Patterico's Pontifications

5/13/2009

DRJ’s Commenting Rules

Filed under: Blogging Matters — DRJ @ 9:38 am

[Guest post by DRJ]

My Fellow Patterico fans,

Patterico has encouraged me to moderate comments so I thought it would be helpful if I share my commenting rules:

1. Feel free to discuss, debate, and critique the posts and comments.

2. Bantering and jokes are encouraged — we all enjoy and need a good laugh — but I hope you will also spend some time adding substance to each discussion.

3. Avoid mean-spirited comments that you would not like if they were directed at you.

I will interpret and apply these rules as I see fit and, when I deem it appropriate, I will place comments and commenters in moderation without notice.

A word on my attitude toward liberal commenters: I think I speak for Patterico when I say I am sometimes more lenient with liberal commenters than with conservative commenters. Why? Because this is generally a conservative website where there is reinforcement for conservative views, so liberal commenters are sometimes out-numbered and that can make it harder on them. Further, even though I seldom agree with the liberal perspective that is common in today’s world, I believe it is important to analyze liberal beliefs and embrace some liberal values. However, I need to listen to liberals in order to understand what they believe. As a result, even though I value everyone’s input, I’m willing to work harder to listen to liberal ideas.

Finally, I want everyone to enjoy reading and commenting here as much as I do. Thus, please treat this thread as a suggestion box for ideas on how to make it work better. To that goal, anonymous suggestions will be allowed and are encouraged on this thread only.

UPDATE: PCD adds his thoughts in this follow-up post.

— DRJ

233 Responses to “DRJ’s Commenting Rules”

  1. One of the great virtues of Cathy Seipp’s blog was her ability to get left and right commenters to participate with a modicum of civility. It was a pleasure to be part of that, even with David Ehrenstein’s occasional stink bombs (He’s actually quite pleasant in person). After she died, the tone held up for about three or four months but thereafter degenerated into flame wars, mostly due to trolls who were not rebuked or put in moderation. Finally, in frustration, I started my own blog and a number of us moved here where Patrick has been able to keep the tone semi-civil. The comments are still abused by some trolls who appear from time to time as sock puppets, etc. I have yet to see a right wing sock puppet. I wonder why ?

    Good luck. I think this is a good approach.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  2. Can you, DRJ, do anything about the embroglio on-going over at the Sykes thread?

    AD - RtR/OS! (e8f920)

  3. CENSORSHIP!

    /moonbat

    anon the moose (9c4f4a)

  4. DRJ,

    I think the rules of engagement ought to be tighter for Liberals. They love to operate outside the rules in their arrogance and in their deceit. Forcing them to narrow their focus forces them to write better arguments. It also keeps things very civil when they know they can’t dish it out. We all know that they can’t take it.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  5. DRJ, I second #2. tomthumb should be banned and his IP blocked, if not his entire IP range.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  6. PCD,

    I understand your perspective but I want liberals to know they are welcome here and will be supported. IMO the best remedy for overzealous commenters is to realize they will end up in moderation if their emotions get the better of them. I’ve been reluctant to do that in the past. I’m not now.

    DRJ (b0f193)

  7. DRJ, it is your house (or Patterico’s house, or Karl’s house—you get the idea), so you get to make the rules.

    It’s not censorship for the host/hostess to make the rules. Otherwise, anyone who has ever written a dreadful novel and received rejection slips instead of contracts is being censored.

    Moderate away!

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  8. Can you, DRJ, do anything about the embroglio on-going over at the Sykes thread?

    DRJ, I wholly agree with your set of rules, but one thing I wish to rid this site of is rampant sockpuppetry, by either side. I believe we have this problem regarding the Tom Thumb character, with possible sockpuppetry by another regular commenter.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  9. Forgot to add that I could be quite wrong about this, but it certainly appeared as curious to a number of us – so in the immortal words of Emily Litella, “never mind.”

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  10. I second Dmac’s call for getting rid of the sockpuppetry. Patterico has made it clear that he doesn’t approve of it, it’s deceitful by design and harms conversation. People should stick with one handle and not invent imaginary friends.

    And when a sock puppet is found out, please disclose the aliases to us, like Patterico did with Hiltzik and Greenwald.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (e4892a)

  11. This is why you are the Queen of this blog, DRJ! Welcome back. I know I have said it before. But still…..

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  12. DRJ- I totally agree with your desire and need to moderate comments. I do the same on my blog. I’ve made it clear that mean or vulgar comments will be deleted and the commentator will be left to find somewhere else to comment.

    Intelligent individuals should be able to have a rational discussion concerning a topic without turning to personal attacks. I may not agree with “your” opinion, but that doesn’t give me the right to attack YOU. If I disagree, and my point is valid, I should be able to counter your point with substantial evidence to further my argument.

    Thank you for trying to make this fun to read! I sometimes get so frustrated with reading the personal attacks that I stop reading the comments. And that’s a shame.

    yourlilsis (9d1ada)

  13. The only true way to have a true civil debate is to have both a bald, Cajun, weasel and a fetus-looking southern twit who both worked for the Clinton administration to give their original and creative sides of each issue.
    -This has been CNN.

    –It also helps if you have a corpse interviewing current news makers, or someone with a good publicist.

    bigcity (6f5ce6)

  14. I used to debate at an online forum where it was quite heavily moderated. It made for lively debate, and flame wars were quickly edited / deleted. Obviously no one has a lot of time to do this here, but it’s good to see some coming.

    As we used to say over there – “before you hit submit, preview your words, and remember that there is a human being at the other end, reading your words.”

    carlitos (aa025a)

  15. Racist homophobic censoring fascists

    JD (a7fa4a)

  16. I hope your kidneys fail.

    But seriously, the key to moderating comments is that you only need to moderate the first 50 or so (if even that many). After that, it’s basically impossible to hijack a thread. It’s easy to ignore down-thread trolls. They can’t get the kind of reaction they want.

    Daryl Herbert (a32d30)

  17. AoSHQ displays an IP hash on every comment which aids in identifying sock puppets. Perhaps you can do the same?

    gp (72be5d)

  18. Aw s%^@! m&^$%^&! g$%^-d*#* it!

    nk (755c01)

  19. > I think I speak for Patterico when I say I am sometimes more lenient with liberal commenters than with conservative commenters. Why? Because this is generally a conservative website where there is reinforcement for conservative views, so liberal commenters are sometimes out-numbered and that can make it harder on them.

    Rule of Law, Affirmative Action, “Empathy” as a qualification for Supreme Court Justices – those are the points. You can figure out why I don’t like your idea by using them.

    Arthur (e3bcb5)

  20. At the same time, I don’t think that Patterico bends over backward to protect Left of center posters who are being huge jackasses.

    There is a difference between dissent and personal attack.

    It is possible to disagree passionately on a subject and still be civil.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  21. OK
    Sounds fine to me.
    I’ll do my best to ignore people who seem intent on just causing as much uproar as possible.

    SteveG (c99c5c)

  22. We were three boys, close to age, and sometimes unruly. So my mother would put us down and say, “Just stay there. I don’t want to hear a word”. Then she would turn to leave and one of us would say, “A word”. And she would just break down laughing.

    nk (755c01)

  23. The moderator policy as outlined by DRJ (whovever that is….I read this blog for Patterico) are schoolmarmish and condescending. We are admonished to avoid “mean spirited comments that you would not like if they were directed at you.” I don’t suppose Chamberlain much liked it when Chuurchill characterized him as a modest man with much to be modest about….so I guess that’s the sort of thing that DRJ means. And there goes the Dorothy Parker canon. And there goes….the Patterico comments section?

    Scott Kaufer (857688)

  24. Scott, I guess you haven’t been following TrollFest 2009.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  25. If you have been following TrollFest 2009, you would go wash your mouth out with soap for comparing their antics to either Churchill or Dot Parker.

    Their commentary has not precisely been of Algonquin Room quality.

    Something tells me you know that already.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  26. Scott, you can always set up your own blog.

    SPQR (72771e)

  27. SPQR, I think that Scott is another long term Republican church-going conservative who voted for Obama.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  28. If that is the real Scott Kaufer, he’s a decent guy. But still, in this case not up to speed about the troll situation here.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (776b8c)

  29. @23: That’s easy to fix. DRJ can just exempt Churchill & Parker from moderation whenever they stop by.

    gp (930280)

  30. Good one, gp!

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  31. Scott K, like most of the commenters here, I don’t mind banter. I don’t even mind heated discussion. JD and I got into a tussle months ago. We both traded fairly sharp barbs. I didn’t dislike JD before, during, or after said tussle.

