The Antiplanner has traditionally allowed anyone to post anything they want as a comment. Although I dislike namecalling and ad hominem attacks, I regard them as more reflections on the commenter. A couple of commenters — you know who they are — primarily engage in namecalling and I’ve urged others to simply ignore them.
But Friday someone took the trouble to look up personal information about another commenter and posted it in a comment. The person who the comment was about complained and asked me to delete it, which I did. I also sent an email to the address of the person who posted the comment explaining why I deleted their comment.
Instead of respecting my wishes, the person reposted the comment. Either they ignored my email or they used a fake email address when they signed up and never received my email.
While high blood pressure is viagra online from canada https://www.supplementprofessors.com/cialis-4010.html known as the “silent killer,” because it is associated with few side effects too. Sex is safe for viagra online cheap the preponderance of people with regard to the effect of the drug. Though order generic cialis the individual may climax, release of semen at climax. Capote represents businesses with overnight levitra regulatory compliance issues and litigation.
I am tired of this and so I’ve decided on a new policy. First, I’ll discourage namecalling and ad hominem attacks. That means if someone calls to my attention a comment that contains no worthwhile information I may delete it. Second, if they don’t change their behavior, people whose comments consist almost exclusively of such namecalling and/or ad hominem attacks will be deleted from the comment list. Finally, people whose email addresses are obviously fake or who do not respond to emails that I send them will be deleted from the comment list.
I don’t like doing this but I hope it will improve the level of discourse. I much appreciate most of the comments made by people on all sides of the issues. I encourage everyone who comments to stick to factual arguments and not make them personal. Those who repeatedly make things too personal will find their comments and/or their ability to comment disappearing.
Good.
Unless there is a good reason (e.g. the poster works for a municipality in a public role and their personal views clash with their public position) I think that all posters should post under their real name.
I decided a while back only to post under my real name. I post on public forums and blogs, and that’s the same as walking down a high street holding a placard. If someone would not write it on a placard, they shouldn’t be posting it on a forum.
Someone posting under their real name indicates seriousness on their part, and promotes courtesy.
It is notable that neither ‘highwayman’ nor ‘metrosucks’, to pick two examples, are likely to be their real names.
“Instead of respecting my wishes, the person reposted the comment. Either they ignored my email or they used a fake email address when they signed up and never received my email.”
Clearly I am the “offender”. As usually, there are other explanations beyond the either/or dichotomy. I explained in an email to The Antiplanner that I saw that my comment was “awaiting moderation” and since there were several links, reposted with fewer links thinking it had ended up in the spam queue. It wasn’t a matter of not respecting your wishes. I didn’t ignore your email nor did I use a fake one. I just didn’t receive your email until after the fact. Did you not receive my email explaining what I’ve restated here? Also, to set the record straight, the “trouble to look up personal information” took all of 30 seconds.
Finally, I’m glad the free reign of certain people to call others puerile, boy, and accuse them of making **** up to have play has come to an end.
Frank, I haven’t seen the post or the comment, but how does personal information help here? Apparently you think it is somehow relevant – how so?
Hear hear! Hopefully commenters will be able to police themselves. I’m sure Mr. O’Toole has better things to do with his time then babysit us.
The commenter section did pass a line recently in that personal information was posted about another commenter. But on the other hand, in the last week Dan has attacked many people personally, not their ideas. In fact, on the same Thursday thread he kept repeating over and over and over again the same non-substantive rant.
I am guilty of replying to his posts with Monty Python videos, but what else do you do that is interesting to someone who attacks with no evidence and then demands ever more evidence from his opponents? To give into him is just to invite more troll behavior.
The Antiplanner can set the rules for his own blog. But if he wants the discussion to focus on substance and not personal attacks, I suggest he do something about Dan who is constantly trying to drag the discussion into name calling. I believe the internet has long ago coined a name for people who try to sabotage a website they politically oppose, but can’t attack with substance, by constantly trying to stir the discussion section into extreme behavior.
Sratch a so called “libertarian”, find a despot.
The Antiplanner wrote:
I don’t like doing this but I hope it will improve the level of discourse. I much appreciate most of the comments made by people on all sides of the issues. I encourage everyone who comments to stick to factual arguments and not make them personal. Those who repeatedly make things too personal will find their comments and/or their ability to comment disappearing.
Randal, you have always been incredibly civilized and polite towards other people, even those that you do not agree with. That’s reflected in your style of moderating here.
And I do not always agree with what you say or write, but I still very much like and respect you, and am honored to call you a friend.
To other posters – folks, ultimately, this is Randal’s space, and I deem it reasonable that everyone here abide by his simple rules, which allow for ample and full debate.
But on the other hand, in the last week Dan has attacked many people personally, not their ideas.
This is false.
This is not to say I don’t play rough. This is to say I call BS on the standard, expected false accusations and mischaracterizations.
DS
This is not to say I don’t play rough.
Nobody buys that, Dan. You just act like a jerk, nothing more, nothing less.
This will be my last response of a personal nature, but the claim in #8 needs exposure to fresh air and daylight.
Let’s take a quick walk down memory lane.
This is just a small sampling of Dan’s ad hominem abuse.
It’s time for it to stop.
I’m in favor of Dan posting as often and indelicately as he’d like to but…
…I have to wonder what compels him to spend hours at this site? He clearly hates 90% of the participants and acts as though his intellect is a vast, limitless ocean, polluted by this here legion of small “guvmint” aficionados.
Which is all fine and good, I don’t have a problem with any of that. Someone I’ve known for 10 years took yours truly aside this week and told me I’m “hostile,” and I can’t really disagree.
But with Dan, it’s just…puzzling. There are lots of sites I personally have profound, fundamental disagreements with, but I don’t spend much time on them except to sample opinions that are different than my own. And then I move on.
I’m sure Dan will tell us he stops by to enlighten us knuckle-dragging sock puppets, and that it is pleasurable for him to do so. That it is humanitarian of him.
But, it reeks of OCD and maybe some other unidentified neurosis and/or pathology.
Which again — fine.
It just paints a puzzling picture.
Dan is just the typical Leftist. He can’t stand the idea that someone, somewhere, has an opinion that conflicts with his own. Which is why he keeps coming back here with his snide comments and lofty pseudo-intellectualism.
Metrosucks, plenty of right wing people can’t stand the idea that some one some where, has an opinion that conflicts with their own too!
Just so you know, I’m not against suburbs & cars.
I’m against ONLY having subsurbs & cars.
Also Frank, stop complaining about nothing, for nothing!
What you mean, Highwayman, is that you are against suburbs and cars not subsidizing public transit. Right? Just want to get your position on the record here.
O’Toole: Roads are there regardless of economic conditions.
THWM: MS, cross subsidizing takes place on many levels.
When I walk to the grocery story, I’m still paying for the parking lot, even though I’m not using it!
Just as people still pay for roads through their property taxes, even if they don’t drive!
“Someone posting under their real name indicates seriousness on their part, and promotes courtesy.” – FrancisKing
I agree to a point. The problem with using a full name for many people like myself is that we have a relatively unique name. I personally don’t want potential future employers to be able to Google my name to see what work-work I’ve done and come across some political comment I made 3 years ago and have it give a negative impression.
@Antiplanner, are you sure this is something you want to do? Moderating is an unrewarding time suck. That line between what is and isn’t offensive and name-calling isn’t always clear. And I’d be curious if once one starts to moderate things if that makes you libel for the comments on your blog, even if they’re not your own. Maybe that’s a bit silly but I know of message boards that officially have no policy on things like links to bit torrents and live TV feeds, they won’t even talk about it amongst the mods, because it’s the only thing they can do to not get pulled in to that whole legal mess.