9/29/2009

Patterico Banned at the L.A. Times???

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 9:19 pm

Tweet

In response to a moronic L.A. Times Polanski-related blog post that said:

Even his victim speaks out about the injustice of this trial in this acclaimed documentary.

I tried to leave a comment . . . and look what happened:

Are they banning all Deputy District Attorneys? Or just the ones that make them look like fools on a daily basis?

P.S. I know, I know. There’s probably some innocent explanation for this. But do we know that for sure?

UPDATE 12-31-09: Revisiting this for my Year in Review, I see the comment was eventually published.

Comments (19)

19 Responses to “Patterico Banned at the L.A. Times???”

1. I posted the same comment and it accepted it but then went into moderation.

   Dana (863a65) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:27 pm

   
   

2. I always feel like I’m slumming it when I leave a comment at the Los Angeles Times or the Washington Post. Commenting at YouTube has more dignity I think.

   happyfeet (6b707a) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:30 pm

   
   

3. I just left a comment that included the Patterico.com URL — something I’ve never done before, but I wanted to see if that triggered the system to reject my comment. The website says all comments are moderated and it looks like my comment was accepted pending moderation.

   DRJ (b008f8) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:37 pm

   
   

4. I too posted the same comment and it was accepted into moderation.

   Fritz (e04596) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:39 pm

   
   

5. My comment was accepted pending moderation:
   There was no “trial”. Polanski pled guilty. Where were the LA Times’ storied layers of editors on this howler?

   Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:39 pm

   
   

6. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

   Official Internet Data Office (918234) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:58 pm

   
   

7. Maybe there wasn’t enough words so the filter didn’t feel it was a worthy comment but just a curt reply that they didn’t want. Add more words to it and see if it accepts the comment.

   j curtis (baef6f) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:00 pm

   
   

8. No soup for you, Patterico!

   Dave Surls (7cc926) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:06 pm

   
   

9. Having pleaded guilty, I want to know just how much money it would take for a judge to impose sentence?

   I asked this question to a courthouse reporter today and she stood there dumbfounded, unable to answer.

   Even if it costs a litle money, it is not like the judges are overworked or anything.

   This dropping the case to save money is a stupid argument.

   Alta Bob (e53677) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:43 pm

   
   

10. Pat, Consider yourself honored.

    Stu707 (0981d5) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:54 pm

    
    

11. Did you have the window open quite a while? I comment on the Dodger blog (that the Times co-opted last winter) and have found that I get the same error when I’ve left the window open for a while before posting. Don’t know why it would make a difference, since it isn’t as though the comments are actually authenticated, but it’s possible their timing-out sessions.

    Nobody (40298b) — 9/29/2009 @ 11:04 pm

    
    

12. Pat, your lucky dude.

    The SacBee just posts my comments as ghosts, that I can see but others can not.

    At least the LA Times had the balls to tell you they’re censoring your comments.

    papertiger (7e1f91) — 9/30/2009 @ 12:33 am

    
    

13. “What ‘trial’ are you talking about? The man pled down from rape to statutory rape so he could get an easier sentence, then fled the country.

    He is admittedly GUILTY of drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl and people like the LAT who defend them need to remember that fact.”

    My comment… accept but you know the drill

    Lord Nazh (8d682b) — 9/30/2009 @ 5:39 am

    
    

14. Typical Liberal action. They can’t take being shown being liars and fools.

    PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/30/2009 @ 6:03 am

    
    

15. uh, lord nash, the LA Times is rather clearly NOT defending him. Both in editorial and in the front-page placement of today;’s Steve Lopez column, they make it clear that the paper supports the extradition. Some letter-writers and columnists have other ideas.

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 9/30/2009 @ 8:28 am

    
    

16. Kevin its Nazh 🙂

    Yes, I saw where I forgot to add ‘bloggers’ to the LAT part, but the comment went through already 🙁

    Lord Nazh (8d682b) — 9/30/2009 @ 8:42 am

    
    

17. I note that Patterico’s comment is posted.

    Loren (af2946) — 9/30/2009 @ 8:48 am

    
    

18. I think all of ours got posted.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (6c59c1) — 9/30/2009 @ 8:56 am

    
    

19. I certainly am shocked that mine did…

    Scott Jacobs (445f98) — 9/30/2009 @ 9:11 am