“I will show you nonsense, in a handful of comments” – AW
I remember with longing a simpler time at opednews. I was just starting out back then as a writer and Bush was just starting out as the worst president we would ever see. My work had been on a handful of sites, but nothing big. Opednews was just starting out back then and I cannot even remember how I found it but soon I had submitted an article to Rob Kall and his upstart website on political dialogue. I was eager to see an article of mine actually gain traction and maybe get networked. Then Rob emailed me and rejected it. He was kind enough to call me and explain that the title, while a cute play on words, was not specific enough to generate the readership we desired. He explained that titles need to convey what the piece is really about, so that people can make their usual quick decisions on whether to read it or not. He asked me to redo the title before he would run it. I got to tell you people, I disagreed with Rob that day. I liked my cute title which played on words. I thought it was better than the article itself; and therein lay the problem.
Never once though did I consider that what Rob was doing was censoring my work. In the end, I changed the title. Why? Because it is his website folks. It did not matter that I disagreed with his editorial decision. I could have taken my ball (article) and went home but without the court to play on (opednews), what good was having the ball to begin with? That article which I resubmitted, with what I thought was a really bland and boring title, was then picked up by two other websites with greater traffic then opednews. It took a little bit of time to crack through my literary ego but soon I realized, “hey maybe the editor was right.” Rob would go on to run close to 200 more articles of mine. I would represent opednews at national conferences and I had done several talk radio spots. My articles ran consistently on multiple websites and publications all because I chose to listen to the editor of the website that agreed to host my work. It really is that simple.
Now we fast forward to today and see that opednews has grown beyond our wildest dreams. It has grown because of the efforts of Rob Kall to stick to what works. It has grown because of a growing list of people willing to volunteer their time to be editors, such as Amanda Lang, who was also there at the beginning. It has grown because it became one of the only places on the Internet where political discourse was allowed from all sides with virtually no restriction. You think I’m kidding? Take a walk over to dailykos and try to say something against any mainstream democrat. You will be tarred and feathered. Go over to one of the conservative sites and try to say something against any mainstream republican and see what happens. Opinion is not only controlled on most other sites but it is done with a ferocity that undermines the very principles of freedom they claim to protect. But not opednews.
I remember awhile back there was the flap Rob created when he considered banning words such as zio-nist. I will be honest with you, I disagreed with Rob substantively on the issue but at the end of the day I had two choices. One is to accept the policies of my editor and two was to take my ball and go home. I said my peace to him and backed him up in the thread when people viciously attacked him screaming “censorship!” Shut up already with the big “C” word. If you do not have the intelligence to understand the difference between trying to manage a huge website, instill editorial policy and respect people’s opinions do not use words like censorship. They are too big for you to use if you do not understand their meanings. Just because you disagree with an editorial policy it does not mean you have been censored.
But we have this element now at opednews. We have these people who think you should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. That is the equivalent. These people think that any incursion upon their ability to say whatever floats through their semi-consciousness is an incursion upon liberty and freedom itself! Nonsense! Absolute and pure nonsense. That is not what freedom is. Freedom has limitations folks and it always has. The absence of limitation is not freedom but rather, anarchy. I have seen websites that thought they did not need limitations and allowed anarchy to reign. I speak in the past tense because they did not make it. They were failed social experiments. Freedom of speech has always has limitations on it. I do not mean that ridiculous “freedom zones” forced upon us by the Bush administration but rather the previously mentioned shouting fire in a crowded theater. Likewise, the press has always had its limitations as well. They are needed to prevent anarchy. Remember, these limitations are not on the freedoms, but rather they are on the abuses of those freedoms.
I find it somewhat comical to see all of these opinionated folks coming into article threads with the only goal of wreaking as much havoc as they can. The first thing I check is how much they are in the game. Usually it is the same modus operandi. Zero to two articles and a smattering of comments. Nonsense in a handful of comments. People who are quick to disparage other people’s work but not put their own butt on the line. Clearly if you have that much opinion in you, then you need to be more invested. I did an article last week merely suggesting that we approach impeachment in an intelligent manner and I was lectured ad nauseam by people who apparently were still in grade school while I was writing about impeachment in 2003. People who take grand stands on the constitution but have nothing to back it up but nonsense in a handful of comments. As I wrote that day, disagreement and debate are healthy but not what these folks engage in. They stroll into threads of people who write on the front lines of the political discourse in this country for years and proceed to be snarky and belittling for only self-serving principles. They do not seek debate; they seek to mock and deride. That would be bad enough but they do it and bring nothing to the table. I have never seen someone with a healthy amount of articles slamming someone in comments. You know why? Because they understand what it is like to expend the energy and time to write. You think it easy writing 200 articles? For free? But I digress.
