"Troll trash litters letters relentlessly" : Thinking Out Loud : Blogs : News-Record.com : Greensboro, North Carolina

steve said:

Maybe you can put Ed and Hardy and Sue on MLK at 2:00 in the morning (lions and tigers and crackheads, oh my!) or in the Moses Cone waiting room (next to a screaming baby) with no insurance. That'll change their perspective, it's all Mickey Mouse after that.

Posted on July 11, 2005 6:18 AM

David Hoggard said:

Steve, I'm going to at least take a shot at starting a conversation with you. Please, at least try to help others understand.

In case you don't realize it, you are considered by many to be one of the 3 or 4 'trolls' on the 'letters' site. However, it may surprise those that now make a habit of skipping over your posts, that every 20 posts or so, you actually have insightful, constructive things to say that add a great perscective to the topic. And you are obviously intelligent and well read, but seem to have chosen to divisively incite rather than to constructively engage most other participants.

I guess my questions are these: What do you feel your role is here? And also, because of the actions of only a few, the N&R may find that it has to limit commenters in the future to only those who will provide verifiable identification; if this occurs, will you consider it an accomplishment? If so, why?

Posted on July 11, 2005 7:15 AM

Seymour Hardy Floyd said:

Steve,

In reference to a comment you left on one of Allen's posts (two posts below this one), Allen responded: "Steve, there actually are thoughtful comments in some of what you say. This is not one of those instances."

You paint colorful images, some of them very provocative. One earlier today that mentioned Arthur Ashe was certainly worth considering. The comment you posted above, I'm not sure if it was worth considering or not, but it definitely made my head spin trying to imagine myself in those scenerios. (Though you might disagree, my perception is that you at least wished upon me good company, assuming you meant for Ed, Sue, and me to be placed together in those situations you prescribed for us.)

I posted what I did in part because I had read Sue's perspective on the issue, and at least part of me agreed with her.

At the same time, I admit being torn.

When I saw that Allen had highlighted some of what I had written, I had to think to myself: what do I really want?

I don't want outright censorship.

The problem when you start to censor is that it's a slippery slope.

Problem with not censoring is that that too can lead down a slippery slope.

Right now, the slippery slope is mainly sliding one way. Just because such a slope exists, it doesn't mean the slip actually has to take place. But it may be heading in that direction.

There are a lot of dumb rules, dumb policies, and dumb guidelines out there that should not exist.

But when they are created, there usually is a reason, good or not, behind their creation.

And usually there are a handful of individuals who have done enough to make people think that where there were no limits before there now need to be some.

I can think of all sorts of examples of this, and I bet you can too.

And the funny thing is we get all bent out of shape at the people who propose the limits or who decide to put them in place, and we display little or no fury at the people who created the potential need in the first place.

I teach, and at my school, students are not as free as they should be able to be.

And I'd say that if we changed some of our policies and allowed greater freedom, the majority of the students could handle it.

But there way too often are going to be too signicant a few who are going to ruin it for everyone.

As I believe you've pointed out, everyone has a reason for commenting.

We usually can only go by those comments in trying to speculate who a person is and why a person writes what he or she does.

We all read the same letter, for instance, and we each read exactly the same words and sentences contained in that letter, but there are an infinite number of different ways in which we understand, interpret, and respond to the writing.

Who we are, what we've experienced, what we care about, how we were raised, what kind of mood we're in, what we know (or think we know), what we value, how we perceive--all of those things and probably a whole lot more unmentioned factors come into play.

On my blog someone posted this comment:"Everybody on the net becomes an instant expert on anything in the Universe. The other sin is that they really believe he or she is God. The other and final great saying that most Gladiators know is simply this. 'When you start to believe your blog [ie press clipping] statements, you are in big trouble.'"

That may not be completely accurate, but there's probably at least an element of truth to what that person wrote, even if we would prefer not to ponder its relevance to ourselves as individuals.

You remind me in some ways of certain students I've taught. Their potential for greatness is amazing. They may be extremely intelligent, or they may have a knack for being hilarious comedians, or they may just have this way of making people around them feel very comfortable and welcome. But there's something about them, something within that I usually cannot determine, that prevents them from being as consistently great as they could be. A lot of times, it's an issue of timing and balance. You're just wishing they could figure that something out, perhaps a degree more self-control, that might enable them truly to be one of the really all-around great people this world so desperately needs more of.

I don't know if I caught everything that went on between you and Sue. My perception is you felt attacked or threatened, and then you lashed out in an ugly, vicious way. I may even be out of line speculating (and there's certainly perhaps a good chance that you'll point that out for me if I am).

I'm not suggesting that you go away.

My wish is not for you to shed the highly creative, provocative edge that sometimes is one of your strong-suits.

I was trying just now to figure out exactly what I would suggest.

And I'm not sure if I'm going to manage anything concrete.

What I've written up to now will either make some kind of an impression upon you and give you something to think about. Or it won't.

We each have to ponder our own existences and our own choices (the latter of which, I think you also commented on earlier today).

What's true for me, in this case, is true for you and everyone else out there:

We each as individuals have to try to figure everything out.

We each have to try to make some sense of it all.

And then we each have to decide exactly what we're going to do with all that sense we think we've made for ourselves.

Hope this has not been a total waste. If you're in a kinder, gentler mood, maybe you'll keep it to yourself if I have wasted my time (and yours, for that matter); I don't expect you to lie.

If there's one thing I'm going to wish for myself, it's the ability to develop the talent of making the quicker, shorter points you've proven so apt at making.

Best wishes for your Monday and the rest of the week ahead.

Sincerely,

Hardy

Posted on July 11, 2005 8:14 AM

Tom Trevanian said:

Oh, and I'll bet Sue would just LOVE to be the one who decides which comments are "stupid" and which are not so she can establish yet another left wing whacko blog site.
Personally, I ignore anything Sue says, and a few others. Just skip over them...if I see their name at the end of a comment I know I don't care to hear it.
Freedom is sort of like that, you have to take the good with the bad.
If you censor, the blogs will be known (rightly or wrongly) as just another politically affiliated mouthpiece for one side or the other (take your pick, depending on whether you see the N&R as too liberal or too conservative) that silences the opposition.
You know, sort of like Lex's Blog On The Run.

Posted on July 11, 2005 9:43 AM

mrproduce said:

Steve seems to be the target of choice today especially for Sue since it is Steve who seems to get under her skin more than anyone else and I am sure that anyone that gets that close would certainly be a burr that one would perfer to pick off. Of course then next week it would be someone else who is distasteful to Sue and they should be kick out, or taken down and then where does it stop. Ed may pick his burrs and then Yvonne hers , Floyd his, then I would certainly have to pick mine and I am sure Steve would certainly pick his burrs to take down and so it goes and never stops.