    However, there is a class of commentary that is beyond the pale, and that was reached today.

    I appreciate that the owner of the board allows fairly broad conduct. But I also appreciate the fact that truly vile comments will be punished. And even though DRJ isn’t the owner, I respect her wisdom and actions regarding out-of-line comments.

    Steverino (69d941)

  32. Scott Kaufer,

    Not to worry. These rules apply to my threads but I plan to let Karl and Patterico handle their own comment threads, unless I think it’s important I step in. So let’s both make a mental note that you’ll avoid the schoolmarm’s threads, okay?

    DRJ (b0f193)

  33. I don’t know, DRJ. The “schoolmarm” thing can rock.

    Seriously, there have been some problems with people posting nonsense just to cause trouble—as opposed to honest and even vigorous dissent. The latter is good. The former is a pain in the fundament.

    My own view is that trolling acts like a broken window: it attracts more trolling.

    What to do? I’m with Guiliani on this subject, but that is my opinion only.

    But I do roll my eyes when a troll complains about censorship after dealing personal insults.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  34. Where do I send the apple?

    AD - RtR/OS! (e8f920)

  35. PS to Scott:

    If I understand your Churchill-Chamberlain example, you’ve reversed the meaning of “comments that you would not like if they were directed at you.” Fortunately, since you won’t be frequenting my very small corner of this blog, we don’t need to explore that further.

    DRJ (b0f193)

  36. Just so long as we all know that at least I’m above the school marm jokes.

    SPQR (72771e)

  37. I, for one, welcome our new schoolmarm overlords 😉

    It really is great to see DRJ back.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  38. I read this blog for Patterico

    Comment by Scott Kaufer — 5/13/2009 @ 2:39 pm

    nk (755c01)

  39. I can not think of any time I have ever seen DRJ wield a heavy hand. She best commands with the lightest of touches.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  40. I love schoolmarm jokes.

    Teacher: Billy, why were you late for school?
    Billy: I’m sorry, Miss, but my father was burned.
    Teacher: Oh, Billy, I’m so sorry. I hope it was not too badly.
    Billy: They don’t fool around at the crematorium, Miss.

    nk (755c01)

  41. I’ve posted this one before:

    Teacher: Billy, why were you late for school?
    Billy: I’m sorry, Miss, I had to help my father take our cow to the bull.
    Teacher: Couldn’t your father have done the job by himself?
    Billy: No, Miss, you need a bull.

    nk (755c01)

  42. Colon + Bracket closed.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  43. Busted, perhaps.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  44. Scott Kaufer, if you followed my link, is the man behind the Yamashiro’s beloved gatherings, which include Patterico and included the late Cathy Seipp.

    Thank you, Scott, from a fan of Cathy’s.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (776b8c)

  45. Who, Eric?

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  46. “I read this blog for Patterico

    Comment by Scott Kaufer — 5/13/2009 @ 2:39 pm”

    Well I guess you know where you stand DRJ. Another LONG time reader heard from. Heh!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  47. One time, at Obama Brown Shirt Camp…….

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  48. I am grateful to have DRJ, Karl, Jack Dunphy or any other Patterico-approved host keeping this blog active. They don’t get paid for this, it’s a labor of love.

    So I don’t mind at all having requests for civility.

    And I’m still on a high* that DRJ has returned!

    *legal, of course.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (776b8c)

  49. You might find it difficult to concentrate on moderating comments which are flame-starters or out-and-out nasty, and still keep track of the arguments made. You have set up a difficult task for yourself.

    The blogger Dana (474dfc)

  50. Bradley and others,

    I rarely respond to my attackers or my defenders here, but I want to assure everyone that I do not intend to stifle discussion, debate, or even (some) insults here. It’s part and parcel of the online community. Nevertheless, I’m convinced that many serious voices on both sides are not being heard because they don’t like the way the debates degenerate. I want to try to change that … but if I’m wrong, I’ll back off.

    DRJ (b0f193)

  51. Blogger Dana,

    I don’t see myself as being, or needing to be, aggressive in moderating comments. I admit I don’t see value in comments that are clearly intended to be “out-and-out nasty” but those are rare. As for a flame-starter, I think it can be instructive to test the limits of an argument.

    DRJ (b0f193)

  52. “I’m convinced that many serious voices on both sides are not being heard because they don’t like the way the debates degenerate.”

    I agree.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  53. Did DCSCA ever answer, or has he gone bye-bye?

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  54. Patterico put DCSCA in moderation and he’s still there. In general, I think they decided to agree to disagree.

    DRJ (f55947)

  55. I’ll do my best to step around “it”, DRJ. I’m glad to have you back and I will do nothing to send you away again.

    nk (755c01)

  56. For what it’s worth, DRJ, I essentially quit stopping in here because of all the vitriolic commenting that one had to wade through to get to the good stuff. But out of curiosity, I stopped by yesterday…and look who I find is back!

    So I’ll invoke a movie memory in your honor, in no uncertain terms of endearment:

    “I was this close to a clean getaway…”

    Appears I’ll have to re-bookmark. Besides the qualities already mentioned, one thing about you I’d like to add is that I have come to admire what I perceive as you being unflappable during thread exchanges. You definitely set the tone of respectful discourse. And it’s always a bonus to see you adding comments below your posts.

    allan (a90394)

  57. …so that’s where you went, allan! You absence was duly noted.

    Mike is right, Cathy S. had a gift for bringing different voices together, while not in harmony for the most part, civility.

    Dana (4a6e8c)

  58. Arthur, I’m confused. You list “Rule of Law” as one of the liberal philosophies you disagree with … did you mean to say that? If you did, what is it you dislike about the rule of law?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  59. Aphrael,
    If I may presume, I think he is implying that DRJ is giving affirmative action type advantage to liberals instead of applying rule of law impartially. I am sure he runs his own blog by these principles and has a wide range of articulate and intelligent commenters who all work together in harmony to achieve new heights of creative discourse. I prefer DRJ’s moderation.

    I have also been kept from many threads by the thread jacking and resulting nastiness.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  60. Teacher: Can somebody give me a sentence with the words “green”, “yellow” and “pink”?
    Little Emily: Yesterday we went to the zoo and saw green parrots, yellow canaries, pink flamingos.
    Teacher: Anybody else?
    Billy: The phone rings, “green-green”, pick it up, “yellow”, hang it up, “pink”.

    nk (a1896a)

  61. nk, I think I denounce you, or would if I could figure out what group you are stereotyping. :)

    The indignant Dana (474dfc)

  62. DRJ, please don’t misconstrue any comments suggesting censorship or a heavy hand. We need a moderator in order to quell the nasties that tend to come here in droves every other week, and all they do is drop silly rehashed memes that were contained in their marching orders from Man/Bear/Pit or Kos/HuffPuff.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  63. “Man/Bear/PIG.”

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  64. Actually, Dmac, I like the “pit” business. It increases the “eeeww” factor.

    Eric Blair (262ccd)

  65. I think “pit” was appropriate to describe the level of discourse.

    AD - RtR/OS! (e8f920)

  66. Schoolmarms and unruly students, Dana.

    nk (a1896a)

  67. So you go easier on liberals than conservatives because you expect more from conservatives. Hmm, and liberals go easier on liberals because, well, they aren’t really so tolerant.

    So the end result is that conservatives are once again subject to double standards. This is why women should never have been given the right to vote. Even those of you who aren’t totally liberal aren’t really logical enough to run anything correctly.

    You must be a LGF fan.

    smarty (6d832b)

  68. I will not post “Billy, that’s not my navel”, “It’s ok, Miss, that’s not my finger”, here. Can I do it on your site?

    nk (a1896a)

  69. What’s next, nk? Naughty librarians?

    Which brings us back to Governor Palin, back before all the current nonsense from the MSM:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh-lW2opLyQ

    It’s a funny snippet, and Governor Palin was funny. Craig Ferguson, too.

    Eric Blair (262ccd)

  70. nk, I loved #40 &41. More please.

    Eric Blair, doesn’t the new little red book make it quite clear that it’s forbidden to make outrageous claim like Gov. Palin being funny….unless of course it was unintentional and at her expense?

    Dana (4a6e8c)

  71. Always good to hear from you, Dana.

    Sigh. I hate this “flexible yardstick” of political hypocrisy that I see everywhere today. Basically, the Left and Right are held to different standards.

    Why, I have seen journalists actually claim that GWB got a “free pass” after his election. Sigh.

    Getting to your point, I think that Sarah Palin has been treated horribly. I mean, how can a person call her “stupid” and be silent about Joe Biden? Seriously?