The point being made here is the same from all those years ago when opednews was just starting out. Rob Kall is the editor. As an editor I have found him to be incredibly helpful and insightful, even if it was on re-examination; once my literary ego was repressed. As a friend he has been more though. Ultimately, at the end of the day, this is still his website and I owe more to opednews then it owes me. You all have the same choice I had when I asked Rob to run my first article and he asked me to rethink the title. You can listen to your editor or you can pack up your article and go home. Remember, you are the one asking for the pulpit from which to preach. You have no right to that pulpit, you have to ask.
But please, hold off on the ridiculous censorship talk. Instilling editorial guidelines is not censorship, period. Asking someone to rethink a title is not censorship. Asking people to have some sense of civility is not censorship. You can stand on that soapbox all you like and claim that one man’s editing is another man’s censorship but in the end you are simply wrong. Making grand speeches in the comments section but not having the cajones to back it up with articles of your own doesn’t really impress me. It shows me that you do not mind the opinion business but you don’t want to be the one on the front lines taking the shrapnel. You would rather stand behind the scenes and toss literary grenades all over people’s work and somehow feel like you have done your patriotic duty in doing so. Nonsense in a handful of comments is all you are. You have confused freedoms with anarchy and fairness with censorship. What is worse though is you bite the hand that feeds. You are provided the platform to voice these confused opinions and then debase the very man who provides you the platform. In other words, you are not even grateful. You think that somehow you have a right to the platform. Well, this may come as a shock to you; but you do not.
I do not fear editing. I do not fear being asked to rethink a title. Heck, if Rob had not taught me years ago, I would have named this article, “nonsense in a handful of comments” and no one would have read it because it would have been so vague. A cute play on word from TS Eliot’s famous line but vague nonetheless. What I do fear is the ruining of opednews. I fear the day when people who like to comment drive off the people who like to write. It is not about thick skin or any other silly comment you might want to make. It is about having some modicum of respect. It is about having some civility in our discourse. It is realizing that while debate is healthy being snarky is just not acceptable. If you think that asking for some level of civility and respect is censorship then I suggest you pick up your two articles and your handful of comments and go home. I am sure there is someone there willing to listen to how right you are.
Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 40-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.
Thank you for the articulate, poignant and illumination article that clearly illustrates the difference between censorship and editorial guidelines –the ultimate right of a publisher/editor to amend, revise or reject an article – and the appropriate and professional view in which this always-sensitive subject should be looked upon.
I am sure Rob Kall will find your clarity and attitude of bringing synergy between writers and editors, so that we all work together, refreshing and the desired outlook. (I know that I do.)
We all need to work together at Op Ed News – publisher, editors, writers and readers, and not lose our focus and true purpose – speaking truth to power, but doing so in a responsible way that will add, not detract, from our message and vision as a prominent source of news and opinion for over half a million readers monthly.
Your article is extremely salient. Thank you.
-Frank J Ranelli, Senior Editor –Op Ed News
by
Frank J. Ranelli (59 articles, 141 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 322 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 6:08:01 AM
Generally, it felt good, gratifying to read this, but...
I don't want to discourage commenters. People have to start somewhere. I'm always happy to see comments from members who are commenting for the first time. I do agree with Anthony about "one-hit-wonders" who sign up to make a hit and run nasty comment, not even willing to reply when others comment on his or her comment.
I'm proud that the comments we tend to get here on OpEdNEws tend to lean towards longer, more thoughtful, less kiddie banter. I'd rather have less, with quality, than huge numbers of one line chit chat.
by
Rob Kall (721 articles, 3749 quicklinks, 304 diaries, 1485 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 10:42:42 AM
I do not want to discourage commentors either, just people who truly offer nothing. These arent children, they need to read what they write before posting it. I am expected to re-read my work before posting it, so why a lower standard for commentors? Ahh, never mind, lol. I just get tired of being lectured by people who seem to have been around for all of a week and clearly do not understand all the elements of what they speak and who do so in such an abrasive way that it is simply uncalled for.
by
Anthony Wade (134 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 433 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 11:06:45 AM
AW, you keep saying stuff about people *being around* for such short periods of time...that in itself is somewhat uncivil and unwelcoming.