Taking down the trolls is certainly not the way to handle this situation. Ed, has the better idea and that is to ignore them. There are only a few and after a short time they would become hungry for attention and move on to another blog where their need for attention is met for the moment. Floyd seems to have the idea also and that is just to scroll right on by which is in as Ed suggested ignoring them.
Then again there is what is known as peer presure where the offender is equally offended by the others, but then that only gives the trolls more food for continuing. Then too Sue does not need defending by her peers or have anyone speak good things in her behalf as she so eloquently spoke of on another blog a month or so ago. However that is fine with me and she is welcome to take all the junk she wishes that is her right and I will defend that also.

So far I suppose I am going to have to go with Ed on this one(something I seldom do) and that is to ignore, ignorant statements. Whew that will certainly be a lot to ignore on some blogs! I do not agree with all but I have and will defend their right even if they're wrong.

Yes, Steve has occassionaly had some good comments to share and I am sure that he will contribute more in the future given the opportunity. As Floyd pointed out, there is some occassionaly humor in what he say or at least in the manner in which he says it.

Mrp.

Posted on July 11, 2005 10:28 AM

Lilly said:

I'm loved and hated. Sometimes at the same time. :)
I try in my posts, to contribute humor, but sometimes (and you gotta give me credit) I do provoke thought in some of you.
I'm here for entertainment, not to be attacked personally over and over and over.
You guys still need to fix the link to your "guidelines" btw. :)

Posted on July 11, 2005 12:03 PM

Angel said:

Who died and left Sue and some of the others in charge of being the blog police and the experts? Who decides if we care to read her comments, or Hogg's, or anyones?

Seymour has made a great point about censorship.

Read what you like. Ignore what you don't like.

With the exception of the person who was extremely rude to Lilly with her stupid jokes one after the other. That should have been deleted.

Posted on July 11, 2005 2:25 PM

Lilly said:

Exactly Angel. That's what I'm talking about. There is a line between censorship and making ones company liable for a lawsuit.
I suggest the N&R Attorneys and the IT department sit down and give me a call, we'll talk on speaker phone. I have some ideas.

Posted on July 11, 2005 3:02 PM

Mr. Sun said:

Stop lecturing Steve. No one should have to justify their role here, or have their views evaluted based on some other person's interpretation of what is constructive. Make it simple: delete *without comment* posts that contain: profanity, obscenity, and mere insults. Beyond that, let it ride. Steve's first comment above is the perfect example. You may not like it. I do. It reminds me that sonme people judge invididuals based on their membership in classes, and it signals me to ignore that particular writer's posts as not worth my time.

Posted on July 11, 2005 3:44 PM

Allen Johnson said:

Mr. Sun:
Unfortunately, Steve's comments are rarely that "innocent" (comparatively speaking).

Posted on July 11, 2005 3:52 PM

Roch101 said:

Allen, would you care to start a thread about factual errors in letters to the editor and the N&R's responsibility in verifying the veracity of claims made in letters? I don't want to hijack this thread, maybe the issue deserves its own discussion.

(Background: Here and here).

Posted on July 11, 2005 4:46 PM

Allen Johnson said:

Sure, Roch, be happy to. I'll create a post as soon as I'm off deadline.

Posted on July 11, 2005 5:07 PM

mrproduce said:

If all letters containing factual errors were deleted or not published by the N&R there would be very few letters period. Letters are basically mini-editorials, opinions based "loosely" on some "known facts", some very "loosely" I will have to admit. Most readers are intelligent enough to know barnyard bovine excrement when they read it. Some usually allow letters containing such to either dry up in the barnyard or as is more often the rule,shovel the excrement back into the lap of the writer. The N&R, IMO, has no responsibility other than to insure that their printed letters contain no material that would make them liable, that the language is not vulgar or foul. Beyond insuring that the letters fall with in the guidelines of decency and legality they have no other responsiblity than to publish and let the readers decide what is fact and what is fiction. To do otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of the readers.

Posted on July 12, 2005 9:30 AM

truth said:

I think what you've done is incredulous, ridiculous, and undefendable.

I would like all of the readers of this forum to know that I received a letter today from steve.

He has been booted from this website. When he went to comment on a letter, he received the message �you are not allowed to comment".

It seems the N&R nazi�s have banned Steve from posting because he got under their skin.

Sue, you got your way. Steve is gone. Hope you are happy. Allen will sleep better tonight, won�t he?

With Steve goes the freedom to post what you think. Steve�s opinions were sometimes controversial and his humor was often dark and dry, but it was intelligent. That�s why I liked it so much.

But Steve didn�t play the game. He didn�t stick to cookie-cutter responses. And SOME people (you know who you are) can�t stand to argue with someone they can�t outsmart. They can�t stand when someone has an opinion that differs from their own and can defend it. That might mean questioning their own views. So, they misuse their power and influence to get their way. Anything can be justified to smash out individuals who dare confront their insecurities and weaknesses.

Whatever it takes, huh?

You can hide behind words, you can hide behind power, but you can�t hide from the truth.

You can just ban him.

Posted on July 12, 2005 11:50 AM

truth said:

"We appreciate your ideas and feedback."

As long as your name isn't Steve, right?

Posted on July 12, 2005 12:17 PM

Lilly said:

Unless they found out it was steve who was pretending to be my half sister Orchid in the other blog, or something similar, then I don't understand what steve's "crime" was.
Cuz you see, its crap like THAT that makes blogging, boggling to the mind and not FUN to participate in.

Posted on July 12, 2005 12:17 PM

truth said:

Yeah, but it gave us something to talk about, didn't it? :)

I think this online community is just that: an online community. The regulars in the Letters to the Editor (Briankeithharper, Yvonne, Eric, Tony, mrproduce, Lilly, mr. sun, steve, Joe Schmoe, yellowdog, Roch101, Brian, Paul Elledge, Marshall, Darryl, Jon, Lex, Trish, jim, Mac, ms jackson, Michael, hayes, Tater, Yard Dog, Dan, gay tony, chip and others) have settled our differences with each other with our words and our responses. If we don't like what someone has to say, we ignore them until they go away. We are here because we want to be here.

I'm not just defending Steve. I'm defending all of us.

Posted on July 12, 2005 1:16 PM

Eric said:

You make good points, truth. I think it'll be interesting to hear if the N&R staff will explain what happened. I would be curious to hear what they might say, if anything.

Posted on July 12, 2005 1:24 PM

Dough said:

Allen, what disturbs me is that others have been more blatently abusive than steve. Maybe they've been censured, too, but there's no indication, only silence. How are we to judge as to how to temper our comments if steve is blocked, but other abusive posters aren't? (I'll go back through the archives, if you'd like some examples.)

Shoot, I enjoyed steve's sense of humor as much as (some of) the others did, at least what I could understand. I will miss him.

Posted on July 12, 2005 1:25 PM

truth said:

Dough,

Below are some of the examples you mentioned. These are pretty tame compared to what we have seen here over the last few months.

