direct readers to his own post.

I can take it. I get worse over the phone a few times a week. My issue is that that's the kind of thing that keeps other reasonable people from wanting to get involved. Seems to me that everyone who feels that the blogosphere should be a place of robust, active participation would want to get reasonable people involved, too.

I'd challenge you to find many commenters or bloggers who do as Hardy suggests: accepts the challenges of discussion to think more thoroughly about the "other side." I include myself as not doing it often enough. It's an August resolution.

As Mr. Floyd said, "Its all very complicated..."
JR says, “You can challenge my ideas….”
Are ideas challenged when response to a post is 50% to 70% quotes from others? By cutting and pasting and quoting others is a commenter providing value to a discussion?

Sure, John, I see and agree with your points. It's just that saying the local blogs are uncivil because some people are sometimes disrespectful seems like a reach. The preponderance of discussion is civil and respectful.

anyone else seeing a few tea pots calling kettles black?

I think written conversation should hold the same level of discourse as face to face. Much of what I read in the blogging world would result in a fat lip in the real world. (in a virtual sort of way...smile)

Me....I can't say that I really care what the same 15 or 20 say or think most times. It really doesn't matter does it? I mean...so what...we agree...so what ...we disagree...

At least as far as signatures of commenters...eliminate 30 and much of the discussion has no comments. (local level...Ed..etc.)

Thanks, everyone, for contributing what, I think, on the whole was a fruitful discussion. I'm going to close this out because there are two other open threads on this topic and I want to avoid confusion between the three.