Just because someone wasn't posting/writing here on OpEd for a long period of time does not mean they haven't been around. Myself as an example, I have been at OpEd as a writer for a short time however, I have been a writer for more than 15 yrs, I have also been an activist (very active at that) for a long time and was one of the first raising my voice about 9/11 back in Dec of 2001.
Additionally, some people merely come here to comment because they are not writers and/or are intimidated to write and submit. Encouragement goes much further then potentially unwarranted criticism. Keepng in mind the site is set up for commenting like any message board.
In Rob's article about this yesterday your immediate reaction in YOUR posted response was uncivil and derogatory to new people in general and you posted it on a story about being uncivil.
No one is above it. We all need to be humble.
by
Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 2:53:29 PM
AW, you keep saying stuff about people *being around* for such short periods of time...that in itself is somewhat uncivil and unwelcoming.
LOL, DEFEND THE TROLLS AND THEN BASH THE AUTHORS? CMON, YOU GOT TO DO BETTER THAN THAT. SHOULD I BE WARM AND FUZZY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE TRASHING THE SITE, TURNING IT INTO A TOILET AND SLAMMING THE EDITOR? NOPE, NOT ON MY WATCH.
Just because someone wasn't posting/writing here on OpEd for a long period of time does not mean they haven't been around. Myself as an example, I have been at OpEd as a writer for a short time however, I have been a writer for more than 15 yrs, I have also been an activist (very active at that) for a long time and was one of the first raising my voice about 9/11 back in Dec of 2001.
BUT FOR THE MOST PART, I HAVE NOT SEEN YOU BE A DISRUPTIVE FORCE AT OPEDNEWS, WHICH IS THE KEY ELEMENT. I AM NOT SPEAKING AGAINST EVERYONE WHO IS NEW, THAT IS RIDICULOUS. I AM SPEAKING AGAINST PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO CAUSE TROUBLE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT RISK ANYTHING THEMSELVES. THEY ARE NOT INVESTED.
Additionally, some people merely come here to comment because they are not writers and/or are intimidated to write and submit. Encouragement goes much further then potentially unwarranted criticism. Keepng in mind the site is set up for commenting like any message board.
ONCE AGAIN THE LINES OF UNDERSTANDING HAVE BEEN BREACHED. NO WHERE HAVE A SLAMMED SOMEONE WHO IS NEW, OR AFRIAD TO WRITE; THAT IS RIDICULOUS. I AM SPEAKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO OBVIOUSLY DO NOT NEED ENCOURAGEMENT TO BE JERKS.
In Rob's article about this yesterday your immediate reaction in YOUR posted response was uncivil and derogatory to new people in general and you posted it on a story about being uncivil.
REALLY? YOU REALLY WANT TO GO HERE, OK, HERE IS MY INITIAL RESPONSE TO ROB'S ARTICLE YESTERDAY, UNDERLINED FOR CONVINIENCE:
1) Censorship does not have to be related to the government at all. Your stronger argument lies in the arena of editing, and editorial policy. You should have editorial policies that have to be adhered to in order for work to be published. As long as those policies are not driven by a desire to prevent information from flowing, it is not censorship. If it is desired to prevent the flow of ad hominem attacks and poorly written articles, that is not censorship.
HMM CHERI, NOTHING UNCIVIL AND DEROGATORY AND IN FACT I AM DISAGREEING WITH ROB SUBSTANTIVELY, WITHOUT BASHING HIM. THIS IS CALLED HAVING A DEBATE. LETS CONTINUE...
2) I also believe that deference needs to be shown to the author of the piece. In other words, the author needs more leeway than the respondents. I have seen threads of articles i have written degenerate to the point where i am left no alternative but to be sarcastic in response. Which leads me to point three...
HMMM NOTHING UNCIVIL HERE EITHER, MERELY A SUGGESTION THAT THE AUTHOR, MEANING THE ONE WHO DID THE WORK, BE GRANTED MORE LEEWAY IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING SHOULD THINGS DEGENERATE IN A THREAD. SOME HAVE DISAGREED WITH THIS POINT TO WHICH I UNDERSTAND AND HAVE NOT RESPONDED UNCIVILY. LETS FINISH...