�Just as an example, take the African American race. Since the whole Johnson boondoggle of welfare was implemented the African race has stagnated in poverty. When immigrants come into this country for the most part they do real well why is the African race still stuck in poverty? Answer because they depend on the government to take care of them, this broke down the family unit.�
Trish

"F.A.G (film actors guild) is going to save us all! Haha"
Trish

"Every time you lunatic loser liberals keep opening your mouths�
heelsluva

"Joe was a cruel barely stable alcholic who ruined hundreds of lives. His passing was not morned and his "service" was not appreciated except by perhaps his soulmate Uncle Joe Stalin"

"I know you'd really like a cold one where you are"
Marshall

"God knows I dont want something hanging on my wall that comes from a liberal american hating university like UNCG."
Hayes

I had no idea her rhetoric was so bigoted - one-sided and just plain ugly.
JDRockefeller

"The difference between a republican and a democrat is a republican sucks and a democrat blows."
Joe Schmoe

"That's the day he has to swallow what he spit out during his mortal days."
Satan Incarnate

"John's response is typical.
Their fearful leader uses violence to solve problems, why shouldn't they?"
Jim

"please go be stupid somewhere else."
yellowdog

"I have enough knowledge to shoot many, many holes in the validity of the Bible. "
"Sorry hun, but you are quite ignorant.
"What's the difference between fanatical Muslims and fanitical Christians?
Fanatical Muslims aren't as evil."
"WOW! You really believe that stuff you spew, huh?"
Brian Keith Harper

"wouldn't want to be in a heaven that is full of these two-faced backstabbing so called religous rights"
Valerie

"I'm proud of ALL the people I know and respect. And I use my real name. Wanna give that a try?"
"Your comparison is illegitimate and invalid (again)"
"Door shut. I shall certainly cease thinking about you from here on out. Please do the same"
Sue

Like I said, that is just a sample of some of the nastiness that exists in the Letters to the Editors. It has been MUCH worse. Notice none of these letters are from Lilly. I purposely left out the ones that I don't consider to be regulars.

Posted on July 12, 2005 2:53 PM

Dough said:

I purposely left out the ones that I don't consider to be regulars.

Indeed, the worst ones I remember seem to come from one-time (or rather few-time) insult-artists, that I've come learned are called trolls. And they were harsh.

Posted on July 12, 2005 3:10 PM

Ed Cone said:

Allen, is Steve really banned from making comments? If so, can you tell us why?

Posted on July 12, 2005 3:40 PM

truth said:

Dough,

I would be a lot of those one-time artists you see around are really one person. Has that person been removed? It sounds like the News & Record has IP addresses if they can exclude Steve. It would be cool if there was a way to show part of that IP address so at least we know when we are dealing with one of these guerilla warfare types.

Posted on July 12, 2005 4:14 PM

truth said:

"Allen, is Steve really banned from making comments? If so, can you tell us why?"

Allen is probably sleeping right now. Sounds like the N&R had a rough night last night with the power outages and everything.

Posted on July 12, 2005 4:16 PM

logic fairy said:

Ahem.

In response to truth's list and last paragraph,

"What is all this habalooooooo over anyway. These people don't believe in anything "holy". They are murders, and hate americans.
Screw em, it doesn't matter WHAT they "swear" on, they are liars anyway. So there."

"Posted by: Lilly at July 8, 2005 08:59 AM"

"What I believe or don't believe is not important.
What is important is that you get off my back, ok? I play nice, you should too.
Thank you."

"Posted by: Lilly at July 8, 2005 12:49 PM"

Posted on July 12, 2005 4:18 PM

Allen Johnson said:

In response to your queries, Steve was banned because his posts regularly contained gratuitous obscenities.
We asked him to tone down the language but he wouldn't.
This was not an easy call to make. We would prefer to allow the letters blog to police itself. But the problem was growing worse and more and more of our readers were complaining about the rough language.
The problem, again, wasn't Steve's views, but his insistence on adding cuss words and crass references to anatomical parts for shock value or in an attempt to be funny. Or something.

Posted on July 12, 2005 4:30 PM

Dough said:

truth,

I doubt the N&R's website is sophisticated enough to track IP addresses. If so, I suspect there'd be another field to fill in when posting. Plus, I post from work and home, as I expect most of us do, which would add another layer of complexity to their technology.

Since posting requires email addresses (and not real ones at that) I think the way steve was blocked was by filtering out his address.

Posted on July 12, 2005 5:09 PM

Tony Ledford said:

I have read all the comments above with great interest.

Only having begun commenting here in the last three or four weeks, I have done so under the name "Tony" (thank you for the plug as a "regular," truth), but also under the names "Dead Dog" and "The Lord God." (No, this does not mean that I think I *am* God, it just means that I was saying the things that I wish God *would* say.)

Why was I posting anonymously for a half-dozen or so posts? I was checking the direction of the wind, sniffing the smell of the comments, guaging the relative mental health of the various contributors and the community of commenters before feeling prepared to *fully* reveal myself.

I am sorry to see that the News and Record has prevented steve from commenting, and in the abstract I feel that a forum such as this, if it were a typical internet forum, should be completely open and uncensored. However (and in the concrete), this *isn't* a typical internet forum; this is a newspaper's (a for-profit business) attempt to drastically alter its journalism/business model in a manner that has little precedent and therefor presents many challenges. So if the N&R feels the need to prevent steve from posting, I will not disagree with the paper, because I do not understand the challenges presented by the changes they are making.

I do hope, though, that everyone will consider Ed Cone's suggestion, as those of us who have been reading the USENet for 15+ years learned to do long ago; skip the comments you find offensive/annoying/disturbing/enraging/appalling and enjoy the insights, humor (intentional and unintentional) and (occasionally) thought-provoking nature of the other comments.

FWIW, I will be commenting exclusively as "Tony Ledford" from now on.

Posted on July 12, 2005 5:16 PM

Allen Johnson said:

Tony:
Thanks for your comments.
I agree. Part of the discomfort I've felt in dealing with crass and obscene comments is my personal tug-of-war between not wanting to interfere with free-flowing discussion and not wanting people who geniunely have something to say to be discouraged by long threads of dirty language and mean-spiritedness.
I hear what the longtime bloggers are saying: Ignore 'em. Starve the trolls with inattention.
But at the same time this blog and the letters to the editor blog are products of the News & Record. Even on the Internet we want to respect community standards of taste and civility.
What's more, some of you are assuming everybody is like you and has your same sensiblilities. But the blogs are inviting you AND lots of newbies into the fray.
We don't mind edginess or wit or irreverence. We do mind the kind of stuff people scrawl on public restroom walls.
Given Steve's wit and humor, I am sure he will be welcome in the blogs of his defenders.
I wish him (and them) the very best.

Posted on July 12, 2005 6:45 PM

mrproduce said:

I found that there are two very distinct sides to Steve. One, which he has often shown here as the "off the wall" commenter who does on occasion uses some rather strong language but nothing you actually would not hear crossing a high school campus on any given day. Unfortunately those students can't be banned from school as Steve has been banned from the N&R blogs.
On the other side I have found Steve to be a very thoughtful, sensitive individual. He has often made comments which fall in that category also.

