I don't have to run new rules by the Chalicesseurs, but I like to. In that spirit, please consider: "Discussion of the word verification is grounds for your response being immediately kicked."*
Because thinking out and writing a post takes real time and effort, and when people respond with "Tee hee! My word verification says DISCO" or the equivalent, it's really fucking rude to someone who has put a lot of work into entertaining you for free. (No, the fact that people have been rude to you in the past does not justify further rudeness here.)
Also, it gets other people talking about the word verification and not the post, thus further reducing the quality of the comments and people's desire to write posts in the first place. That last point is very important to me as there may come a time when the Chaliceblog will need to become a group effort or die and if my potential guest writers have decided that the Chalicesseurs don't actually give a shit about what is being written, my guess is that "die" will be the end result.
Discuss.
CC
who won't impose this rule ex post facto, and perhaps not at all, but wanted to talk about the idea.
*In the past, I have only kicked four kinds of comments:
1. Comments of my own that I rethought or wanted to fix a typo in
2. Comments that the author asked me to kick.
3. Spam
4. Comments that were not just insulting, not just pointless, but both, and I've been very sparing in kicking those.
48 comments:
So CC. . . is *discussion* of the word verification code grounds for *your* response here being immediately kicked from The Chaliceblog?
Just asking. . .
Personally I do not consider briefly mentioning the Blogger Word Verification Code aka WVC for a particular comment counts as actual *discussion* of the word verification code and thus is not proverbial "reasonable grounds" for "kicking" aka censoring and suppressing aka "memory holing" *any* comment from The Chaliceblog.
:Because thinking out and writing a post takes real time and effort, and when people respond with "Tee hee! My word verification says DISCO" or the equivalent, it's really fucking rude to someone who has put a lot of work into entertaining you for free.
And who actually does *that* CC? For the record, thinking out and writing a comment responding to one of your blog posts or comments takes as much real time and effort as your own time and effort, or at least one would presume so. . . Personally I do not see how briefly mentioning what the word verification code for a particular blog comment is, if that WVC "coincidentally" aligns somewhat with the content of the comment, is "really fucking rude." Heck when I do it, and I am not the only blogger to do so although I admit to perhaps starting that practice in the U*U blogosphere, it is part and parcel of *my* lot of work put into entertaining and educating U*Us for free. . .
:(No, the fact that people have been rude to you in the past does not justify further rudeness here.)
I can assure you that occasionally mentioning the WVC of a comment when it synchronistically resonates with the content of the comment is by no means intentional rudeness on my part and it is even open to considerable debate as to whether doing so actually counts as rudeness, in any sense of the word "rudeness" in any mind other than your own CC. . . Heck there is even a certain amount of skill or precision in *that* work.
:Also, it gets other people talking about the word verification and not the post, thus further reducing the quality of the comments and people's desire to write posts in the first place.
So what is your excuse for "memory holing" my follow-up very much on-topic comment that barely mentioned the word verification code CC? It seems to me that you were and still are looking for an excuse to "memory hole" my pertinent comments.
I didn't.
I haven't deleted one of your comments in a very long time. I think years. If one of your comments hasn't appeared yet, try hitting "refresh."
CC
I find WVC games annoying, too. It's just another form of thread hijacking, of so polluting the stream that legitimate readers go MEGO and skip it.
Before people ask:
MEGO is netspeak for "My Eyes Glaze Over"
CC
Oh, and I also think off-topic comment spam that was written not to expand and deepen the discussion, but merely to insert links to one's own blog, is pretty rude, too.
A lot of things are rude. Right now, I'm interested in banning this thing.
If people who have their own blogs find another behavior more rude, they are free to enforce rules against that behavior on their own blogs.
CC
I probably have been guilty of mentioning the WVC when it seemed peculiarly apropos to the post itself, but I think it's quite reasonable to tell commenters that you don't want them to do it anymore. And it's in poor taste to get onto such a trivial topic in commenting on a post that is very serious in its tone.