3) As the site has grown, so has the inappropriate opinions of people who bring little to the dialogue other than a snarky-know-it-all BS attitude. It becomes frustrating because like you Rob, I have been writing about the ills in this country for far too long to have some idiot with 14 comments come into a thread of mine and muck it up. Debate and discussion are healthy, not arrogant dissension for the sake of it by people who have contributed nothing to national dialogue to begin with.
IS THIS WHAT YOU REFER TO CHERI? MY CORRECTLY POINTING OUT THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE ON THIS SITE WHO EXIST MERELY HEAR THE ECHOS OF THEIR OWN VOICES? THAT CONTRIBUTE NIOTHING TO THE DIALOGUE AND ARE ONLY SEEKING TO DISRUPT THE SITE AND CAUSE TROUBLE? AND YOU DEFEND THEM??? WOW.
Peace.
I MEANT PEACE SINCERELY, SO I HOPE THIS WASN'T DEEMED UNCIVIL.
LETS CUT THE CRAP PLEASE. I SPOKE NOTHING AGAINST YOU CHERI. REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN ALWAYS DISAGREE REASONABLY. I AM SPEAKING ABOUT TROLLS AND PEOPLE WHO ARE ONLY TRYING TO STIR THINGS UP. THEY DO NOT SEEK A DEBATE BUT THE DISSENSION THAT FOLLOWS THEIR PROVOCOTIVE POSTINGS. I WAS MERELY POINTING OUT THAT THE MAJORITY OF THESE TROLLS HAVE NOTHING IN THE GAME THEMSELVES. THAT IS NOT AN INDICTMENT AGINST NEW PEOPLE OR PEOPLE WHO POST RATHER THAN WRITE ARTICLES. TO SAY THAT IS TO BE LOOKING AT THIS BACKWARDS. I AM DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING TO CAUSE TROUBLE AND NOTICING A PATTERN THAT SPEAKS TO WHY THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR PEOPLE'S WORK.
BE WELL.
No one is above it. We all need to be humble.
by
Anthony Wade (134 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 433 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 3:57:44 PM
Perhaps you have a slight tendency to react emotionally to people's comments? A little emotional freedom technique (EFT, see www.emofree.com) might help you not be bothered by the bashing that goes on. Having said that, I like what you are saying very much, and I think that the people who are coming out on the attack are guilty of cursory reading, coming to quick conclusions and reacting emotionally.
I'm still new to blogging, Japan having been slow to provide Internet, but my initial impression was that it was a lot like Go-Karts: you had to be ready for repeated bashing from individuals with recidivist desires. However, I also saw and interacted with people who were very hurt by such attacks. I also noticed that no matter how many smileys I used, some people would misread what I was saying (by bringing their own emotional baggage into it) and be hurt. Yesterday when I saw Rob's article, I feared I had gone over the line with my newbie comment that the commentor called Roark (a fixture on 911) was a likely shill, but in reading the article carefully, I realized that Rob was in fact saying something similar, but in a much more indirect, civil manner.
Civility on the Internet is a practiced art and I really appreciate your and Rob's articles on this and the dialog we are having here on the subject.
Ormsby
by
Patricia 0rmsby (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 76 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 6:37:49 PM
It is quite possible that you are right but the issue is really not me, it is th health of this website, one of the only bastions of true freedom left. It bothers me professionally and personally to see people who are only trying to cause problems be allowed to go unchecked. It bothers me to see people disparage people who have worked so hard for the betterment of this country and have little in the way of defense.
Thanks for your post.
by
Anthony Wade (134 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 433 comments)
on Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 12:57:51 AM
Equivocating yelling fire in a crowded room with what ocurred here regarding Tim Gatto's fine piece is such silliness as to be worthy of no further comment.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 6:38:22 AM
I know you love to get your negativity out of your system as quickly as possible but what exactly are you talking about? I didn't read any thread about Gatto, what happened there?
This was in response to the story Rob did yesterday. Please reform your negativity and slam me for the correct article at least. Appreciate it!
AW
by
Anthony Wade (134 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 433 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 7:03:24 AM
So you admit ignorance of the origin of the issue?
Ad hominem attack edited out.