I have observed that those who continually bombast Steve are the one's who rate his ire most often as not. The others, who on occasion he does not agree with, receive only mild and often humorous comments which may be or not be off the wall.

It is unfortunate that a "few" can dictate to the staff who will stay and who will go. I for one could suggest several others who could leave and not be missed by this writer nor many others one bit, however I shall refrain from calling names in case it might be construed that I am trying to influence Allan in who can post and who has to go.

Instead of bemoaning the fact that Steve has been banned, perhaps we should ask, Who's next? Careful it could be one of us.

Posted on July 12, 2005 7:17 PM

Lilly said:

Wow.. the LogicFairy! I had no idea there was such a thing.
I'm not sure what this person's point is, I guess maybe trying to point out I'm not very logical? LOL. Oh well THATS a newsflash.
I'm going to visit the blog... see whats up THERE. I sure could use some LOGIC from a FAIRY.
Come on.. lets go.

Posted on July 12, 2005 8:43 PM

Ed Cone said:

MRP, I don't think your comment about possible banning of other commenters reflects what Allen said about Steve. If I understood Allen correctly, the issue was gratuitous obscene language. Avoid that, and you won't get banned.

Posted on July 12, 2005 9:00 PM

Lex said:

Ed is correct; the issue was the gratuitous obscene language. I wasn't directly involved in the decision -- the only N&R blog I directly control is The Lex Files -- but when asked my opinion and told that the guy had been warned before, I said, yeah, pull the trigger.

Personally it doesn't bother me if someone drops an F-bomb here and there, and I'm perfectly happy to take on anyone, anytime (the demands of real life aside) in a debate on ideas and/or logic. But we're trying to create a hospitable online place for everyone, not just those of us whose hides have been hardened by 10 or 15 years on Usenet.

Which brings me to Tom Trevanian's allegation above regarding my personal blog, Blog on the Run. Tom wrote: "If you censor, the blogs will be known (rightly or wrongly) as just another politically affiliated mouthpiece for one side or the other (take your pick, depending on whether you see the N&R as too liberal or too conservative) that silences the opposition. You know, sort of like Lex's Blog On The Run."

For the record (and I just checked my Haloscan account to determine the record), I have banned five 256-address ranges and six individual IP addresses in the almost 3 1/2 years I have been writing Blog on the Run (which is a hobby, something I do for fun). Most of those were because of trackback spam; only two, if I recall correctly, were of individuals. In both of those cases, I banned the individuals only after repeatedly asking them to take issue with my ideas and/or logic rather than attacking me personally. And I left the comment exchanges up so that anyone who happened by would have a basis for judging whether or not a ban was reasonable.

Those are the facts. Whether Tom's characterization of them is reasonable, I leave it to the individual reader to decide.

Posted on July 12, 2005 9:47 PM

mrproduce said:

Ed, I don't believe that I personally have anything to worry about when it comes to using obscene language on any of these blogs. I choose to use a different vocabulary . That is not to say that at points in my life I have not been more than rough around the edges in my vocabulary. Being a drill sergeant and an enlisted man for many years of my life certainly gave me more than an introduction to strong language. However I did for the most part choose to use a better level of language at least on most occasions. I am not saying either that there are not those who I would at times wish to stand in a corner and oppress their ears with some well selected words.

I was not defending Steve but I would ask however, who determines obscene? What is obscene to one may not be obscene to another. I believe this has been argued in courts for many years now and there is still no real agreement as to what is or what is not obscene. Some say it is what is obscene at the community level. Again, who's community, which community. Would it be the N&R community made up by Allen and those who work there? Or would it be the community which the N&R serves? There are many levels of what is considered obscene within each of these communities and who is to decide. Certainly Ed, you would have to agree that if the courts themselves can not agree on what constitutes obscenity within communities it would certainly be questionable to believe that one or one under the influence of a few could make that decision.

I did read one opinion at some point that stated that this (N&R letters blog) being a public forum but owned by the N&R , that they , the N&R certainly had the right to set a level of what they deemed to be decent in light of the community standard. This again goes back to which community. There are those who would be offended if one used the once banned (in Gone With the Wind) terrible word �damn�. Others are less offended by the lyrics used by some rappers and at times reprinted on several of the blogs , which uses the �f� word which I believe was at a high level of controversy after a Duke �Maryland basketball game where the Maryland fans wore T-shirts with the �f� Duke written on them. Or, how about the more recent controversy when the Vice President evidently whispered to a member of the Senate to go �f� himself.

All that said, Ed it still comes down to the question of who will decide on what will constitute obscene and with that being decided by only one or two, who will be next.

Posted on July 12, 2005 10:05 PM

Jerry Bledsoe said:

So, Ed, once the N&R speaks you suddenly aren't a free speech guy after all. You were free speech just a day or two ago. I guess you know where your bread is buttered.

So poor Steve, whoever he may be, becomes the first person officially banned by the News & Record. If I were him, I'd get me a t-shirt and wear it everywhere. Maybe Billy Yow will bring out one and wear it to a commissioner's meeting: Banned by the News & Record.

Obscenity. That's Steve's crime. It's a hard one to define.

When I was a reporter in High Point, a painting was banned from an art show there because it was obscene. It was a top-down view into a commode. And there wasn't anything in the commode, except for water. And it wasn't even yellow.

Out with it! Obviously came from a sick mind.

A projectionist and theater manager there also were arrested for showing an obscene movie. It was Hawaii, from the story by James Michener, another sick mind, I suppose.

To some people it's an obscenity just to disagree with them, and heaven only knows what may strike the gatekeepers at the N&R as obscene, although I probably qualify.

So the N&R, which depends on free speech, is headed down the treacherous road of banning speech, which likely will see a lot more people joining the banned list.

Is there really a need for this, Allen? Isn't there a simple solution to the problem of the comments to letters to the editor.

The problem is created because the N&R has a double standard, as I have pointed out previously.

To have a letter to the editor published, you're restricted to 200 words. You have to sign your name and address and it has to be verified. You even are asked to offer some evidence of fact. All sound policies.

None of that is required from responders to these letters on the web edition. Zip. Most of the people who submit letters to the editor probably don't even know that they are being subjected to all manner of abuse on the web edition by people who don't have to follow any rules.

So either apply the same rules and checks to comments to letters on the web edition, or simply post the letters without a comments section. Then you eleminate the double standard, and double standards are always a threat to a newspaper's credibility.

As an alternative, offer a section of letters to the editor just for the web edition. No restrictions and let the comments flow. Just post a simple notice to anybody who might enter there that they may be headed into the deepest of obscenities, vicious personal attacks and utter nonsense--and maybe even some mind altering ideas.
Fair warned. Put that on the other N&R blogs as well. Then the offended have no reason to complain.