Yeah, it has irritated me for some time and I was just putting up with it, but it was the disrespect to the gentleman who was the topic of the previous post that really made me want to step in and at least discuss the fact that this particularly silly way of taking a post off-topic was getting old and was really rude.
Plus, I can take a lot of rudeness directed it me, but I don't like it when people are rude to LinguistFriend.
CC
There was not the slightest intentional rudeness towards LinguistFriend with regard to my mentioning of the WVC in my comment ChaliceChick. AFAIAC there was no inadvertent unintentional rudeness towards him or anyone else in *that* respect either. At the end of the proverbial day it is *your* blog and comments are not necessarily directed exclusively at the poster in any case. My comments are often intended for broad public consumption.
@ Joel None of my comments were "off-topic comment spam". They were all very much on topic to either CC's comment or the content of the blog post itself. They were in fact written to expand and deepen the discussion to the regrettable dysfunction of the Unitarian*Universalist religious community that is very similar too, if not identical with. . . the social dysfunction spoken about in the original post and CC's initial comment. The links are simply added as evidence and examples of that dysfunction. If you would like Joel I can further expand and deepen the discussion to the "death threats" that were made against me by Montreal Unitarian U*U Jim Wilson that *could* very well have resulted in a tragic death very similar to that of Robert Brundage had they been acted upon by him. . . In fact I think I will do just that Joel just to prove my point.
I think you're right about the word verification, CC. It just encourages people to get off topic in foolish ways and I certainly thought it was disrespectful to LinguistFriend that people started talking about the comment verification in a post about a man's death.
I'm a firm believer in the use of comment moderation. Saves a good deal of time and energy, and discourages bad behavior from the get-go.
I try to provide substantive comments, so it makes no difference to me. I'll keep doing what I've been doing. *shrugs*
I'm generally not in favor of much moderation, but when it gets to the point that people can't even have a conversation on a serious topic without people CONSTANTLY trying to change the subject, then it starts to get tempting.
I have run things the way I have for years and things have on the whole been OK, but I don't want my belief in free discourse to kill the conversation, because the discourse that's killing it is nothing that can't be seen on 100 other blogs.
CC
I in no way changed the overall subject of the post CC. I just pointed out how the "social dynamic" that LF mentioned in his post and you mentioned in your comment applies to U*U society. In fact part and parcel of what I was pointing out is that it does not just apply to poor young people but people of all ages and social classes. . . Maybe instead of getting on a questionable self-righteous high horse you should let LF himself decide if and when someone is being rude to him. . .
CC, he isn't interested in free discourse at all. He is only interested in discourse about himself, and even then not "free"- it must be on his terms. He doesn't deny comment-spamming, he boasts of it: "I am can be somewhat "long-winded" and verbose, and freely acknowledge that, but The Emerson Avenger blog and much of my other online writing is especially verbose because I deliberately load what I am writing with keywords get high rankings in Google searches to attract readers."
The same is true of his rudeness and offensiveness: "The Emerson Avenger is something of a "persona" aka an "act" and is often quite deliberately rude and "in your face" offensive... Believing me, when I am insulting people I *know* what I am doing... I am perfectly aware of how (my) alleged harassment and tone affects others... BTW Did I forget to mention that I deliberately feign a certain amount of craziness or "insanity" from time to time just to take the piss out of those U*U hypocrites... "
I know some people pity him because they think he has a neurological disorder, or some pathological condition. I say take him at his word; he's deliberately fouling the atmosphere. A good conversation is like virginity; it only takes one dick to ruin it.
Tell that to Rev. Ray Drennan, Rev. Cynthia P. Cain and the Peacebang Joel. . . All it took was Peacebang to ruin the Statue of Liberty's virginity, to say nothing of the anal virginity of one Senator Bill Napoli eh?
Just because I can and do knowingly and willfully choose to be rude and offensive towards certain U*Us who have been rude and offensive towards me and other people does not mean that I am rude and offensive all the time.
:CC, he isn't interested in free discourse at all. He is only interested in discourse about himself, and even then not "free"- it must be on his terms.
You're a one to talk Joel. You censor your blog. I censor nothing. People can pretty much say whatever they want in comments on The Emerson Avenger blog but if they are rude and offensive they just might find that I can give as good as I get.
:He doesn't deny comment-spamming, he boasts of it: "I am can be somewhat "long-winded" and verbose, and freely acknowledge that, but The Emerson Avenger blog and much of my other online writing is especially verbose because I deliberately load what I am writing with keywords get high rankings in Google searches to attract readers."
Being verbose, especially for "tactical" reasons, and comment spamming are two different things Joel.
:I know some people pity him because they think he has a neurological disorder, or some pathological condition. I say take him at his word; he's deliberately fouling the atmosphere.
When I am knowingly and willfully insulting U*Us who have insulted and/or defamed me and other people I am indeed "deliberately fouling the atmosphere" but I am doing so primarily as an exercise aka object lesson in showing U*Us how they have allowed their fellow U*Us, especially U*U clergy, deliberately foul the atmosphere of the U*U World. Not every comment I make is "deliberately fouling the atmosphere". U*Us who are honest and have *integrity*, as opposed to spewers of misleading U*U BS, know that I have a fair number of perfectly civil mutually respectful conversations about some quite controversial subjects with U*Us who are civil and respectful towards me.
"I have a fair number of perfectly civil mutually respectful conversations about some quite controversial subjects with U*Us who are civil and respectful towards me."
Riiiiight... just like in the previous post, when LF- whom you claim to respect- wistfully wished you had spoken directly to his post, you STILL had to make it all about yourself. Free discourse- IF it's about YOU.
"Being verbose, especially for "tactical" reasons, and comment spamming are two different things Joel." The link you provided defines comment-spamming as "Occasionally by hand posting of time-wasting idiots who post nonsense for fun or try to get links to their site by posting links to their site everywhere"
Well, let's see. In the previous post, you've linked to your own site or links about you a dozen times. In a single thread. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, time-wasting idiot.
We'll see who the time wasting idiot is Joel. . .
The fact that LT "wistfully wished" that I had spoken directly to his post in no way means that my mentioning of the WVC, or any other aspect of my comment, was disrespectful of him. It should be glaringly obvious that my initial comment was a direct response to CC's initial comment. LT seems to have no problem with her drawing a parallel with her brothers so I see no reason why he should have any problem with me showing the the very same parallel may be drawn with "less than excellent" U*U ministers and other deliquent U*Us.
:you STILL had to make it all about yourself. Free discourse- IF it's about YOU.
Sorry Joel but I thought I made it all about Rev. Ray Drennan, Rev. Cynthia P. Cain and Rev. Victoria Weinstein. I thought my comment was all about how U*Us as a community must dig deeper to address and confront the areas of dysfunction that surround and these and other "less than excellent" U*U ministers. . . from U*U churches to U*U institutions to individual U*Us. . .
I was and still am quite aware of how the link that I provided defines comment-spamming, and how you *might* attempt to ever so DIM Thinkingly try to twist that definition against me Joel. Thanks for being so predictable. . . I am not, as a rule, a time-wasting idiot who posts nonsense for fun even though I do have a little bit of fun in *some* of my TEA blog posts. Nor do I embed links to my site(s) just for the sake getting links. Very often I make links to pertinent Google searches that go to numerous other sites. No I embed links to provide online evidence backing my claims so that only an idiot would pretend they were nonsense. . . and to encourage U*U to engage in a free and *responsible* search for the truth and meaning of what I am saying.
The quality of Robin's discourse is not up for debate here. I mean, you guys can debate it if you want I guess, but I'm not helping.
What I'm talking about is discussion of the word verification code, something that just about everyone has done at some point or another.
Because the level of discourse we achieve here as a group does matter to me, and the sort of responses I think I will get do dictate what I write. I've written about sensitive topics here before, but I'm hesitant to do so again while people think that pointing out the hilarity of the word verification tag is appropriate for every situation.
I mean, come on, if we can't have a post about a brilliant, giving man who was tragically killed without people making fun of the word verification codes in the comments, is there any hope left for real conversation here?
I'm not looking for a reason to kick responses. I can kick any response, any time I want, I just choose not to almost all the time.
I'm looking for a way to get back to some of the good conversations we had in the past where we really talked about issues with sensitivity and depth.
CC
A rule would probably help.
I say that as someone who's been known to indulge in the idle observation that a WVC is amusing in context. But never, I think, beyond that. Allowing the WVC to legitimate an even more tangential ramble into "oh, look, everything's about how there's never been a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the UU ministry" -- for example -- seems pointless. There's already a blog devoted to that.
This one is CC's and should tend to be--more or less--about the subject of her postings and queries.
The rule is somewhat arbitrary, but it's clear, simple, easy to adhere to--and it's the hostess's blog, and she's entitled to a few endearing eccentricities. Plus it might help keep the conversation topical.
Feel free to apply it, as far as I'm concerned.
:I've written about sensitive topics here before, but I'm hesitant to do so again while people think that pointing out the hilarity of the word verification tag is appropriate for every situation.
As should be clear from what I have already said here, my mentioning of WVC's on occasion has nothing to do with "hilarity" or "making fun" CC. I only mention the WVC when it coincidentally aligns nicely with the content of my comment in a kind of online synchronicity.
:I'm looking for a way to get back to some of the good conversations we had in the past where we really talked about issues with sensitivity and depth.
I thought we were pretty much doing that CC and my mentioning of WVCs did not detract from that conversation.
"I thought we were pretty much doing that CC and my mentioning of WVCs did not detract from that conversation."
After all the previous wordage,
that pretty much sums it up right there. Robin either really doesn't understand what's been said, or he chooses not to understand what's been said.
I don't have a problem with it.
I thought this was a dumb idea for a rule until I counted -- word verification codes are mentioned seven times in the comments about Brundage, at least once with a "smiley" emoticon so we don't miss how funny it is. CC is right, this is way out of hand.
This input is helpful. Thank you.
(And special thanks to the second Anonymous, for counting the times Word Verification Codes are brought up before dismissing it as a dumb idea.)
CC
When I'm on a roll I'm on a roll CC. . . One unusual coincidence is one thing, several unusual coincidences in a row is another. . . But in any case, most of those mentions of the WVC were made *after* you made this blog post and may be considered to be a form of *civil disobedience*. One need only look at my numerous other posts in the U*U blogosphere to verify that my brief mentioning of the WVC at the end of a comment is comparatively rare and is *usually* only done when the WVC resonates with the comment in some way. AFA*I*AC you are making a gigantic mountain out of what *was* a molehill but that seems to be par for the course for many U*Us. . .
WVC = grinkliz*
* Just for the Hell of it this time.
I apologize for my WV comment. It was actually an emotional reaction to yet another long-winded Robin Edgar post. I did not intend any disrespect to LF or his post or its subject.
I think I will try simply ceasing to read Robin Edgar at all.
(((But in any case, most of those mentions of the WVC were made *after* you made this blog post and may be considered to be a form of *civil disobedience*)))
And that you chose to do that in a post about a brilliant, good person who had been pointlessly murdered is exactly why I feel like we can't have real conversations here anymore.
CC
Ps. Kim, it's OK. As I've said pretty much everyone has done it at some point, it's just happening way too often in otherwise serious conversations here at least.
Anonymous said... I thought this was a dumb idea for a rule until I counted -- word verification codes are mentioned seven times in the comments about Brundage, at least once with a "smiley" emoticon so we don't miss how funny it is. CC is right, this is way out of hand.
Anonymous you might have been well advised to enter into a free and responsible search for the truth and meaning behind why *this* got "way out of hand" before posting your comment but I am glad that you didn't because had you done so you might not have said what you said and given me the opportunity to respond to it here.
This was and still is a dumb idea for a rule, indeed it was an even dumber idea to post this whole blog post about making such a rule to the effect that -
"Discussion of the word verification is grounds for your response being immediately kicked."
For starters, briefly mentioning the word verification code at the end of a comment hardly constitutes *discussion* of the word verification code. In fact, a free and responsible search for the Truth would have shown that prior to CC's "dumb idea" there were only two comments that mentioned the WVC at all, and only one single comment that can be considered to be *discussion* of the word verification code. i.e. Kim's comment saying -
"The word verification words have become more interesting lately. I think they are doing that on purpose. They like the attention.
WV -- reinget"
:until I counted -- word verification codes are mentioned seven times in the comments about Brundage, at least once with a "smiley" emoticon so we don't miss how funny it is. CC is right, this is way out of hand.
The key word here is *mentioned* not *discussed* Anonymous. Thank you for perhaps unwittingly making that distinction. As I have just shown, there were only two mentions of the WVC prior to CC's "dumb idea" of proposing a rule making "Discussion of the word verification". . . grounds for your response being immediately kicked."*
BTW There are two key words in that rule that are worth noting -
Exhibit A) Discussion
Exhibit B) response
If I wanted to get all legalistic in my own search for the truth and meaning of CC's proposed rule, meaning that she has yet to clarify even though I asked her to do so in my initial comment here. . . I could point out that the only Kim's *response* to my initial comment that briefly mentioned the WVC because in my mind the word "trail" resonated with the long line of U*Us who have jumped off the metaphorical cliff like proverbial lemmings over the last "less than lucky" thirteen years or so, meets the criteria of CC's proposed rule. IOW My brief mentions of the WVC at the end of some blog posts do not actually constitute "discussion of the word verification" in *response* to someone's previous *mention* of the WVC. It is entirely possible that this is what CC's proposed rule actually meant but, so far. . . she has failed to acknowledge that this quite narrow legalistic interpretation of her proposed rule is correct or otherwise clarify the meaning of her proposed "New Chaliceblog rule" that she is considering.
Five of the seven *mentions* (not *discussion*) of the WVC were posted only *after* CC posted her "dumb idea" here. As I have already said, the additional brief mentions of the WVC were partly because I was on a bit of a roll and some additional quite pertinent WVC synchronicities actually occurred and partly because I was engaging in some pre-emptive "civil disobedience" of what I consider to be a dumb "law" *if* CC's proposed rule is interpreted broadly to include any mention of the WVC in a comment as you and others appear to believe is the case. It would be helpful to all concerned if CC actually got around to clarifying exactly what her "New Chaliceblog rule" means. . .
And yes, I did place a smiley wink after the following mention of the WVC in order to make it clear that I was teasing CC about what you and I both consider to be a "dumb idea". . .
WVC = ingnat as in gadfly :-)
There would have been fewer mentions of the WVC if CC had not aired her "dumb idea" in this blog post or had at least been more clear on the concept in this post or follow up comments.
WVC = dograzot
Whatever *that* means. . . :-)
:And that you chose to do that in a post about a brilliant, good person who had been pointlessly murdered is exactly why I feel like we can't have real conversations here anymore.
Sorry CC but I and other people judge how *real* a conversation is by the content of the whole conversation not just some small part of it. My initial mention of the WVC was quite pertinent to my initial comment, as I have just explained, most of the other mentions of WVC synchronicity were also pertinent not the least of them being the inratio WVC. . . The only one where I was stretching the WVC synchronicity a bit to tease you about your "dumb idea" was the one with the smiley wink after it.
AFAIAC my legitimate mentioning of a few WVC synchronicities is no more inappropriate than your initial comment drawing a parallel between your brothers and "a post about a brilliant, good person who had been pointlessly murdered".
Actually, I was comparing my brothers to the murderers.
CC
I made a blog post because I don't like to arbitrarily impose rules. I like to talk about them with the people who post here as I respect the input of people who post here and want this to be a place where a real conversation can occur.
And of the people who've talked about it in this thread, Joel, PG, Comrade Kevin, Desmond, L, Ogre, Hafidha and at least one anonymous person have expressed that it's a reasonable rule for me to make, although several of them admit that they've done it themselves before.
I get that you're against it, though your "civil disobedience" of a rule that doesn't even exist yet seems to have convinced at least one person that the rule is a good idea. I will keep up the conversation for a few more days and we will see how things look then.
CC
:Yeah, it has irritated me for some time and I was just putting up with it,
OK so this assertion makes it clear that simply mentioning a WVC synchronicity at the end of a comment, not broader *discussion* of the WVC, "has irritated (CC) for some time".
:but it was the disrespect to the gentleman who was the topic of the previous post that really made me want to step in
As I have already said no disrespect to LF, or indeed Robert Brundage, was intended in my initial mention of the "trail" WVC more fully explained above.
:and at least discuss the fact that this particularly silly way of taking a post off-topic was getting old and was really rude.
I somehow failed to address this assertion earlier but my mentioning of WVC synchronicities is in no way an attempt to take a post off-topic. Au contraire the WVC is only mentioned when it aligns nicely with the content of the comment itself. My initial comment was a direct response to CC's initial comment. It did not take the post off-topic any more than CC's initial comment did.
CC said - Actually, I was comparing my brothers to the murderers.
Be assured that I fully understood that you were not comparing your brothers to Robert Brundage CC. Now ask yourself this question. . .
What is more inappropriate?
Someone briefly mentioning a WVC synchronicity in a comment on "a post about a brilliant, good person who had been pointlessly murdered" or CC comparing her brothers to the murderer(s)? Maybe you owe your brothers an apology CC. . .
That being said, my response to your comment was about the overall social dynamic aka "societal thing" that you mentioned in it.
I have seen, through my brothers, the sorts of social dynamics that get even some upper middle class kids pulled into a life of crime. I've seen how social patterns make the sorts of crimes that pulled in the kid who killed Brundage and LF's son, even though most of these kids are not "bad kids."
LF's post was about how kids get pulled into lives of crime. Should you ever meet my brothers, you have my permission to tell them that their sister is writing about that on her blog. I promise you they won't demand an apology and more than LF's son would ask for an apology from him for making a similar comparison.
They'd like to know how they ended up where they are, too, and the answer is a complicated one, no less complicated than the killer or LF's son would give.
Condemning my brothers isn't the point, though my brothers have done plenty to get them where they are. Figuring out ways to break these cycles that take kids off of paths to reasonable lives and put them on a constant cycle of screwing up, getting put in jail, getting out, having few options, screwing up again is the point.
CC
I censor nothing.
Is that really the line you want to take Robin? Or are you still holding that forbidden comments aren't really comments, and so don't need to be shown. Or are you contradicting your prior statement that " It is a form of censorship if the posts are removed from the pertinent threads that they were posted to and "pigeon holed" in a single area,..." and instead implying that it is not censorship to shuffle posts away from where they were posted?
I would like to know your current policies.
I expected you to say that James. I even debated whether or not I should say -
"I censor nothing"
knowing you would challenge it this way if you saw it but I decided to let it stand so I could use your challenge as an object lesson. I have already explained what happened with your one single comment that remains in blogger "moderation" limbo as the one single exception that proves the rule that I censor nothing on The Emerson Avenger blog. That comment was submitted during a fairly brief period when I felt obliged to activate Blogger's "moderation" function as a result of your egregious off-topic comment spamming all of which, except that one single "moderated" comment, may be found either exactly where you posted it or in The U*U Hole that I created to deal with your comment SPAM. As you were told years ago. . . that one single comment was submitted in the fairly brief period that I had the moderation function activated and I did not notice it before deactivating the moderation function. You resubmitted the comment so, in that every word that you ever submitted to the TEA blog may be read there, I think that I can say that I have not censored you even though that one symbolic identical comment remains in limbo since I do not want to reactivate the moderation function in order to release it. Why I need to repeat myself I do not know. . . My current policies regarding censorship of comments submitted to The Emerson Avenger blog are the same as they always were. The Emerson Avenger blog is as "memory hole" free now as it was to begin with in that no comment, not even some of the commercial SPAM that has been successfully posted to it has ever been deleted. It is either exactly where it was posted or in the U*U Hole. If you had not resubmitted your comment that is in "moderation" limbo I might well have gone to the effort of releasing it from moderation but in that every word you ever submitted to the TEA blog may be read there, I see no compelling reason to reactivate the comment moderation function to release a comment that is available to be read anyway.
I wonder, if CC consigned all of Robin's comments that she deemed to be "comments that are completely off-topic to the thread they are ostensibly commenting on" to a single "hole" rather than allowing them to appear attached to the post on which they ostensibly comment, if Robin would consider that to be censoring or suppressing or "memory holing" his comments.
Well, it's never going to happen because I know exactly how it would go:
______________________________
7:00am - CC posts "I'm sad today because my friend's cat died and she's really taking it hard"
8:00am- Five different people express sympathy, tell their stories about how much pets have meant to them in the past or suggest poems or books to help my friend deal with her loss.
9:00am - Robin posts a lengthy discourse on the time his faith in UUism died. And he makes a joke about the word verification "msqtbt," which looks sort of like "mosquito bite," which suggests a gadfly.
10:00am - CC moves Robin's response to the offtopic thread
10:10am - Robin puts up another lengthy post defending his first post and assuring anyone reading that his problems with Unitarian Universalism are EXACTLY analogous to my friend's dead cat.
10:35: Deeming the post about his previous post also off the topic of being sad because one's friend's dead cat, CC moves that one to the "offtopic" post thread.
10:45 Robin posts some insults and makes a lengthy joke about how the word verification "ivddfth" looks sort of like "I have dead faith" so the Gods of the internet are on his side.
11:00am: CC puts that also in the offtopic thread.
11:15 Robin runs all over the internet, posting in great length and detail about how CC is a censoring tyrant for wanting to talk about her sad friend rather than the obvious connections between the death of her friend's cat and his issues with UCM.
11:30 CC closes her computer to go take her friend to lunch.
11:45 Robin posts a bunch more bile on his blog and yet another response on the Chaliceblog.
11:30 Someone posts something telling CC to ignore Robin.
12:45 Robin asks if the cat has gotten CC's tongue.
12:50 Someone else posts something telling CC to ignore Robin.
1:30 Back from lunch, CC reasons that the first post goes immediately and the cat getting CC's tongue is closer to on-topic than anything else that Robin has posted today but is depressed to find that there are now four posts about Robin rather than about helping her friend. All of them go to the off-topic post zone.
Etc...
Etc...
Etc...
Anyway, yeah, that's not going to happen.
CC
CC, you have a much better sense of humor than I do.
a sense of humor--which is simply another name for a sense of fitness of things
But here's how it COULD go:
7:00am - CC posts "I'm sad today because my friend's cat died and she's really taking it hard"
8:00am- Five different people express sympathy, tell their stories about how much pets have meant to them in the past or suggest poems or books to help my friend deal with her loss.
9:00am - Robin submits a lengthy discourse on the time his faith in UUism died. And he makes a joke about the word verification "msqtbt," which looks sort of like "mosquito bite," which suggests a gadfly.
10:00am - CC, using moderation, does not publish the comment. Several more people leave poignant stories. Perhaps a meaningful discussion on animism and whether animals have souls breaks out. Peacebang and Steve Caldwell, from different directions, use this discussion to post about souls (or the lack thereof)
Several posts later: People who haven't been following comments for some time because of Robin's high MEGO factor start following discussions again, and threads can last for weeks like they did in past years.
Skinner House asks CC to allow them to publish a collection of her posts. It becomes SH's first mainstream best seller; Warner Brothers buys the movie rights. UUism becomes cool; millions join. Because of this, all 50 states pass gay marriage and immigration reform.
Enjoy!
PG I did not relegate *all* of anyone's comments to the U*U Hole and would never have created it at all if the indrax troll aka James Andrix had not repeatedly SPAMMED me with totally off topic comments. I also linked from where the SPAM comment was placed to The U*U Hole when I moved a comment. That could become a bit of a chore for CC if she followed suit. On topic comments posted to the TEA blog stay in place and usually get a response as well. I haven't moved a comment to The U*U Hole for quite some time now because nobody has given me any reason to.
Most of my comments here are very much on topic to either the general theme of the original blog post or the follow-up comments. If people don't want to read what I have to say they can keep on scrolling down the page. . . If and when people respond to my comments I usually continue the conversation. People who want to see fewer comments from me would be well advised not to respond to my comments.
(((Warner Brothers buys the movie rights. )))
Well, it would be nice to give Kirsten Vangsness some film work.
CC
Who is sometimes told there's a resemblance, but never knows how to take it given KV's TV character's fashion sense.
((People who want to see fewer comments from me would be well advised not to respond to my comments.))
Admittedly, I don't respond to all your comments, but I do respond to many of them. It isn't particularly a sign of wanting you here or not. When you're commenting briefly and on topic, I want you here. When you're commenting lengthy rants about how the topic relates to your situation complete with insults about the people who wronged you, but not saying anything helpful about the topic itself, I'm not so delighted to have you here.
After all, if everyone commented by comparing the topic at hand to something that was going on in their lives and offered little insight into how to solve the problem, it would be a very dull blog around here, even if their comparisons were apt, and we'd never come to any conclusions.
That said, I consider responding to your comments and thinking through what you have to say as a sign of my general respect for you, which I generally retain despite our disagreements.
Would you like me to only respond to comments that actually add to the discussion? If I did, would that help me keep the Robin who posts briefly and on topic and discourage the Robin who only wants to compare other people's problems to his own?
CC
CC:
When you're commenting briefly and on topic, I want you here. When you're commenting lengthy rants about how the topic relates to your situation complete with insults about the people who wronged you, but not saying anything helpful about the topic itself, I'm not so delighted to have you here.
This reminds me of this, from a forum I've been meaning to introduce you to anyway.
Briefly, it's annoying when people talk in a way that you know they're not actually talking to you. When robin recounts details that you and all your regulars already know, it's obvious his intent is to talk to some other audience. If he were trying to communicate to you and your regulars, he would be able to use subtler language, perhaps even to convey the same points, and not seem undelightful.
Sorry to ignore you now and talk to a different audience, but someone is wrong on the internet.
Robin,
It's actually encouraging that you predicted the general form of my response, but I wish you hadn't posted a knee-jerk response to what you expected me to say.
When your comments were relocated at the FUUSE forums you made it quite clear that relocating posts was a form of censorship. Are you now willing to retract your claims of censorship against FUUSE? If you maintain that their actions were censorship, does your statement signify (as I hope) a promise that you will not engage in further similar relocations?
PG's thought experiment is actually a very good model of your policy towards me at the time. You banned me for a period, relocated any posts I made contrary to the ban, and for each post added a week to the ban. If I had attempted posting with any regularity, the ban certainly could have been permanent.
Prior to this policy you rationalized actual deletion with the truly Orwellian statement:
"Posts made in clear violation of your suspension will be considered to be non-posts and thus deleting them will not constitute "memory holing" of legitimate posts."
This is one of my all time favourites from you.
It seems relevant that you also relocated comments by CC and Joel, IIRC.
Robin,
I said all of Robin's comments that she deemed to be "comments that are completely off-topic to the thread they are ostensibly commenting on"
In other words, exactly what you did with Andrix, with the key difference that CC's judgment of what is off-topic is substituted for yours. And as I've observed before, whether you're the one doing it or the one it's being done to seems to make all the difference in whether you deem something good or bad.
You are misrepresenting me PG but that is not surprising.
So CC have you come to a decision yet about the new rule that you are *considering*. James Andrix seems to believe that you have actually adopted this new rule but I have not seen any evidence to that effect yet.
Post a Comment