    But it is the Triumph of the Alphabet…D versus R trumps everything.

    The worst part for me was watching all of my so-tolerant and pro-feminist colleagues on campus write and say the most offensive sexist things about Sarah Palin. Don’t like her politics? Fine. But leave her person alone. And for darned sure leave her family alone. Camille Paglia was very classy on this subject.

    This is why I have such trouble with Tina Fey. She made money trashing someone else, unfairly, and has received awards for it.

    My friends on the Left just smirk and pull the Jon Stewart “clown nose on/clown nose off” defense. But I have seen, over and over again, how utterly sensitive they are to any criticism of Barack Obama.

    I mean, try to joke about his ears on campus. I’m serious.

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I have seen African Americans get a free pass for horrible statements (Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson come to mind). But Clarence Thomas doesn’t have the right to his own opinion.

    It’s not really about race. It’s alphabetism.

    Okay, time for a brandy and relax. Sorry for the diatribe.

    Eric Blair (262ccd)

  72. I usually liked what Patterico wrote, but I really started coming back to this blog about a year ago because of the commenters. I got burned out on the useless shouting over at LGF and I found that commenters here often contributed real value – actual case law – links – and intelligent discourse.

    Naturally, there are exceptions, but 90% of the time they’re provoked by a troll. Thank you, folks, for the good words. I hope that, from time to time, I can contribute something of value myself.

    Gesundheit (9ca635)

  73. Gesundheit, achoo.

    carlitos (aa025a)

  74. Reposting on the correct thread:

    How about a blonde in a library, Eric? Safe for work.

    (Good-looking) Dana, I’m afraid that for the time being that’s all I can recall from my long ago childhood. But … some others may float up.

    nk (a1896a)

  75. That was funny, nk. But I think we should stay away from the blond jokes.

    I remember asking a blonde woman once if it was true that blondes had more fun. She looked at me critically, and said calmly “How would I know? I’ve always been blonde.”

    I thought it was a joke. At first.

    I heard a story about that some woman (who was quite lovely) at a party. A successful ladies man walked up and asked her if she fooled around.

    She took a sip of hear drink and said “Hmmm. Are you the fool?”
    That was a lot of years ago. I’ll bet she is very successful today.

    Eric Blair (262ccd)

  76. I love blonde jokes, plus they’re the only ones still allowed as quasi-PC.

    DRJ (f55947)

  77. For you, DRJ:

    Two blondes are walking through the woods.

    One looks down at the ground, exclaims, and says to the other blonde, “Look! Deer tracks!”

    The second blonde disagreed. “No, those are moose tracks.”

    “Deer tracks!” replied the first blonde.

    “Moose tracks!” argued the second.

    They were still arguing when they were hit by the train.

    Eric Blair (262ccd)

  78. Racists

    JD (e738c0)

  79. fart

    pdbuttonns (bbdd05)

  80. Eric Blair — 5/13/2009 @ 7:35 pm

    Funny, in light of your comment I just read this bit on Palin’s observations of Carrie Prejean,

    “What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what President Obama and Secretary Clinton believe — marriage is between a man and a woman,” Palin said.

    The quintessential alphabetism.

    Dana (4a6e8c)

  81. It’s quite true, Dana. And yet no one will say it on the Left. It doesn’t fit Teh Narrative.

    In fact, didn’t I read over at Big Hollywood that Cybill Shepherd thinks that Barack Obama is working hard to facilitate same-sex marriage?

    Huh?

    It doesn’t matter what the man says or does. His supporters just know what he thinks down deep inside. That sounds so much like the high school girl dating the creep guy who just knows he really does love her, despite what he says and does.

    I guess it is part of having that tingle down your leg.

    Eric Blair (262ccd)

  82. I think I speak for Patterico when I say I am sometimes more lenient with liberal commenters than with conservative commenters.

    Some of those liberal posters in this forum do think and write in a way that makes me believe they’ve got to be teenagers, and therefore somewhat understandably immature, foolish and wacky (or idiotic) in their way of thinking about and looking at the world. So I do find myself wondering if it’s slightly appropriate for such “progressives” to be dealt with in a lenient way, or the way a typical adult would treat a typical kid compared with the way a typical adult would treat…another typical adult.

    Mark (411533)

  83. Either treat everyone as a responsible adult; or,
    treat us all as irresponsible teen-agers.

    AD - RtR/OS! (e8f920)

  84. Welcome back, DRJ. Glad to see you again.

    I think Patrick’s technique of joining in the discussion to challenge the trolls on a substance basis works well, rather than taking a hands off approach until all hell breaks loose. If cross-examination fails, however, ban ’em.

    Use those trial lawyer skills!

    Patricia (2183bb)

  85. Patricia,

    That’s a good point, although my goal isn’t leniency when it comes to the logic of a person’s position. It can be challenging and frustrating to comment when your statements are subjected to criticism from many other commenters. Some people enjoy the challenge and a few seem to encourage attacks, but others find it chilling. It’s in the latter case that I’m willing to cut commenters some slack when they get frustrated.

    DRJ (f55947)

  86. DRJ

    what about commentators that are just a plain old fashioned garden vareity pain in the Tush?

    EricPWJohnson (8b4dab)

  87. DRJ – It can be challenging and frustrating to comment when your statements are subjected to criticism from many other commenters.

    While that is true it can also be challenging and frustrating to comment when your statements are proven incorrect. I don’t believe the frustration of being challenged is the problem. Frustration is understandable. What is not understandable is the repeated willful dismissal of factual contravening argument that, for me, is a recipe for the ban hammer.

    As I’ve said before, it poisons the debate, as this willful dismissal or ignoring of efforts by the posters and/or commenters to present their argument through logic or citation will effectively precipitate the only alternative, which is personal insult and attack. If logic or fact doesn’t work, then everyone will try something else. Those that don’t try logic or fact to begin with have nowhere to go but down.

    IOW, those without the means or inclination to argue their point honestly should be removed from the discussion, as their presence renders it anything but a discussion.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  88. I will be the first to admit that I often am the first to jump on someone that I suspect is participating in the type of activity that Apogee describes above. It would cause me consternation were I not usually right in pointing out their mendoucheousness 😉

    JD (b358ea)

  89. Eric, don’t apologize for the diatribe. What you wrote is what is screaming in my head every time a Polish joke is recycled as a Bush or Palin joke, and Obama gaffes are deemed to insignificant to point out.

    BTW – Remember Obama’s White Course Whorespondents’ Dinner joke about Sasha & Malia taking “Scare Force One” on a joyride? He (or his writers) stole that from Letterman, who in days previous said the joyrider was Mama Robinson.

    Did anyone see what Dana Milbank of the Washed-up Post did earlier this week, soliciting readers to supply Rush Limbaugh put-downs in the spirit of Wanda Sykes?

    L.N. Smithee (f68b0d)

  90. Good. I am going to hold you all to this standard. Especially those of us who enjoy calling others names and launching personal attacks on people who disagree with them. Get ready for the big stick!

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  91. Apogee,
    I must respectfully disagree, Sir. If we disagree about the date on the first atomic bomb being dropped we can consult credible reference materials but most disputes here are matters of evaluation or interpretation and we may disagree about the credibility or bias of each others “factual contravening arguments”. If I can’t express an opinion without responding to four or five people demanding I answer their questions or respond to their arguments then I am effectively silenced.

    I conduct myself here by my standards of proper conduct for a gentleman. If I must express myself and respond to others according to Apogee’s Rules of Parliamentary Order it is just not worth it. The site would not miss me and neither would the commenters but if this Code is applied fairly then most of the regular commenters here would find themselves afoul of it. What then, do we degenerate into “He did it first so I was just responding in kind!” childishness or do we ban many of the commenters here and leave the few remaining scholars and lawyers to execute the complex rhetorical maneuvers required to satisfy the rules and protocols? If the rules are to be flexible then who sets the standards and decides who is breaking them?

    I don’t really think you can have the kind of interesting exchanges of ideas that make this site special if you try to over structure the discussion. Very little moderation would be needed if the commenters here would ignore the trolls. All the trolls have to do to hijack almost any thread is drop in a stupid Boss Limbaugh line or something and too many people jump on the trolls bandwagon. They play the commenters like a fiddle. Everyone knows these people have no interest in discussion. If they were not responded to or responded about then the discussion or debate could continue on track. The troll would get no reward or attention for their effort unless they ramp it up in which case they will cross the line and be banned. Expecting a moderator to watch all the threads 24/7 and settle all disputes is not a viable expectation and is not needed.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  92. I agree with Machinist on this. He gives a fair and balanced point of view. It is actually up to us, commenters not to let things get out of hand. The Moderators can only do so much.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  93. How about a blonde in a library, Eric? Safe for work.
    Comment by nk — 5/13/2009 @ 8:19 pm

    Now THAT was funny. Best un-PC commercial I’ve seen in a while.

    no one you know (65b7aa)

  94. Machinist can’t be familiar with the trolls here if he thinks that this blog doesn’t have a lot of commenters who refuse to discuss matters on the basis of facts.