I'll accept a simple thank you if you follow this suggestion. But I suspect that you like this banning business too much to give it up.

Posted on July 12, 2005 10:54 PM

Dough said:

truth,

I stand corrected. In The Lex Files I see that the N&R DOES have the ability to block IP addresses.

*naivety melting away*

Posted on July 13, 2005 7:35 AM

Ed Cone said:

Jerry, is it possible for you to make a point without attacking people? It's tiresome -- I point out that the N&R enforces some limits on harsh language, and now I'm a hypocrite, selling out for that huge check they send me? Right.

Anyway, to your point. I'm all for free speech. You can cuss all you want to at my blog. But the paper has standards about the language it allows, as do many other venues. Are they my standards? No. But since they seem to be pretty clear, and not based on politics but on widely-understood standards of vulgarity, then what exactly is the problem? Would you really argue that the paper is obligated to publish f-bombs to protect its free-speech status?

Posted on July 13, 2005 7:47 AM

Terry Heaton said:

I'm new to this discussion, Allen, so my question may have been answered long ago, but here goes.

If the issue is language, why not filter that instead of banning commenters? It seems a rather obvious fix.

Posted on July 13, 2005 9:00 AM

Sue said:

(One of the by-products of being busy at work and organizing a community conference is that I've not had time to peruse the N&R threads. I'm sorry I'm coming in late on this one.)

I'm glad that the thread changed from its original interjections of "Sue thinks she is goddess" to a frank discussion of solutions for the N&R to have a blog arena they can live with (i.e. that it meets community standards that they wish to adhere to) and that, for the most part, this conversation is heated but reasonably polite. I'm a big proponent of argument, discussion and back-and-forth; I like building consensus.

That said, my father used to tell me that you can't argue logically with fools, drunks, or liars. I forgot that sage advice in previous run-ins with some commenters. I remember it now.

However, I also don't have to wade through a cesspool when reading a web site owned by the N&R, nor do I think they want me (that's the generic "me") to do so. With huge discussion in print about the appropriateness of a graphic accident photo in the print edition, why is there a difference in the online edition?

Those who choose which photo goes in the paper walk a fine line: what's news and worthwhile shock, and what's not. What is pandering? What could be said the same way without a horrific photo?

The "solution" to the blog comment thing isn't going to be decided today by us. It's going to play out nationally as more papers follow the N&R lead. Someone's going to devise a better system (they always do); better text filters will go into place (questionable posts can be sent for moderation), and lines like the "HAHA" thing will be flagged automatically. I do believe that IP-snagging is the easiest way; I also believe that booted posters should be given something akin to 10-day suspensions. Everyone, IMO, is redeemable. Everyone can learn.

If "steve" doesn't want to return (if the N&R eventually allows him to do so), that's his choice. If he does, then he knows what the rules are and he (as an example) can choose to abide by them. I, FWIW, also know the rules. If you disagree with me or think I'm sanctimonious, then great! Just skip my rather-infrequent-now posts.

Jerry, it's callous for you to state that Allen enjoys banning abusive users. I'm pretty sure it was a very troubling decision for him and the fact he's banned only 1 user so far speaks to his belief that we truly wants free-flowing conversation.

If he didn't, I'd be gone. And so, probably, would you. (I think he's stuck with Ed.)

(sarcasm mode off)

Posted on July 13, 2005 9:24 AM

JayCee said:

The NC General Statutes defines Disorderly Conduct (in part) as follows:

"GS 14-288.4. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
(a) Disorderly conduct is a public disturbance intentionally caused by any person who:
(2) Makes or uses any utterance, gesture, display or abusive language which is intended and plainly likely to provoke violent retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace;"

How does this apply to the current discussion on the moderation of Comments ?
If what you write is a personal attack and would cause that person to punch you in the nose if you said it to his face, you've crossed the line. I think the N&R has the right to take action to prevent that.
If I run a restaurant or bar or grocery store I do not have to tolerate someone who enters my business solely for the purpose of standing at the checkout line and screaming and hurling insulting obscenities at my patrons. People who comment here shouldn't have to tolerate that, either.
It would be my responsibility as a business owner to clean up that kind of behavior, call the police, ask the offenders to leave, and maybe ban them from my business.
The N&R has the same responsibility and options here.

Mr. Bledsoe, if I walked into Fuzzy's and stood at your booth calling you every kind of MF'r in the book, etc., how long would you tolerate that before you asked that some action be taken? How many times would you return if you knew that every single time you came in I'd be standing there insulting your mother and your lineage? Would you bring your family with you to listen to me while you dine?
Defining "obscenity" is not the issue here, it's the standard of conduct in public that readers have a right to expect from a reputable newspaper.

Posted on July 13, 2005 9:26 AM

truth said:

Sue says: "If you disagree with me or think I'm sanctimonious, then great! Just skip my rather-infrequent-now posts."

That is irony, isn't it?

If the issue is really gratuitous profanity, then I think you owe Steve an apology. Because it is hardly fair for him to be banned for that crime when we have SEVERAL people here who are guilty of it on an almost daily basis. Another Bigmouth used every cuss word in the book and he wasn't banned. So, I think that is a lame excuse.

I don't agree with the use of constant profanity. Most of Steve's post did not contain profanity at all. If they did, I would have quickly tuned him out.

Sure, N&R has the right to enforce their policies. But I would think in something called a 'public forum', the enforcement of those policies would be fair and unbiased.

I just don't believe that to be the case.

Posted on July 13, 2005 9:56 AM

truth said:

Allen, you said: "We asked him to tone down the language but he wouldn't."

Can you find where you put that in writing to Steve? Until you do, I'll believe Steve.

These are words that Steve passed along. I think it is only fair that since we are discussing him, that he gets in one last word.

"Allen: I know you had to sell out to the jewess because she is connected to a lot of people you rub elbows with. You have chosen to not delete many other comments that were far worse and were totally vicious for viciousness sake. You are a hypocrite, a sell-out, and a liar. That's where I'm the bigger man, I won't live a lie for a piece of bread"

I won't be posting any other comments from Steve. But for those of you who think Steve has no options, you better think again.

I know Steve personally from WAY back. His father is a prominent Greensboro doctor and is VERY wealthy.

Allen, Steve thinks you have lied and shown prejudice. He will sue and most likely win. That's what I got out of my conversation with him today, anyway.

I think you guys have a lot of serious thinking to do.

Posted on July 13, 2005 10:07 AM

Ed Cone said:

What's he going to sue for, hurt feelings? Even in the age of Judy Miller, I don't Steve has much of a lawsuit.

Posted on July 13, 2005 11:00 AM

Lilly said:

Well Ed, that depends on steve's Attorney, the Judge, and the 12 jurors doesn't it? :)

Posted on July 13, 2005 11:50 AM

Roch101 said:

If Dave Allen of democraticunderground.com comes to Converge South, I'd suggest the N&R find a little time to pick his brain. He successfully manages online discussions among over 30,000 members, constantly fending off disruptions while successfully maintaining a productive environment for discussion.