Anthony,
the entire issue was raised because Rob demanded that Timothy Gatto chage the wording of his title, one that called Obama a "liar". The article itself was an accurate and fact filled affirmation of that charge. The fact that a political and public figure is open to such charges made, for me, and apparently for the author as well, a question as to motivation that transcends the request for politeness in discourse.The result so far is that we have apparently lost a valuable asset in Mr. Gatto, and why? So Kall and Ranelli can ensure a more profitable website? Perhaps you missed it, it is still available should you feel the need to encompass the entire gist.
As to my civility, well yes I can be brusque and I can also overreact, but this discussion is about something a bit more serious.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 8:29:29 AM
So you admit ignorance of the origin of the issue?
NOT AT ALL. I WAS RESPONDING TO THE ARTICLE ROB DID. I DO NOT NEED GATTO'S TO RESPOND TO ROBS. ALTHOUGH SINCE THIS EXCHANGE I DID READ GATTOS.
Ad hominem reference edited out.
The entire issue was raised because Rob demanded that Timothy Gatto chage the wording of his title, one that called Obama a "liar". The article itself was an accurate and fact filled affirmation of that charge. The fact that a political and public figure is open to such charges made, for me, and apparently for the author as well, a question as to motivation that transcends the request for politeness in discourse.The result so far is that we have apparently lost a valuable asset in Mr. Gatto, and why? So Kall and Ranelli can ensure a more profitable website? Perhaps you missed it, it is still available should you feel the need to encompass the entire gist.
I DID AND COMMENTED THERE. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN, I REALLY DO. HOWEVER IT APPEARS THAT GATTO OVER REACTED AND TOOK HIS BALL AND WENT HOME. I THINK I LIKED THE POSTER WHO SAID THAT WHILE IT IS APPARENT THAT OBAMA LIED, THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN HE IS A LIAR; IN OTHER WORDS, LYING ABOUT ONE ISSUE DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A LIAR PER SE, WHICH INDICATES LYING ALL THE TIME OR A CONSISTENT PATTERN.
EITHER WAY, IT IS NOT YOUR WEBSITE OR GATTOS. IF HE WISHES TO TAKE HIS WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE, SO BE IT. NEVER OVER VALUE YOURSELF. THE POINT IS THAT AN EDITOR ASKING YOU TO CHANGE THE TITLE OF AN ARTICLE IS CLEARLY NOT CENSORSHIP. IF ROB HAD PULLED THE ARTICLE BECAUSE HE DIDNT WANT A NEGATIVE PIECE ON OBAMA, THAT WOULD BE CENSORSHIP. THE POINT THOUGH IS THAT GATTO MAY HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE CAN DEMAND TO USE SOMEONE ELSE'S WEBSITE. LOOK, IF IT REALLY BOTHERS YOU THAT MUCH, YOU SHOULD LEAVE. STAND ON PRINCIPLE AND SAY THAT YOU WILL NOT SUPPORT SUCH INCURSIONS INTO LIBERTY. YOUR OTHER ASSUMPTION, THAT THIS IS PROFIT MOTIVATED IS SIMPLY NOT SUPPORTED.
As to my civility, well yes I can be brusque and I can also overreact, but this discussion is about something a bit more serious.
I REALLY AM SERIOUS. IF I WAS THAT OFFENDED I WOULD CEASE USING THE WEBSITE THAT OFFENDED ME SO GREATLY. MY HONEST OPINION IS THAT ROB IS THE EDITOR AND HAS THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR A REWORDING OF A TITLE. GATTO OVERREACTED AND OVER VALUED HIMSELF. I HAVE READ HIS STUFF AND HE BRINGS ALOT OF OPINION BUT NOT ALOT OF REALISTIC SOLUTIONS. IT IS TOO EASY TO SAY THAT EVERYONE SUCKS. YOU STILL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO PROCEED. ITS LIKE PEOPLE WHO SIDED WITH MIKE GRAVEL. GOSH THAT WAS A PRINCIPLED STANCE. WHEN WE ARE DONE AT THE END OF THE DAY WITH OUR YELLING AND POSTURING, WE STILL NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WILL WORK BEST IN THE REALITY IN WHICH WE LIVE. IT IS TOO EASY TO SAY OBAMA/HILLARY/MCCAIN ARE ALL EVIL; YOU STILL NEED DIRECTION.
BE WELL.
by
Anthony Wade (134 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 433 comments)
on Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 3:53:23 PM
I do believe I understand what Anthony means and in general I fully support him but in some particulars I am puzzled and a little hurt:
1. I have been there since Y2004 and I have only 27 articles and more then 2000 comments: does that mean I am one of those who creates havoc? I don't think so. I have not so many articles for many reasons ( I have about 200 diary entries);the most important is just the lack of time. Also I never repeat myself in the articles. It is all a matter of style, I suppose. I have 2000 comments just because... I comment. No malice here.
2. I would argue that through Opednews we all learn how to communicate. We are not paid any money, so if the article is not accepted, so be it. There are always comments. It is enthropy we have to be afraid of- endlesss repetition, boredom, barking, howling, etc. Otherwise we should seek for the diamonds. And one more thing: You can have a perfectly written article, all PC and all and at the same time- total crap, sorry. We had such person who frequently appeared and it was impossible to read his perfect articles- he was like he was from the outer space. And I said that to him and he got upset but what could I do? It was an abomination.
So, I agree with Anthony.. with a grain of salt.
Thanks
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 226 diaries, 3212 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 7:40:24 AM
I do believe I understand what Anthony means and in general I fully support him but in some particulars I am puzzled and a little hurt:
PLEASE DO NOT BE, NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE. SORRY IF IT SOUNDED THAT WAY.
1. I have been there since Y2004 and I have only 27 articles and more then 2000 comments: does that mean I am one of those who creates havoc? I don't think so. I have not so many articles for many reasons ( I have about 200 diary entries);the most important is just the lack of time. Also I never repeat myself in the articles. It is all a matter of style, I suppose. I have 2000 comments just because... I comment. No malice here.
AND MALICE IS THE KEY. YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT BACKWARDS. I AM NOT SAYING THAT EVERYONE WHO HAS ALOT OF COMMENTS AND NOT TOO MANY ARTICLES ARE TROUBLEMAKERS. I AM SAYING THAT WHEN I SEE A TROUBLEMAKER, THEY USUALLY HAVE A HANDFUL OF COMMENTS AND VIRTUALLY NO ARTICLES. THE KEY THOUGH IS THE MALICE AND DISRUPTIVE NATURE OF THE POSTER.
So, I agree with Anthony.. with a grain of salt.
NOT A PROBLEM. JUST BE ASSURED THAT FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE CONTRIBUTED ALOT. 27 ARTICLES IS NOT WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO, USUALLY THSE FOLKS HAVE SINGLE DIGITS, TO NONE. AND I ALSO SAID THEY USUALLY HAVE ONLY A HANDFUL OF COMMENTS (ALTHOUGH SOME MAY HAVE MORE). YOU HAVE ALSO DONE A TON OF DIARY ENTRIES.
THE COMPELLING ISSUE IS HOW PEOPLE BEHAVE IN TRHEADS. THEIR COMMENTS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO HAVE A DEBATE, BUT RATHER TO SOUND SNARKY AND BE A WISE ASS. THEY WANT TO TAKE THE FOCUS OFF OF THE ARTICLE AND ONTO THEMSELVES. THEY OFFER NOTHING IS THE POINT. SORRY TO HAVE HURT YOU IN ANY WAY.
by
Anthony Wade (134 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 433 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 8:30:10 AM
We should watch the malice. It has a tendency to masquerade itself. You really cannot censor malice out totally but you can notice it. Your examples prove it. But otherwise we should not forget an element of fun and humor and caustics are fun sometimes.
Have fun
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 226 diaries, 3212 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 9:03:08 AM
BTW, regarding the article count after Anthony's name
Anthony was around before we built the current PHP MYSQL database driven website we now use. An archive of his older articles, not in the database, are here: Anthony Wade
There are about 2500 articles on the site that are not in the database, which currently holds over 51,000 articles. The archive for the regular writers, back then, when I was creating, titling, saving, FTPing each article to the site, is here
by
Rob Kall (721 articles, 3749 quicklinks, 304 diaries, 1485 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 10:37:38 AM
You have 28 articles and 208 diaries, many of which I have suggested should have been articles, and with less than 400 to go [which I'm sure you can manage by the end of the month] you'll have 3,000 comments.
A record by anyone's standards.
by
Sandy Sand (129 articles, 0 quicklinks, 144 diaries, 1121 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 2:15:43 PM