    It should be a discussion on matters of opinions, but generally, when people get excitable on here, it’s because someone is either completely refusing to stay on topic, or someone is completely wrong on the facts, and when called out on it, refuses to cede ground, or just jumps to another made up fact. It comes across as an obnoxious filibuster… people are so busy trying to show how the troll is wrong about something that should never have been in dispute, and they never really get to discuss the proposed topic.

    Emperor has very recently displayed a hilarious inability to recognize awful behavior in this trollish way with that thread where Ed came back to harangue a widower about his loss (Emperor defended the monster repeatedly and obnoxiously). Obviously that’s a very good example of an attempt to drive the discussion away from the proposed topic. If we’re all talking about the troll, even after it’s gone, the troll has an enhanced effect.

    i guess for Emperor that some kind of ‘win’. I wonder where that idea comes from.

    Emperor, what motivates you to be that way? I’ve seen prank call videos where people just laugh and laugh and laugh at how upset they can make people… is this basically like that?

    /holding my breath for a sincere answer

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  95. DRJ, we can agree to disagree on the need for affirmative action for Liberal Commenters. I rule my blog and I set down my rules for comments from day 1. I have yet to have to withhold a comment.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  96. Juan, all I can say is that it appears to be different when some commenters do it. Sighm

    Eric Blair (9ec807)

  97. Comment by Juan — 5/14/2009 @ 5:14 am

    Juan, I don’t take special pleasure in siding with renegades. I just felt that in this particular case with tomthumb/Ed from PA, reading some of his responses, I felt he was trying his best to stay on topic. Even when he was being roundly insulted by fellow commenters, he maintained his cool and focused on making his points. Yes, he ought not to have said what he said about Steverino’s late wife but these are things that can happen in a heated exchange; where you feel you are being harassed from every side. Folks on this blog tend to gang up on people who hold contrary views to theirs and call for the person to be banned over the slightest mistake. Read through the comments with an unbiased mind and you will see that it was a fair argument. It’s unfortunate how it ended.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  98. Just step around it, Juan. It is not sincere, its only purpose here is to waste Patterico’s bandwidth, and it will go to name-calling when you push it far enough.

    nk (a1896a)

  99. I hate it when people don’t know when they are not being spoken to. Yet the persist in being such a nuisance.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  100. Will probably be the only thread on which this comment is OK (since we aren’t right in the middle of a heated discussion at the moment), but I do agree that liberals here should be cut a somewhat (albeit limited) wider latitude than conservatives, for two reasons.

    One, as DRJ and others pointed out, it’s just plain tough to talk to several people who are disagreeing with you at once, especially intelligent ones as most of the commenters are here, and respond in a timely and genteel way at the same time.

    The other reason is that independent of the merits of the arguments, liberals do get called names here fairly early in the argument, and if they respond in kind, get piled on even more. Since I’m a conservative I recognize the argument they’re making as illogical or strawman or deficient of enough facts, if such is the case.

    But just because an argument lacks logic or enough facts or whatever, the person may not see that, and getting called a name or whatever immediately, while timesaving and satisfying to the conservative saying it, is extremely frustrating to the liberal making it.

    Obvious lies are one thing. Ignorance and error are another. Calling out the first while trying not to eviscerate someone for the second might in future make the playing field more level. Until then, allowing for increased frustration caused by conservatives piling on the moment a (to us) outrageous far-left statement is made seems to me a more than fair course. And as everyone knows, we conservatives are always more than fair.

    And of course it takes away one of the far-left’s favorite arguments: “Neocons = intolerant censors!” And frustrating that little ignorant meme is a welcome thing in my book.

    Of course if a liberal comes on and starts a comment with “All you morons” – why then, evisceration’s too good for them. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! :)

    Having said all that, Ed from PA/tom thumb absolutely deserved to be banned yesterday, based on just one comment alone, even leaving out all the others. There are lines you just don’t cross and there should be no second chances. (He probably got banned for multiple names but still.)

    If you don’t know where that line is, then your time is better spent away from Patterico’s and in a few “Proper Social Behavior” classes; being banned should be considered a favor to free up your time to do just that.

    Sorry for the long comment. “I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had time to make it shorter.” ~Blaise Pascal

    no one you know (65b7aa)

  101. call for the person to be banned over the slightest mistake.

    If that’s what’s called “the slightest mistake” in your book, there is no line that cannot be crossed. Period.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  102. Dmac,
    That is an unfair misrepresentation of what he said and unworthy of you, Sir.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  103. Juan,
    “Machinist can’t be familiar with the trolls here if he thinks that this blog doesn’t have a lot of commenters who refuse to discuss matters on the basis of facts.”

    I don’t know how you could have gotten that idea from what I wrote, Sir.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  104. The Emperor,
    Tomthumb’s behavior was disgraceful and disingenuous. He made no attempt at reasonable discussion. Your defense of his conduct makes me very uneasy and uncomfortable. I can’t help but doubt your own good faith. When I find myself defending you or your position I am frankly quite uncomfortable about it. I hate it when that happens.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  105. That was kind of my point, Machinist – in case you missed the nuance.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  106. “…I can’t help but doubt your own good faith…”

    You’re in good company.

    AD - RtR/OS! (be40b1)

  107. Machinist – Thank you for challenging me on my comment. My argument must have been incomplete if you took away from it the idea that I was recommending the immediate banning of emotional or poorly reasoned commenters.

    In fact, I find it instructive to observe thought patterns that are emotional and/or contradicting, as it gives me greater insight into how the commenters perceive the outside world.

    I agree that a trip wire hair trigger ban-o-matic would be counter productive. My argument with your contention is that although many commenters here (myself included) run afoul of the strict interpretation of the rules, I think you would agree that most of these same commenters are also able to put together well-reasoned and coherent viewpoints, and that this happens more often than not. As I said earlier, the histrionics are usually preceded by dishonest trolling.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but your contention seems to be that it is not necessary to have a viewpoint or to make an argument to comment here, and that emotional venting is acceptable. I think that everyone is capable of that level from time to time, but I would ask your opinion of the recently moderated fellow who let slip that his purpose here was to ‘annoy conservatives’. If that is the case, then what about a commenter who simply holds down a key and submits a group of a single letter?

    Is there a point where the actions of rogue commenters detract from the discussion? And if they are allowed to do so, what is the value of people who are here to discuss the topic versus people who are here to annoy? From my experience, the annoying group tends to crowd out the other. I don’t rule out that as a goal for the offensive group.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  108. Machinist.
    I have never defended his behavior towards Steverino on the issue of his late wife. I actually asked him to apologize for it. He didn’t. So he was banned. My point has been that sometimes people are led to such behavior by our behavior towards them. What he said was insensitive and hurtful. No defending that.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  109. Apogee,
    Thank you for the thoughtful response. I think unreasonable commenters are best ignored by other commenters. If one is blatantly obnoxious or disruptive then the moderator can take appropriate action as happened at least three times recently and more in the not distant past. I guess I am reluctant to have a moderator or group determine if someones arguments are reasonable enough. As far as “emotional venting”, isn’t that what my comment was? Was my comment inappropriate or out of line?

    Lastly I do apologize if I misunderstood your remark and mischaracterized your position. I am afraid I am a bit concerned that there is too much “We know who the bad guys are” going on. My first inclination last night was to point out that some heavy accusations of sock puppetry had been made and proven wrong, yet I had seen no acknowledgment of that. Between the persons joining in on that behavior and my discomfort with that commenter in general I dropped it, but it does no credit to the good people here. Perhaps my discomfort made me oversensitive.

    Respects, Sir.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  110. The Emperor,
    His comments leading up to the nasty remark were argumentative and disruptive. There was no modicum of good faith present. His attempt to ignore his iniquitous behavior on another thread and your support of that leave me cold.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  111. “My point has been that sometimes people are led to such behavior by our behavior towards them.”

    Indeed. But I don’t think you see that the way other people do.

    In any event, I think people choose their behavior. “The other person made me do it” is not an adult strategy, as I am sure you would agree.

    And no matter what the provocation, saying what the troll did to Steverino is inexcusable, which was then followed up by the deeply creepy “smiley face.” You may say you aren’t defending the troll, but it sure sounds like you are…by shifting partial blame. Make certain you aren’t moving toward a “Steverino deserved it” kind of argument, because you are teetering on the edge. The troll chose to be a jackass.

    Trying to shift even a portion of the responsiblity of the troll to anyone else is a nonoptimal response. The troll was present to cause trouble, and snark, and battle. Nothing more.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  112. I don’t think we should let lovey redefine history when it’s so recent and so available.

    I have never defended his behavior towards Steverino on the issue of his late wife.
    Comment by The Emperor — 5/14/2009 @ 11:06 am

    Oh really?

    If anything, tomthumb has been the gentleman on this thread. Answering questions calmly while you guys kept calling him names. I wouldn’t be that patient. He will not be banned. [missed that one, didn’t you?]

    And this:

    However, tomthumb, do apologize to Steverino for the comment. I know you are a gentleman.

    Why was EdfromPA banned originally? Do you even know?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  113. Machinist, I appreciate what you have written. But this blog has been beset by many socket puppeting trolls over the past year or so.

    I personally may have been wrong to think that “tomthumb” was a freshly banned person under a different ‘nym. Turns out that the fellow as another less recently banned person using a different ‘nym.

    But your point remains valid.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  114. And of course it takes away one of the far-left’s favorite arguments: “Neocons = intolerant censors!”

    Anyone who uses that argument has no idea what a neocon is, or how it differs from just plain conservative.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (75d84b)

  115. C’mon, Bradley. You know the meme:

    http://mschaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/fascist.jpg

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  116. Brother Bradley – Neocon is one of those leftist catch-all words, that generally is applied to anyone that does not worship at the C.O.R.

    Lovie – As pointed out above you absolutely defended EfP.

    RACIST HOMOPHOBES !!!

    JD (99d9b9)

  117. Eric Blair, I remember Ed all too well. When he was banned he bragged that he had been here before under different names and would be here again.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  118. Machinist – As far as “emotional venting”, isn’t that what my comment was? Was my comment inappropriate or out of line?

    I think we’re actually pretty close in agreement. Emotional comments occur from everyone, but over time it becomes more and more difficult to conceal dishonest behavior. The repeated avoidance of discussion or debate will, in time, reveal commenters that are here solely to disrupt. It is these commenters that seek to reduce the quality (and fun) of the site, and I trust the moderators to determine the methods of moderation/banning. They are hardly quick on the trigger.

    I’ve found that they have almost never banned or moderated anyone without giving them the opportunity to address the grievances leveled against them by the other commenters.

    If someone doesn’t like what I say, challenge me and I’ll defend it. That’s simple courtesy and should be applied equally. I disagree with the idea of treating those on the left as ‘lessors’. I don’t expect that kind of treatment, and quite frankly find it insulting to intelligent commenters like Leviticus and Aphrael, who don’t need help.

    Finally, IMO, stepping into the arena of ideas armed only with a sprig of broccoli to ‘hide’ behind and a distract-o-meter is a bad idea – Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  119. And he wasn’t the only one, Machinist. So less of that kind of thing would contribute to a better atmosphere.

    I appreciate your efforts to be even-handed.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  120. My position on this is clear. My reaction comes from a history of my knowledge of folks on this blog. They are blog-bullies. Not all of them. The much I read from the “Wanda Sykes'” thread informed my response. I didn’t see much evidence of bad behavior from tomthumb, except that commenters here seemed bent on proving him wrong. Like I said, it ended badly. There are no winners here.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  121. Apogee, I can’t take issue with anything you just said. I am certainly not against banning trolls who are abusive. I have just seen people be too quick on the trigger with some like Tim McGarry.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  122. Comment by The Emperor — 5/14/2009 @ 11:48 am

    The people here are not “blog-bullies”. They just don’t tolerate dishonest commenting, which is why you are consistently challenged lovey. You continue to lie and mischaracterize as you please, yet try to scold and order others.

    There are winners here, you’re just a loser. Do you know why EfPA was banned? Didn’t think so.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  123. Folks (especially Eric Blair and Stashiu),

    I appreciate you defending me. I’ll remember your kindness here.

    As nk has pointed out, the emperor is not interested in an honest debate. He (she?*) is here merely to kick people in the shins and take up bandwidth.

    *I question the gender because the emperor used to be known as love2008…and at the time, claimed to be a woman.

    We’ve got some really good commenters here. And we have some annoying pains-in-the-ass who make pretty good points. I like the fact that they feel comfortable enough here to mix it up.

    I’d love it if the trolls lost interest and wandered away, but I’m as guilty as the next guy when it comes to baiting them. Nk even warned me about engaging the trolls on the other thread, and I deliberately ignored his advice.

    I’m happy with the current level of moderation on this board; Pat and the others step in when things get out of hand, but tend to let everyone say his peace.

    Steverino (69d941)

  124. Blog-bullies? Good Allah.

    I would do better to model myself after Machinist, Apogee, Eric Blair, etal. I way too foten show a complete lack of self-control and contribute to the problem, like I will below.

    Lovie – Was EfP covering himself in glory when he attacked steverino? Was he right when he called me a racist, repeatedly? Why do you feel compelled to defend him, yet claim you are not?

    JD (99d9b9)

  125. #120,
    Tomthumb’s behavior yesterday was in itself ample reason to ban him, even without knowing his previous abusive behavior. The provocative comments by some of the people here were too their discredit but in no way mitigate or justify the troll’s conduct. He came here to make trouble and clearly took a childish glee in striking a nerve. Your idea of a gentleman is clearly much different than mine.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  126. Machinist – You are prolly right about Tim McGarry. Having said that, I think that serves as an object lesson, to both the regulars and the Leftist visitors. When fed a steady diet of dishonest discourse from the Left, I far too often just skip to mock and scorn. FWIW, and I could be wrong, I believe Senor McGarry had some less than savory words about our esteemed host, which suggests that his pleasant personality belies his strident ideology.

    JD (99d9b9)

  127. I have just seen people be too quick on the trigger with some like Tim McGarry.

    Mea culpa.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (75d84b)

  128. I appreciate you defending me. I’ll remember your kindness here.
    Comment by Steverino — 5/14/2009 @ 11:58 am

    From all of us here, am sure, anytime. What was said to you was inexcusable.

    Comment by Machinist — 5/14/2009 @ 12:03 pm

    Well said. (The Emperor, what in the world did you think that smiley face was for?) Will just add, anyone who knew for what offense Ed from PA was banned, would never associate “gentleman” with him either.

    And by the way, accusing people of being “blog bullies” when the examples Emperor cites were from reactions to either dishonest commenters, or behavior designed to provoke, is (to be charitable) in itself a somewhat provocative statement to be making, especially after yesterday’s debacle.

    no one you know (65b7aa)

  129. machinist, if I misunderstood you, my apologies. I really don’t have time to really read the comments on this blog in much detail, and it’s easy to get lost in all the goofiness that is thrown around here.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  130. JD, while I have great respect and admiration for our host I have also criticized him. I hope that does not get me branded here.

    While Tim McGarry’s ideology and political views are extremely different than my own I have found him reasonable and responsible and enjoy his comments and writing. He has resisted much abuse and remained reasonable. I respect this.

    In case I have not been clear I find your conduct befits a gentleman, Sir.

    I would add the same about Brother Bradley.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  131. Machinist – Thank you. I would note that there are world’s of difference between criticism and what Mr. McGarry said about our host, but reasonable people can disagree.

    If you all weren’t homophobic racists, or racist homophobes, none of this would have happened.

    JD (99d9b9)

  132. Machinist, I don’t mean to belabor the obvious…but keep in mind that the goals of a troll are not to illuminate discussion or promote a point of view. The goal of a troll is to get other people angry and and begin an insult battle.

    This is completely different from people who have a passionate and differing viewpoint. I don’t want to see a person who has honest disagreements to be treated the way a snarkfesting troll is treated, no. I’m sure we agree on that. I do think that it is possible to confuse the two categories, which is why I urge people who may or may not be trolls to amp down the abuse…despite the “the other guy did it first” response. I still think if a person who is receiving abuse from posters here doesn’t respond to that, and simply writes things like “Please, let’s stay away from personalities and get back to the topic,” things would become less heated quickly.

    And we have had a LOT of trolls here recently, which has emotions running high (and again is a TrollGoal™).

    I do wonder why a person who has written disparagingly of Patterico would want to post here. But as you say, how people post here and now should be the yardstick by which they are measured. I would not want someone to look at something I wrote long ago and get all irritable with me. I would rather that I be judged on my actions now.

    Racist and homophobic as they are (hi, JD!).

    I appreciate your input, Machinist. Maybe TrollFest 2009 will subside.

    That would be true hope and change!

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  133. *I question the gender because the emperor used to be known as love2008…and at the time, claimed to be a woman.
    Comment by Steverino — 5/14/2009 @ 11:58 am

    Maybe I am missing something here but cite for me anywhere on this blog that Love2008 ever revealed it’s gender. Or “claimed” to be a woman. I would like to see it.
    Except of course you are repeating the misinformation carried about by the misinformed.

    The Emperor (09c9e3)

  134. Comment by Steverino — 5/14/2009 @ 11:58 am
    Furthermore I think you are a dishonest and manipulative POS!

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  135. In case I have not been clear I find your conduct befits a gentleman, Sir.<i

    Ha! JD? A gentleman? What a laugh. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
    Denounce it JD!

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  136. That added so much to the discussion, lovie.

    Dark is racist, and likes arguing with caricatures in its head. The idea that the people here, or conservatives in general, fear debate with Leftists is laughable. It is a meme Hacks used to repeatedly push.

    JD (99d9b9)

  137. Comment by The Emperor — 5/14/2009 @ 1:12 pm

    *rolls eyes* Oh brother. Or sister. As it were.

    no one you know (65b7aa)

  138. Lovie – Was EfP covering himself in glory when he attacked steverino? Was he right when he called me a racist, repeatedly? Why do you feel compelled to defend him, yet claim you are not?

    Comment by JD — 5/14/2009 @ 12:00 pm
    No he wasn’t. Like I have said repeatedly, what he said crossed the line. He should have apologized. You call people racist every time you have the chance. Why should you take offence when you are called that too?
    I am not feeling compelled to defend him. He has a right to defend himself. That is what I am defending. His right to defend himself. I do not support his comment about a dead spouse. Is that clear now? Or do I need to break it down farther?

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  139. #135,
    I have already pointed out that word has a very different meaning to you than it does to me.

    Eric Blair,
    I think I mostly agree with you on this, don’t I?

    I do not remember the exact remark Tim made but I think it was an opinion related to journalism, not an attack on Patterico’s character or a criticism of his professional conduct or competence. Is this really out of line about a blogger in a journalistic context? I entirely disagree with him but I don’t recall it being as bad as it is portrayed. I may well be wrong as my memory is failing. It’s happened before.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  140. Furthermore I think you are a dishonest and manipulative POS!

    Name one thing I’ve ever posted that was dishonest. Go ahead, take a couple of days to search.

    I have been incorrect in some of my beliefs, but I have never expressed them dishonestly. And when I’m wrong, I own up to my mistake.

    As far as your gender, I really don’t have the time to back through months of posts and find where your gender was claimed. Maybe when my work schedule lightens up in August I’ll go look. It’s possible that I’m only going off what other commenters claimed last year. But since you never denied being a woman until just a couple of days ago, it was a natural mistake to make.

    This will be the last time I address you, emperor. I have neither the energy nor the inclination to get into a flame war with you, especially since your intellectual dishonesty oozes out of every word you type.

    Steverino (69d941)

  141. Lovie – I have repeatedly explained to you the basis for my use of the RACIST canard. You apparently are not willing or able to understand the difference between me mocking the concept, that tomthumb so dutifully exemplified, and someone actually making that accusation.

    JD (d48a30)

  142. And by the way, accusing people of being “blog bullies” when the examples Emperor cites were from reactions to either dishonest commenters, or behavior designed to provoke, is (to be charitable) in itself a somewhat provocative statement to be making, especially after yesterday’s debacle.

    Comment by no one you know — 5/14/2009 @ 12:29 pm

    Did Ed from PA/tomthumb say any insulting thing to you? Apart from the unfortunate comment in question, what has he said here that would disqualify him as a gentleman? What real evil has he done? Pray tell me. I want to know. Maybe I would join the mob and call for his blood!

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  143. Sorry if I’m not responding to anyone. I’m not seeing anything past #136, though I see in the sidebar others have commented. I’ll look in later.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  144. Apart from the unfortunate comment in question, what has he said here that would disqualify him as a gentleman?

    Well….if you don’t see it (why don’t you start with that cavalier smiley face after his mock of Steverino’s grief and work backwards), I’m sorry, I’m sure I can’t explain it to you.

    What real evil has he done? Pray tell me. I want to know. Maybe I would join the mob and call for his blood!
    Comment by The Emperor — 5/14/2009 @ 1:51 pm

    Who called for his blood? Please, calm yourself. I said he wasn’t a gentleman and Patterico apparently agreed.

    This is a warning from Patterico to Ed from PA to apologize to Stashiu3. He would not, so Patterico removed his posts and banned him – here’s the announcement.

    no one you know (65b7aa)

  145. Did Ed from PA/tomthumb say any insulting thing to you?
    Comment by The Emperor — 5/14/2009 @ 1:51 pm

    No. I don’t count only comments addressed to myself when evaluating others’ courtesy.

    no one you know (65b7aa)

  146. the record shows it is “Alan Colmes” liberals only here, and very few of them.

    I’m not quite sure what you are saying about me here, or what the evidence is which supports your claim … since I can’t be bothered to watch Fox News, or television news in general, the reference is meaningless to me (except insofar as you obviously mean it as an insult).

    Can you elaborate?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  147. aphrael,
    Can you elaborate?

    Noble intent, but this is most likely one of the trolls, under yet another assumed name. It has some pathological grudge against conservatives — all the familiar tropes are there.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (75d84b)

  148. aphrael – It is arguing with a caricature in its head of not only conservatives, but also of liberals such as yourself. I would suggest you not waste your time, but YMMV. 😉

    what has he said here that would disqualify him as a gentleman?

    Other than all of the other examples provided to you, calling me a racist based on exactly nothing is less than gentlemanly.

    JD (d48a30)

  149. Alan Colmes liberals? Ooooooo, that’s low.

    SPQR (72771e)

  150. Aphrael – It’s nice to know that you, as well as myself and the rest of the ‘regulars’ here consist of amorphous automatons that respond to any query using a pre-ordained checklist.

    Signed: 001787355-J

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  151. Apogee – We cannot think until Boss Limbaugh tells us what to think. Haven’t you learned anything?!

    JD (d48a30)

  152. Response to JD 2:48pm – From 117c.SS 322 – WhatagiftBossLimbaughHannityFauxNoos…..Error…Starting stack dump

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  153. Comment by Steverino — 5/14/2009 @ 1:36 pm
    Yeah right. You are so perfect and spotless. Just don’t start something you can’t finish. Don’t start a fight and run to the teacher when they begin to hand it to you. What? You gonna get me banned too?

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  154. WTF is your problem, lovie?

    JD (410197)

  155. JD, I would guess a shortage of Lithium at the local pharmacy….

    Steverino (69d941)

  156. Just step around it.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., — 5/14/2009 @ 4:26 pm

    Indeed. Confess I didn’t expect that. /naivete

    no one you know (65b7aa)

  157. Quit being a blog-bully, noyk.

    JD (410197)

  158. The people here are not “blog-bullies”. They just don’t tolerate dishonest commenting, which is why you are consistently challenged lovey. You continue to lie and mischaracterize as you please, yet try to scold and order others.

    There are winners here, you’re just a loser. Do you know why EfPA was banned? Didn’t think so.

    Comment by Stashiu3 — 5/14/2009 @ 11:57 am

    Okay. Point out one lie I have told anywhere here. What have I mischaracterized? Give me examples. I have tried my best to show you some respect but it is seeming to you that it’s weakness on my part. You don’t want to be at peace with me. You continue to lie and misrepresent my comments. I will not continue to be patient with you. Just don’t go running to the Host, asking for a ban.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  159. I am thinking about the locomotion of members of the Anatidae family…

    Eric Blair (262ccd)

  160. I’m thinking more like the vocalizations of Mimidae.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (75d84b)

  161. You said tomthumb was being a gentleman, lovie. If that is not a lie, then it just proves that you have a complete disconnect with reality.

    JD (410197)

  162. Quit being a blog-bully, noyk.

    Comment by JD — 5/14/2009 @ 4:38 pm

    LOL
    Seriously, I must not see enough threads because I never saw an example before of what nk, and I think others, refer to sometimes on here as the disingenuousness of tone of a certain poster. I think this was an example of what they were talking about.

    Certainly qualifies as mood-swings in tone, to say the very least.

    no one you know (65b7aa)

  163. There you go again, blog-bullies.

    JD (410197)

  164. WTF is your problem, lovie?

    Comment by JD — 5/14/2009 @ 4:32 pm

    I am okay now, JD. Whew!

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  165. #

    You said tomthumb was being a gentleman, lovie. If that is not a lie, then it just proves that you have a complete disconnect with reality.

    Comment by JD — 5/14/2009 @ 4:46 pm

    Bullshit, JD. Someone also called you a gentleman on this thread. A complete lie in my book. It’s subjective. Why would you want to believe that you are a gentleman and not accept that another person is? Is that all you got as far as me being a liar goes? Really?

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  166. That remains to be seen.

    JD (410197)

  167. as well as myself and the rest of the ‘regulars’ here consist of amorphous automatons

    Good lord,I was reading through all the comments quickly and thought Apogee said, as well as myself and the rest of the ‘regulars’ here consist of amorous automatons and briefly wondered (before re-read) if he was being sock-puppeted. Oy vey.

    Look, if people just remembered to use the manners their mamas taught them and say only what they’d say if they were actually face to face, there wouldn’t be a need for any kind of moderation other than the lightest of touches.

    Dana (4a6e8c)

  168. I suggest that moderation consist of Dana whacking people with a Jimmy Choo.

    JD (410197)

  169. LOL
    Seriously, I must not see enough threads because I never saw an example before of what nk, and I think others, refer to sometimes on here as the disingenuousness of tone of a certain poster. I think this was an example of what they were talking about.

    Certainly qualifies as mood-swings in tone, to say the very least.

    Comment by no one you know — 5/14/2009 @ 4:46 pm
    Are you now joining issues with nk? I think it is disingenuous of you to make indirect, disrespectful comments about others while trying to keep your gloves white. If you have anything to say, come out and say it.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  170. Apparently things are not yet okay, lovie.

    JD (410197)

  171. Just step around it, noyk.

    nk (a1896a)

  172. The Wise Dana wrote:

    “Look, if people just remembered to use the manners their mamas taught them and say only what they’d say if they were actually face to face, there wouldn’t be a need for any kind of moderation other than the lightest of touches.”

    Tru dat, as the yoot of America might say. I suspect many parents were too busy to impart that wisdom widely, Dana. But you are absolutely correct.

    Also, many people—I am pointing no fingers here, because I look at myself when I write this—tend to split hairs VERY finely, and too often in ways that favor themselves.

    Sometimes, taking a few steps back, or even NOT posting something when angry, might be a profitable approach.

    Diastolically speaking, that is.

    Eric Blair (262ccd)

  173. Okay. Much better now.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  174. Comment by Dana — 5/14/2009 @ 5:01 pm

    Comment by Eric Blair — 5/14/2009 @ 5:14 pm

    Comment by nk — 5/14/2009 @ 5:13 pm

    Good advice.


    I suggest that moderation consist of Dana whacking people with a Jimmy Choo.

    Comment by JD — 5/14/2009 @ 5:04 pm

    While ostensibly satisfying (at least for the whacker), whacking people with $470 shoes tends to cause consternation to the receiving as well as the giving party.

    no one you know (65b7aa)

  175. Okay. Much better now.

    Comment by The Emperor — 5/14/2009 @ 5:14 pm

    Glad to hear it. Take care all.

    no one you know (65b7aa)

  176. You’re never alone when you’re a schizophrenic – so true.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  177. Just step around my shit, noyk.

    Comment by nk — 5/14/2009 @ 5:13 pm

    Yeah, you do that. Wouldn’t like to see those expensive Jimmy Choo shoes ruined.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  178. It is kind of surreal to try to follow lovie’s internal dialogue.

    JD (410197)

  179. Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    I’m schizophrenic
    And so am I

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (75d84b)

  180. lovey is so amusing. She forgets that we’re not at peace and why. I’m sure she knows that I can link to an outright lie she told because she had to apologize for it. I won’t ask for bans of anyone, I’ll let lovey’s deranged commentary speak for itself. But when she starts getting imperious or lies too outrageously, I sometimes enjoy calling her on it and watching her implode. I should ignore her completely and usually do… I would probably be more successful if everyone else ignored her. It’s hard not to join in the fun. As dishonest as she usually is, the thought of her going “Scanners” seems almost poetic.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  181. Also, I will never, ever, call her by anything except lovey… feeding into a delusion, especially one of grandeur, is unhealthy.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  182. The chances of me calling it by its current iteration are similar to the chances of the Scrubs winning the World Series this year.

    JD (410197)

  183. Oh CRAP!! I have to face reality? Are there no exceptions?

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  184. I’m a little confused by this thread. Do we all feel better now, or worse?

    DRJ (f55947)

  185. Comment by Stashiu3 — 5/14/2009 @ 5:44 pm

    You really need to stop using, Stash. It’s turning you into such an embarrassment. Why don’t you go look for this your “lovie” and maybe get married. That ought to take away those thoughts.
    Lying POS!

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  186. DRJ – One of the lovie’s feels okay, one obviously not so good.

    JD (410197)

  187. I feel much better DRJ. :)

    Think I’ll go rustle up some popcorn now.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  188. Has everybody seen this hilarious new post by Iowahawk?

    Sample:
    Liz Windsor

    Thanks for that swell intro, Shecky. By the way, I know how much you love our infidel nuclear technology, but we’ve got another 1940’s invention you should really check out. It’s called deodorant.

    (rimshot)

    Listen folks, I know you came here expecting me to start hurling some tasteless insults at Barack Obama. But, seriously, I just can’t bring myself to do it. Barack is almost like another son to me.

    (audience: awwwww)

    Yeah, another jug eared idiot with a hard-on for horsefaced women. Barack was in London a couple weeks ago and rang me up, asked if he could drop by for tea. So he comes in, and I’m thinking, whoa — those Yanks have really stepped up their space program, he’s brought along a real live Klingon. Turns out it was his wife.

    nk (a1896a)

  189. I’m a little confused by this thread. Do we all feel better now, or worse?

    Comment by DRJ — 5/14/2009 @ 5:58 pm

    Was enough unsettled by the mood swings that I left the thread for a bit. Am still pretty confused and glad I’m not the only one — :( Am sure you were joking but I’m not.

    Comment by nk — 5/14/2009 @ 6:08 pm

    Via HotAir last night; pretty funny. IMO he did the best with the “stage direction” interludes [(orchestra fanfare: ‘Make ‘Em Laugh’….(Jon Stewart mugs Macauley Culkin ‘Home Alone’ face)]. Right on.

    no one you know (65b7aa)

  190. I wasn’t joking, noyk, but I am a little mystified. Today’s comments took a strange turn.

    DRJ (f55947)

  191. That was its purpose, DRJ. To disrupt the thread. It starts with a seemingly honest difference of opinion, it shifts into disingenuousness and mockery, and devolves into insults. I think it is one of several spammers, which is why it does not remember that it was once a Christian woman who thought homosexuals would bring on Armageddon in Israel, and now is a man who wants more pictures of Miss California and thinks it is wrong to mention someone’s sexual orientation.

    nk (a1896a)

  192. Or just schizo ….

    JD (410197)

  193. JD,

    You don’t think it could be the Petranos on new medication!!!

    nk (a1896a)

  194. No, sadly. David Petranos Esq. And MKDP have a very unique and compelling style to them. How can you compete with stories about frogmen, roast beef cutters, snipers, faux boat captains, and disability horses?

    JD (410197)

  195. Here is its Blogger Profile from a comment it left on my site. According to my SiteMeter the location was Upper West Ghana.

    nk (a1896a)

  196. Still a pig. A dirty lying pig.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  197. I can see you got the spelling of “Ghana” right this time, pig. You are making progress.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  198. Do you guys remember a (ostensibly) fan of Liberal Avenger’s who posted some filth here under the name of Pedobear, claimed to be a Japanese immigrant living in New York, and bragged that he was not bannable because his laptop was never in the same location twice?

    nk (a1896a)

  199. nk,

    That’s hilarious! The only comment on the blog is from the profile name “Nemesis”. Did lovey really sockpuppet herself to say, “Good start Emperor7. Bravo!”? Too funny.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  200. Doctor: I’m sorry to tell you Mrs. Smith that you have Alzheimer’s.
    Patient: It could be worse, Doctor.
    Doctor: How?
    Patient: I could have Alzheimer’s.

    nk (a1896a)

  201. Comment by nk — 5/14/2009 @ 7:39 pm

    You are so daft. Anyone could have seen that link since I had it up with the name “Emperor7″ for at least 8 weeks! Is this supposed to be a secret blog you dug out? You are beyond stupid.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  202. Comment by nk — 5/14/2009 @ 7:39 pm

    Speaking of blogs, I can understand why you would leave your lonely, desolate blog to come to Patterico’s. What with only 4 comments in a month. Sometimes not even one commenter. It’s tough. I know. But if you spent half of the time you spend here, making yourself such an assh*le, on your blog, maybe things will start to look up for you. Now go over there and make it work, little goatee!

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  203. Lithium shortage again, apparently.

    JD (410197)

  204. Take a break from this thread, folks.

    DRJ (f55947)

  205. I suggest keeping an eye on Dark Beergod. He appeared yesterday floating a meme on a Karl thread that Hax had been pushing hard before he was banned.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  206. daleyrocks,
    I had the same suspicion about our “new” commenter. It’s Whack-A-Troll with these multiple nyms.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  207. I agree with JD, dmac, daley, nk, stash. I think racism should be okay on this site as long as it is done by conservatives in defense of Rush Limbaugh. We all know that Rush does not have a forum in which to voice his own opinions and defend himself, so it is up to us. Liberals should be banned for pointing out our racism to us.

    rudolph hendergeist (4f1e6f)

  208. Jeffery Diamond checks in from Germany…

    carlitos (aa025a)

  209. Sorry, DRJ, I hit ‘submit’ before I saw your admonition. Will take said break.

    carlitos (aa025a)

  210. Comment by rudolph hendergeist — 5/15/2009 @ 10:13 am

    Moby sockpuppet of someone who has been banned… bet on it.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  211. Do you guys remember a (ostensibly) fan of Liberal Avenger’s who posted some filth here under the name of Pedobear, claimed to be a Japanese immigrant living in New York, and bragged that he was not bannable because his laptop was never in the same location twice?

    Comment by nk — 5/14/2009 @ 7:39 pm

    Sadly, I do. If memory serves, that person’s profile on the avenger site took you to obscene anime artwork.

    carlitos (aa025a)

  212. DRJ (I don’t have your e-mail address; sorry):

    Please feel free to shut down comments on threads when a “time out” is necessary. Some people might carry on about “censorship,” but I notice that they are throwing more poo than debating.

    It’s your thread. Your rules.

    Eric Blair (262ccd)

  213. #215 was spam.

    I see very little spam here, so you must have a great filter.

    Mike K. and I have none on his WP blog, so we get tons of it. . . . time for me to delete some now.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (ebf8f5)

  214. Thanks, Bradley. Spam gone.

    DRJ (f55947)

  215. Stashiu – I would almost be willing to bet that was Jeffrey “I am a lifelong Republican and concerned Christian” Diamond.

    JD (dd7aa0)

  216. Comment by JD — 5/15/2009 @ 1:24 pm

    Might just depend on whether you can afford a new microwave. 😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  217. DRJ, I linked to this post and mentioned you in my argument against Affirmative Action for Liberal Commenters. This is my post. http://theloosecannonontheright.blogspot.com/2009/05/no-affirmative-action-for-liberal.html#comments

    I thought it only fair and honest to let you know what I said and offer you fair chance to respond if you so feel like doing so.

    PCD (c46315)

  218. DRJ is not going to comment on your blog, PCD. Your blog is horrible. It is nothing but the incoherent ramblings of a degenerate fool.

    Statistics show that the more educated a person is, the more likely that person will consider themselves democrats. That you would insinuate that no liberal position could possibly be defended by facts is dishonest and rather moronic. Furthermore, banning liberals from your blog does not actually speak to your belief that liberals always lie and stretch the truth, but rather to your inability to defend your positions against intelligent, well spoken people who happen to disagree with you.

    positive K (67de7c)

  219. Thanks for commenting, positive k. I missed PCD’s comment and link, but your comment brought it to my attention.

    You have strong opinions, k. I admire people who know their mind, but you might think about another handle. “Positive” and “Your blog is horrible. It is nothing but the incoherent ramblings of a degenerate fool” don’t really go together in my book.

    DRJ (f55947)

  220. Ah yes, I agree with you there DRJ. It happens to be the name of a one-hit wonder rapper from the 90s. I liked the song and it fits with my first name.

    Perhaps I could have used more benign language to discuss my opinions of the blog, but I can’t imagine you would disagree with me if you followed the link. The post he linked to was rather jumbled and a mess.

    positive K (67de7c)

  221. PCD didn’t say liberals are banned, only that there is no affirmative action and certain sites are not allowed as evidence, such as Wikipedia and liberal propaganda sites. (I assume that’s like DU and Daily Kos).

    With that weapon denied them most Liberals are defenseless and compound that with my not allowing them to lie here, they don’t come here.

    As long as conservatives are subject to the same restrictions, there’s nothing wrong with that.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  222. PCD,

    Here’s the comment I tried to leave at your website but I don’t have the right login:

    **********

    First, I hope you know I don’t take this personally at all. I like a good debate and this is a worthwhile topic.

    Second, I mulled over the same point you make here before I posted my rules. I thought liberals might object to my rules because they would feel slighted I considered special accommodations for them. Instead of amplifying on that point, however, I decided to wait and see what developed in the comments.

    Third, I eventually expanded on this topic later in the comments. Specifically, I said “my goal isn’t leniency when it comes to the logic of a person’s position.” Instead, my goal is to do more to make sincere liberal commenters feel welcome. Why? Because I want to hear what they have to say, and I’m afraid they will be less likely to say it if they feel the environment is hostile.

    Fourth, and last, I applaud anything that encourages personal responsibility, and I view that as your strongest point. Ultimately, I may decide you are right and I am wrong. If I do, that will be the reason why.

    DRJ (f55947)

  223. PS to PCD,

    I apologize that I’m login-challenged, and please feel free to copy and paste my response in your comments.

    DRJ (f55947)

  224. PCD lost me when he suggested that wikipedia was a liberal propaganda mechanism.

    positive K (67de7c)

  225. I thought liberals might object to my rules because they would feel slighted I considered special accommodations for them.

    Naah, liberals like affirmative action. 😉

    nk (a1896a)

  226. DRJ,
    Your grace and class are a shining beacon I wish others on the web would try to emulate.

    This is true regardless of whether one shares your views, with I highly respect.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  227. Statistics show that the more educated a person is, the more likely that person will consider themselves democrats.

    That’s why it’s a mistake for anyone to believe that education and intelligence per se are somehow more important than — or even as important as — a person’s biases, or ideological predisposition, innate or otherwise. For gut biases are what influence a person’s common sense and willingness (or unwillingness) to accept facts and reality. Therefore, it’s very easy for otherwise well educated and intelligent people to be total fools, if not outright idiots, when it comes to various issues and causes.

    Mark (411533)

  228. PCD lost me when he suggested that wikipedia was a liberal propaganda mechanism.

    No, he didn’t:
    I don’t accept wikipedia as proof, nor do I accept any posts or cut-and-pastes from Liberal Propaganda sites.

    I wouldn’t accept Wikipedia as proof either, because the quality control is uneven and it’s too vulnerable to hacking. Reporters have fallen on their faces using inaccurate info from Wikipedia. It’s good as a starting place for research, but is not a primary source.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  229. Bradley, good point as this week the report of a successful hoaxing on Wiki kept a post up for 24 hours and was quoted by journalists in various newspapers as a quote by deceased composer Maurice Jarre, rather than the 22-year old Irish student who purposefully put it in Wiki as an experiment. Apparently reporters don’t always source the source.

    Dana (4a6e8c)

  230. Hi Dana, the photographic genius Dana,

    It’s another example of how journalistic sloppiness that used to be carefully concealed is now visible to anyone. No wonder so many journo poseurs hate the Internet.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  231. DRJ, I’ll add your comment tonight after I get home from work.

    Comments do not appear until I ok them.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  232. 220, (Not so)Positive K, You are wrong on 2 counts. DRJ and I can carry on a civil conversation, and her comments will be posted.

    Second, you offer nothing but your unsupported, biased opinion. I wouldn’t post your rant until you provided fair, honest, and unbiased proof of your prejudiced remarks. Denigration is not a trumping argument, and I use it not to win arguments with liberals, but to damage their egos in the precise way they wish to destroy their opponents.

    Third, Positive, look at the header of my blog. If you can’t handle free speech and free thought, then you are no liberal, but a jack booted Orwellian creature that you project upon others.

    PCD (02f8c1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8807 secs.