Posted on July 13, 2005 12:25 PM

Roch101 said:

LOL!

"Steve" vs. Landmark Corp.

Posted on July 13, 2005 12:27 PM

Ed Cone said:

I don't think Johnny Cochrane himself could get this one to a jury, Lily. Although it would be interesting to see the pseudonymous commenter reveal himself...

Posted on July 13, 2005 12:28 PM

Ed Cone said:

Lilly, please excuse me for spelling your name wrong.

Posted on July 13, 2005 12:30 PM

William Bosley said:

Truth said this about the former blogger known as "steve":

"His father is a prominent Greensboro doctor and is VERY wealthy."

Oh, I'm scared!!

So does that mean that because he's a rich spoiled brat he gets to act like a 5-year old with Tourette's and insult and degrade who he wishes without consequences?
Like it was said above, he acted in a disorderly manner in a public place. His conduct would not be tolerated in a public place, or in most homes.

Posted on July 13, 2005 1:02 PM

Lilly said:

No worries Ed. :)
William Bosley, you don't seem to realize the difference between real life and cyber space, imo. (your comparison to steve acting disorderly in a public place)
Get on with it.. let the trial begin.. LOL
Disorderly conduct in cyberspace is the case that they gave them. *said in my best snoop dogg voice* LOL.

Posted on July 13, 2005 1:23 PM

truth said:

William Bosley,

Never heard of you. You picked now to make a comment?

Posted on July 13, 2005 1:37 PM

truth said:

Steve used his real name. Why don't you, Bos?

Posted on July 13, 2005 1:39 PM

Logic Fairy said:

Always happy to help a human in need, Lilly!

From above:

"I'm loved and hated. Sometimes at the same time. :)
I try in my posts, to contribute humor, but sometimes (and you gotta give me credit) I do provoke thought in some of you.
I'm here for entertainment, not to be attacked personally over and over and over.
You guys still need to fix the link to your "guidelines" btw. :)"

"Posted by: Lilly at July 11, 2005 12:03 PM"

Fourth comment down at http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/archives/2005/07/any_certain_bel.html:

"What is all this habalooooooo over anyway. These people don't believe in anything "holy". They are murders, and hate americans.
Screw em, it doesn't matter WHAT they "swear" on, they are liars anyway. So there."

"Posted by: Lilly at July 8, 2005 08:59 AM"

Posted on July 13, 2005 1:54 PM

Logic Fairy said:

"Steve used his real name. Why don't you, Bos?"

"Posted by: truth at July 13, 2005 01:39 PM"

Posted on July 13, 2005 2:01 PM

Lilly said:

*looks at "truth"* WTF is up with this logicfairy person? LMAO!!!

Posted on July 13, 2005 2:42 PM

John D. Young said:

The problem on the Letter to the Editor Blog is much larger than the issue of "profanity." The Letter to the Editor Blog somehow needs to be a place for civil community discussion of the ideas expressed in a specific letter.

Most people do not get involved with the discussion because of the seizure of the blog by a group that seems to define themselves as "regulars."

These "regulars" are easy for some of us to ignore but I think they do create a real problem for a meaningful broad based discussion. Often their comments push away others and keep the discussion from including other voices.

Could comments on the blog, as has been mentioned by Jerry Bledsoe, be part of a more consistent policy for letters and blog post? Your policy could involve into one blog post per day or per week at the Letter to the Editor Blog to allow more voices at the table. A few think that the Letter to the Editor Blog site belongs to them. Censorship is a slippery slope but a good moderator in a discussion tries to get other voices at the table to speak up and express their views -- those who speak all the time and dominate the discussion need a good moderator or better policy to allow a much broader and diverse group of voices. Of course for my suggestion to work people would have to post their blog comments with their actual name (or blogger name) at a verifiable email addresses.

Posted on July 13, 2005 3:24 PM

WillR said:

As I asked over at Ed's

This issue might be dealt with by applying some common sense, democratic principles and some fairly robust technology, specifically Slashcode. Slashcode is the infrastructure under the popular website Slashdot. On Slashdot, comments are filtered based on a weighted score. You're free to set you're filter high or low based on your preference. The scores are based on your fellow readers valuation of your comment - if they value it the comment is elevated - if it's troll food - down it goes. As you build your credibility online, your comments are automatically weighted accordingly. The Deaniacs had a similar system for suppressing but not elimination crud content.

Posted on July 13, 2005 5:05 PM

Allen Johnson said:

Thanks for the suggestions. We're working on some solutions as we speak.

Posted on July 13, 2005 5:13 PM

truth said:

John Young,

Your idea of rationing posts in a blog pretty much is contrary to the whole purpose of a blog. If you are going to do that, why have a blog at all. Now granted, some think they own a blog. In my opinion, the ones who think that are the ones who would put a lot of effort into getting a fellow poster kicked OFF the blog. You may lump me in that category but I don't feel threatened by anyone here and I come here to visit and don't consider this to be MY website.

Lilly,

The logic fairy is a coward who can't even use his regular screen name or persona to post his comments, in my opinion.

Posted on July 13, 2005 5:15 PM

Ed Cone said:

Not interested in prolonging the flame war, Truth...but how is writing as "LogicFairy" different from writing as "Truth"?

Posted on July 13, 2005 5:27 PM

William Bosley said:

So, truth, your real name is "donotkissdeadfish?"
Your parents must have hated the very sight of you at birth. If they could only see what you've become...
And what business is it of yours when or where I chose to make my literary debut?
I suggest you concentrate on discovering your own identity instead of worrying about others.

Posted on July 13, 2005 7:20 PM

Lilly said:

The "truth" can do many things, it can set you free, it can bring you joy, it can also hurt. Best idea is just not question the "truth". The "truth" is in all of us if we just take the time to listen to it.

Posted on July 13, 2005 7:33 PM

mrproduce said:

It would appear that suddenly a couple of new trolls have appeared and wish only to attack instead of offering something of value. As my granddaddy use to say, "a fresh carcass on the ground brings out the buzzards." With that out of the way I can perhaps offer something to kick around in our heads a bit.

I will go back to a previous post and ask if the reason for blogs is not the free expression of thoughts related to the posting on the blog. If one is limited to posting one thought per day, how can a line of civil discourse then be carried on in any sensible fashion. The whole idea of limits, pitching out post through an electronic censor (Slashcode) is again limiting the right to speak. If perhaps that level was set to flag or warn that off the wall post would not be accepted then perhaps it would slow down some of the non-contributing post. I even have a problem with that in some ways because as I have seen on some blogs, especially the LTE, people drop in irrelevant comments in order to calm a name calling or mud slinging situation. At times it has worked , others it has not. This is all new to many people and with something new comes growing pains, trial and error. I would humbly suggest that no knee jerk action be taken in light of what has transpired in the past days. All the talk of censorship in any form, banning, or limitations only can bring about situations where hurts, wounds and hard feelings may occur. IMHO give all this some time and see what correction can be brought about by the majority of contributing posters working with those in charge of these blogs. Hopefully it will remain a place where a fresh exchange of ideas with some occasional humor or silliness can survive.

Posted on July 13, 2005 10:02 PM

WillR said:

mrproduce there are definitely problems with the slashcode approach (cliquishness and tyranny of the majority) but one benefit is that comments aren't censored. All comments can be retained (though I imagine blatant SPAM would be excised), it's just that they're weighted so that the end-user - you - can filter them based on your perogative. Want to see every little bit? Select -1. Want to see what appears to be relevant (based on a possibly biased jury), select a +3 or +4. If the choice is between an invisible hand censoring comments and a group possibly "shouting down" an unpopular (but maybe fascinating, relevant, well-thought out) opinion, well the slashcode approach is maybe a good compromise.

Posted on July 14, 2005 12:30 AM

Allen Johnson said:

Round-the-clock moderaton of the blogs is not practical. That would require someone on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It also would require constant monitoring of archived letters to keep an eye for new comment posts there.
We could limit the number of comments per person per letter, but that could cut off interesting discussions in midstream.
To Jerry Bledsoe's point, I don't believe the letters blog is an all-or-none proposition.
If we verified blog comments as we do printed letters, the ability to hold onging, real-time conversations about subjects would be lost. What would be the point?
I believe there is a middle ground.
As for Steve and whether they have been posts as offensive or more offensive than his, absolutely.
But Steve was a prolific, almost omnipresent poster on several blogs.
I did email him early on about the tone of his comments. On at least once instance he apologized without prompting about the content of a comment.
Then he'd go back and make the same kind of post again. And again. And again.
As I said before, the blogosphere is a big, wonderful place. We're only one destination.
If you are so taken with Steve, by all means, invite him to your sites. I'm sure he would appreciate that.
A footnote, I am away from the office much of today, so there may be a delay in replies to your comments.
But I'll check in at the end of the day. Thanks.

Posted on July 14, 2005 8:11 AM

mrproduce said:

Thanks for the explanation of the Slashcode WillR. It does make a little more sense in some ways and it could possibly help with some of the situations that arise here in blogland.
As I said, all of this is fairly new to most folks and like anything new there are some who would abuse the good until it is no longer workable in the intended fashion. Let's hope that we can continue without censorship in any form or electronic monitoring and on occassion be able to be silly and humorous as well as serious when the need arises.

Posted on July 14, 2005 9:48 AM

truth said:

William Bosley said:

"So does that mean that because he's a rich spoiled brat he gets to act like a 5-year old with Tourette's and insult and degrade who he wishes without consequences?"

"So, truth, your real name is "donotkissdeadfish?"
Your parents must have hated the very sight of you at birth. If they could only see what you've become...
And what business is it of yours when or where I chose to make my literary debut?
I suggest you concentrate on discovering your own identity instead of worrying about others."

I guess I must have touched a nerve or something. See, William Bosley, I've never read a post by you prior to the ones above. So I assumed that you are another one of these trolls who changes their name from Logic Fairy to William Bosley to whatever in order to post a nasty word or two and not have it come back to you in any fashion. I may have been wrong in that assumption. Prove me wrong. Stick around and make some meaningful comments.

So far you've attacked Steve (who is pretty much defenseless because he can't post to respond to your accusations). Then you said my parents must have hated me. I can assure you that is not true.

Is Truth my real name? Maybe. In my opinion, the point is that I consistently use Truth and any remarks I make reflect upon my screen persona. Would it make a difference here whether I used Robert Smith or Truth in any real sense? The only difference I can see that it could make is if some sick person wanted to take things to another level, they'd have my personal information that they could use against me. I'm not willing to jeapordize my wife or children's lives just to prove a point to strangers.

Donotkissdeadfish@yahoo.com IS my REAL email address. Since you went as far as checking it, you could have sent me an email. I WOULD have responded and you would have had my real name because it appears in the reply address box.

I hold no ill will towards you. If you want to continue to attack the Truth or anyone else, that's fine by me. Just make sure you don't say anything confrontational to Sue. If you do, your days are numbered

Posted on July 14, 2005 10:56 AM

Lilly said:

Yeah, what "truth" said.
And then some.
Ya ol' busta. hahahaha.

Posted on July 14, 2005 11:15 AM

William Bosely said:

"truth", you have now threatened me personally. Is that the kind of place you think this is? Is that the purpose of this section?
You may "assume" anything you want, but it will probably be wrong.
I feel I can comment on anything I want to in here, but personal attacks like yours are the reason many will not post here, and fewer pay any attention to the drivel that comes from those like you.
I come here to post in a public forum, not send personal emails to others on here about what we discuss on here. I will not discuss this point with you personally, and I don't care to hear from you, either.
As for Sue, why do you feel it necessary to personally threaten me? Who brought up Sue, anyway? What specifically will you do to me if I say "anything" to Sue? Why are you agitated to the point of physical violence against me? Do you have control or self-esteem issues? Do you need professional help?
Please, tell me how you will track me down and harm me because you disagree with something I say.

Posted on July 14, 2005 5:18 PM

William Bosley said:

Now, truth, on to the point you pointedly did not answer:

"So does that mean that because he's a rich spoiled brat he gets to act like a 5-year old with Tourette's and insult and degrade who he wishes without consequences?"

Do you think that someone's financial position obligates the newspaper (or anyone else) to give them special, preferential treatment? That sort of goes against the doctrine of fairness, wouldn't you say? Were you making a veiled threat against the N&R by saying that "steve" had prominent family? Why do you feel compelled to fight "steve's" fights for him? If Mr. Johnson emailed steve, I'm sure steve can email back and fight his own battles.
Why does banning someone who brought discredit upon himself anger you so much? Why is it your business at all?

Posted on July 14, 2005 5:23 PM

Sue said:

"As for Sue, why do you feel it necessary to personally threaten me? Who brought up Sue, anyway? What specifically will you do to me if I say "anything" to Sue?"

I think you misread his spew; he's trying to tell you that somehow I'm the reason "steve" was banned. Allen's said repeatedly what his reasons were for banning steve and I don't think my name came up. So much for "truth."

Anyway, if you care to see what the graciousness level has dropped to here, read the July 13 post on my blog here

Posted on July 14, 2005 6:37 PM

Allen Johnson said:

Sue is not responsible for Steve's permanent exile. This call was mine alone, and others will follow if the state of dialogue remains at gutter-level.

Posted on July 14, 2005 7:21 PM

mrproduce said:

Truth says:
I hold no ill will towards you. If you want to continue to attack the Truth or anyone else, that's fine by me. Just make sure you don't say anything confrontational to Sue. If you do, your days are numbered

Mr Bosley says:
"truth", you have now threatened me personally. Is that the kind of place you think

Kindly Mr. Bosley show where you were attacked personaly. The comment about making comments to Sue is purely tongue in cheek. The your days are numbered remark refers to the remarks which Sue made concerning taking certain people down and most feel she was refering to Steve since his name was the only one mentioned by Alen to be banned.

Mr. Bosley says:
Why does banning someone who brought discredit upon himself anger you so much? Why is it your business at all?

If truth wishes to express emotion , anger or happiness toward someone being banned then that is his right to express such and therefore makes it his business. I believe that each of us have a right to speak, you and truth as well as others. If not then I sure wasted a lot of years defending that right.

Mr Bosley says:
So, truth, your real name is "donotkissdeadfish?"
Your parents must have hated the very sight of you at birth. If they could only see what you've become...

Perhaps Mr. Bosley had the tone of your comment been more civil and certainly not included anything about ones parents, the rest of your remarks might well have been taken more seriously.
You see, Mr. Bosley, the same type of remarks which you made and the insulting way you stated them are exactly the same type of thing that Steve was accused of doing. He may have included a few choice word along at times with his but the sometimes slashing way he worded his comments are what offended some people more than his profanity.

You are welcome Mr. Bosley to post you opinion on any blog that you may wish or comment on any letter you wish and I certainly will defend your right to do so as I do others. If I may humbly suggest however that you use a more civil tone in your remarks especially to people you do not know.

I for one wish to see these LTE remarks continue for a long time and with a little civility toward all those who post it will continue.
As you can see the trolls followed in the comments made by number 2 which is certainly not what is needed on this blog.

I ask that you take my comments as well meaning and thoughtful and welcome aboard.

Posted on July 14, 2005 7:50 PM

mrproduce said:

OOOPS, sorry Allen, left out the other l in your name. Course heck, being an ole mountain boy I had a time not spelling it Alan

Posted on July 14, 2005 7:53 PM

Lilly said:

way to go mr p! *applauding wildly*
Very good closing argument. :)

Posted on July 14, 2005 9:02 PM

Dough said:

truth, thank you for expressing so well what I was thinking.

Posted on July 14, 2005 9:29 PM

Dough said:

And, I have to add to Lilly's applause for mrproduce!

Posted on July 14, 2005 9:30 PM

mrproduce said:

Thanks folks but I did not do it for applause. I did it in hopes that people will soon realize that everyone has a right to an opinion and should state such as long as they do it in a civil manner. I for one would hate to see the LTE blog deleted and there is rumored to be some talk along those lines. It has also been suggested by one or two bloggers. I will leave it to you to search those out for they have a right to their opinion as well.
Many of those who have been here for some time now have actually learned how to discuss topics without stooping to gutter talk and name calling. Unfortunately there are still a few, even though they have been around for some time still have not learned proper discourse. I suppose that there will always be those who will make the same simple remarks over and over because they either feel it impresses some readers, or they feel that they are making a political statement, what kind I have yet to figure out, or else they just do not have the ability to make any remarks that will contribute to what these blogs are for and that is to see, read and think about others opinions and give honest consideration to what the other person has said. I am certainly not saying that we have to agree with the other person but that we should be agreeable in our disagreement.
I remember when I first started on these blogs. I at times would allow someone to stir my ire and I would make disparaging remarks toward them in a personal way and so would many others who also have learned to read it and it it ticks you off let it pass. If one must take exception to another do it , as many of us have learned to do, politely but firmly.
Thanks again for the opportunity to express my views.

Posted on July 14, 2005 9:47 PM

Lilly said:

yeah mr p, but when you're right, you're right. :)
I like these forums. I try to have fun with them and the people on here. Sometimes I cannot please everyone, nor do I feel it is my purpose to. :)
I have opinions, everyone does. Its a neat way to discuss "things" and I'm glad I have had the opportunity to do so.
It's not about being liked, or popular, although I admit, I do get fan mail from time to time. :) It's just about freedom of speech, and expression.

Posted on July 14, 2005 10:47 PM

William Bosely said:

"truth" told me:
"Just make sure you don't say anything confrontational to Sue. If you do, your days are numbered"

How could anyone take that as anything but a threat, given the tone of the rest of his responses? If he made that comment to my face, I assure you I'd consider it a threat and legal action would follow. And so would you.
Asking someone to explain himself and his motivations is hardly the thing that got that guy "steve" banned, if I've read the comments from Mr. Johnson and others correctly.
We'll see if truth will answer "truthfully."

Posted on July 14, 2005 11:19 PM

Dough said:

Mr. Bosley,

You ask "How could anyone take that as anything but a threat"? I took it as a reference to the recent event of the blocking of a poster. If you read back through the thread you'll see what transpired. You may need to also read through many of the letters in the "Letters to the Editor" blog. If you are interested enough in pursuing this interpretation to do this, you will see that a person named Sue figures into the discourse rather prominently. I'm not an older poster here, but I gathered this debate regarding Sue, steve, and the blocking of posters goes back a ways.

So, another interpretation could be made that truth is warning you about offending Sue, actually trying to help you and familiarize you with the personalities of other posters.

Also, please go back to truth's post. Note that truth spells his name with a lower case "t" (as do others), and that he uses the capitalized "Truth" in the last paragraph of his post.

So, Mr. Bosley, I had a different interpretation, adn came up with a second that is equally valid. That your interpretation involved attack may say something about you, rather than truth.

Posted on July 15, 2005 7:13 AM

mrproduce said:

Mr. Bosley,

What a relatively newcomer to these blogs stated is correct concerning the statement made by "truth" which you incorrectly took as an insult.
Mr. Bosley, you continue to use statements such as a threat would bring about a law suit. Is it just me, or do I detect a sense of one being a bit on the fringe of overly defensive and touchy about anything that is perceived wrong in their opinion. If that is true, Mr. Bosley, you will certainly have a difficult time in establishing any kind of credibility on any of the main blogs.
Please do go back and read some of the commentors on the LTE pages and you will find what I am saying is certainly true. Please note some of Steves early comments which were not so filled with cuss word and follow how they progressed to a point to where he was asked to leave by Allen. No one on these blogs want to see anyone removed, but those on these blogs also wish to see them continue and for the moment Allen feels there is some worth in keeping them. The majority of those on the blogs feel the same. I hope that you will join in on these blogs on a regular basis and learn as most of us have, to first consider what was said, being sure that it is understood, before making reply.
I am sure that is not too much to ask.

Posted on July 15, 2005 9:21 AM

Allen Johnson said:

For Jerry and others who are confused about what "gratuitous" means, there is a comment earlier in this thread from "number 2." I will leave it there a few minutes before erasing it.

Posted on July 15, 2005 11:13 AM

truth said:

mrproduce, Dough and others:

Thank you for explaining to William Bosley that what I said was not a threat. I should have been more clear in my statement. I'm sorry he thought I was threatening him.

I said in a sentence preceding that "I hold no ill will towards you" I meant that 100% and am sorry for any misunderstanding.

Posted on July 18, 2005 1:56 PM

alex

said: