I've published two (I think) main articles here, and dozens, if not over a hundred comments, but I'm clearly not of the political mindset of most of the writers here.  I find OpEdNews very useful in inspiring articles on my own site, sort of as an "opposition research" type of thing: I'm trying to find out just what the other side thinks.  I do get some back-traffic from OpEdNews, though not as much as I'd like.

The question becomes: is this site an open forum for discussion even with those with whom you disagree, or is that not what you want it to be?  One of the problems with supporting freedom of speech -- and I recognize that this site is private property, so you are bound by the First Amendment only philosophically, not legally -- is that some speech isn't what you want to hear, whether it is politically challenging or simply insulting.

by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 8:20:25 AM

  (0+)

... the difference to me is first, whether someone addresses the points or the person. If you address the points and not the person, you are 99% of the way there to being a contributing and respectful member of any online community.

The other 1% goes to how you address the points. As someone who submits a lot of articles here and gets a lot of public and private feedback, I am happy to get well thought out comments with links or other citations. Comments that I get back that are along the lines of "Just so much socialist drivel" or "Just so much right wing drivel" are not welcome.

Again, this is just my opinion and may not at all relate to what Rob wants.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:57:11 AM

  (0+)

that 90% of the angry comments you get are from Ron Paul supporters such as myself, and also willing to bet that Ron Paul is responsible for your big uptick in web traffic. I found your site through google news by looking for Ron Paul myself. That being said, i can tell you why we're posting angry comments-

We are so fed up with the mainstream media portraying him in such a negative light, distorting his positions, or flat out ignoring him. That is why we have turned to the internet. And once we see "progressives" who are always touting themselves as open minded and unbiased telling blatant, uneducated falsehoods, which is posted on this site on a regular basis, well we are human beings also and we get angry. The reason for the nastiness is now our anger is at you directly. You are doing exactly what hannity, o'reilly and the like are doing, while still claiming to be unbiased.

Stop all the lying about Ron Paul and you'll see a huge downturn in angry posts. 

by Jeremy Frombach (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 68 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 2:03:18 PM

  (0+)

we publish highly laudatory, enthusiastically supportive articles and we publish critical articles. Frankly, because of our commenting system, you ought to appreciate the articles that lay inaccurate claims. They give you the opportunity to correct the inaccuracies.

Now here's the rub. If you respond civilly, with factual information and links, then you have taken the opportunity and possibly used it to harvest converts.

But if you respond with name calling, incivility and trollish behavior, what kind of impression do you think you leave upon the undecided? Do you really serve the cause of Ron Paul's campaign?  I don't think so.

There aren't many progressive sites that have allowed pro-Ron Paul articles.  I've taken flack and even lost some readers because of it, but I think it's the right thing to do. But that doesn't mean Paul gets a free ride. If Hillary doesn't, why should Ron. But it IS reasonable to excpect civil behavior. Dana asked how I define trollish behavior. Incivility is a piece of it, as well as the usual netiquette-- no ad hominem name calling as the first rule. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 5:29:00 PM

  (0+)

I am still waiting for your apology for misrepresenting my article, and then going on to call it: "stupid, despicable, insane and pure propaganda." As if that was not enough, you went on to claim that it was "spinning on top of spinning on top of spinning. Total nonsense."  Still waiting for an explanation from you.

by Niloufar Parsi (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 83 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 2:56:08 AM

  (0+)

Jeremy,

I've been a Ron Paul supporter throughout his campaign so far, and I still think that compared with the front-runner alternatives, his positions on the issues are the best.  Yet, I find him weak on the issue of reigning in corporate power, and as one poster noted, he lacks the "scary eye" needed to make Congress, foreign leaders, and the U.S. public take him seriously.  Americans like forceful dynamic Presidents and it is a valid issue with respect to electability that he seems like a nice grandfather figure rather than a Presidential candidate.

The best thing I can say about his position on corporations is that if the Federal Reserve were to be abolished and our monetary/banking system were to be reformed, the resultant system might do a lot to break up the money trust that is so advantageous to corporations.

However, save your anger for the people involved in the big corporations and money trusts.  Do not take it out on the people on this site.  I've posting here for quite some time, and they really do, for the most part treat Ron Paul the same way they treat the other candidates.  Some here disagree strongly with Paul's political philosophy and express their opinions.

One reason I post here is because of the diversity of opinion, while websites such as "dailypaul" treat everyone who isn't willing to grab a pom-pom and join the cheering section as a troll.

If you read the articles on this site pertaining to other candidates, you will find they are just as hard on Democratic candidates.  I find that Democrats in general and progressives are far more open in their criticism of candidates of their own party, even candidates they support, than could be said about Republicans.

That's my two cents. 

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:17:22 PM

  (0+)

Dana,
 

I will answer your question: “Is this site an open forum for discussion even with those with whom you disagree?” The answer is, yes.

As a website and forum/blog proprietor yourself, the troll activity Rob is referring to is the hollow, pointless, inane and obvious agent provocateurs who only wish to disrupt or senselessly antagonize. I will make a naked assertion that you have had plenty of these at Common Sense Political Thought and I hope that you do not tolerate the ignorant and the insufferable among us, as well.

I won’t take the discussion any further as we have had are “intellectual confrontations,” as civil as they were, but we have so little in common and disagree so vehemently that any addition discussion, at least among the two of us, would not serve any purpose.

As a human being, you have always displayed courtesy and respect here at Op Ed News, something I cannot say for many others on the right.

Regards,

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 3:01:11 PM

  (0+)

Rob, Great Article.... I think my take on all of this is that people only attack what they fear. OpEdNews has become a force, a voice that has started to pierce the darkness of lies and deception. While some may post rude comments and such, and God knows I have lost it many a times, for all we know those mental giants could be King Bush. Truth be told, America only works when ALL of America works together, people who think like people and us who do not. Please keep up the great work........... PS..I will get that letter to you about what we discussed...

by Michael Morris (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 316 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 8:35:25 AM

  (0+)

It should read...

People who think like us and people who do not...LOL

by Michael Morris (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 316 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 8:37:30 AM

  (0+)

I have a slightly different take on these trolls. If those of a radically conservative or fascist bent take the time to post on this site, they probably have also taken the time to read at least part of an article and maybe a comment or two, and this has to be a good thing. These people may seem a bit disruptive, but in the process they are getting eductated in another point of view and in time may come around to see reason in it.

On the other hand, it is clear that there should be a mechanism for keeping offensive comments from polluting the web site. My suggestion would be to introduce a simple filtering mechanism that would allow individual users to permanently turn off comments from particularly offensive contributors (others would continue to see these comments). This would keep the trolls busy reading and writing while allowing others from having to see what they write. And it would have the added benefit of keeping the editor's blood pressure under control.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:08:00 AM

  (0+)

I've forwarded it to our programmer. We'll discuss it and see where it fits into our plans. We DO have about 100+ other projects for upgrading the site on the drawing board. Coming next-- events and calendars.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:59:38 AM

  (0+)

After reading your article – in regards to the one-hit-wonders – and the many comments that ensued, I have come away with a least one conclusion on how I believe this should be handled: The comment must have some redeeming value to it; it should not be a blatant “hit job” and it cannot be obvious spam or advertisements.

I’ve mentioned this before, but a certain level, in my opinion, of decorum, etiquette, and civility must be maintained. Contentious and oppositional viewpoints are absolutely fine – and they are often the fodder I need to begin a new essay – but they simply cannot be puerile and pointless, and their only expressed purpose of being disruptive.

Sophomoric drivel, personal attacks, implied violence, and feigned hostility – full of machismo bravado, yet empty of any significant expression of contemplation – are the essence of unadulterated ignorance and even hate that should be summarily shown the door.

The first person to raise his fists in anger is indeed the first person to run out of ideas.

In addition, I second the motion that trusted authors should have the ability to delete worthless or vituperative comments.

- Frank J. Ranelli, Associate Editor

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 2:41:16 PM

  (0+)

"When two people of total agreement have a conversation, one of them is unnecessary."

As to those who are able to control their anger at all times...the fire in the boiler is down to the pilot light.

I was recently censored on this site for a comedic comment that contained the phrase Oh sh.t! The same day I read a response that you had posted which included language that I haven't heard since being discharged from the Navy. That must have one that didn't hold for review?

It is said that those who use profanity and anger in defense of their positions, or to attack others, lack vocabulary and specific knowledge to behave otherwise.

Attempting to learn from others and conversely teach what we know, should be done so in civil manner...just so long as our passiveness does not douse the fire that fuels our passion.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:33:13 AM

  (0+)

I read it all with relish. Great quotes, some of my favs, especially Leonardo and Voltaire'. Great tolerance as well. Funny, I am far more tolerant with the highly gifted, the Michelagnello's, Babe Ruth's, Barry Bonds than with elected officials. When I was CEO of an ad agency sometime back (my 3rd profession) we had a political consulting arm which consisted of me and two assistants. I got to meet and hired by some politicians and made lots of friends-few of them were people I liked or admired, even those whose political views I shared.

Artists, writers, athletes and other genius' I may agree with them on little to nothing but would tolerate and defend them more readily than most politicos.

I tend to agree with PrMaine. A trusted writer should be enabled to, with no comment, delete a very rude comment, one that raises the BP with no redeeming qualities, or at least edit the comment. That would be easier than waiting for an intervention that may not occur and thus get a BP boost each time we visit to answer legitimate comments.

That would also release your editors for more fruitful ventures, like editing articles, because God knows some of mine need something more than spell check at times, which sometimes is quirky and not a good shot, missing misspelled words often, even after 2-3 passes.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:37:53 AM

  (0+)

I like the essays here very much and they keep me alert and going in a small town.   I read an essay quickly and then try to reply if something clicks.  I try to keep my replies short and hopefully witty.  But, sometimes cruelty and meanness can be the soul of wit.  There are a few things that set me off, but not terribly.  One is false hope and optimism about the human species.  The other is excessively precise and academic prose.  Those are the folks that I probably sniped.  So, I apologize to them too.

I don't like filthy Republican frat boy types.  I play with them like a cat would with a kitten. 

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:51:20 AM

  (0+)

"I don't like filthy Republican frat boy types.  I play with them like a cat would with a kitten. "

I could have used this level of a sense of humor... As an OpEd editor, I recently reviewed a sexist piece that included the derogatory term, "Femi Nazi" - I was so inflamed I quit editing for the day.  Then I find that writer sent a special note to me specifically, so I realized he submitted that piece just to ruffle feathers. 

Unfortunately, another editor posted the sexist pig's piece - even tho it more appropriately belongs on some right-wing conservative crapsite.

My question on this whole topic is what do we really gain by printing the views of what corporate media and most talk radio spews?  They have their place; let us have ours.

I mean, really, if OpEdNews wants to win a popularity contest, just start printing the crap that 90% of media spews... but then OpEdNews loses its "progressive, liberal" bent. 

I avoid websites that offend me ONCE - I don't give 'em a second chance because there are so many websites vying for my attention.  The exception to this is when a trusted source sends me to a specific article.

When it comes down to it, the choice for Rob is to become popular, or to stay focused on progressive or liberal ideals.  In today's culture, you can't be both.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 1:40:05 PM

  (0+)

Part of being progressive, to me, includes tolerating a wide range of latitude in discussions. It does not include toleration of hate or bigotry. But, because the site flourishes when discussion occurs, I beleive that it can be very healthy to allow non-progressive viewpoints to be posted-- so that progressives can dispute, refute, argue and debate the positions.

I think this is a great way to help our readers get a better grip on how to hold discussions with right wingers.

On progressive talk radio, some of the most successful hosts routinely invite right wingers on their shows. Why? So they can debate them, dispute them and put them in their place. There are times I'll publish an article I totally disagree with, only to, within moments, post a comment stating my disagreement, disputing claims. Sometimes, this outrages the writer who submitted the article. Too bad.

In regards to popular, Rady, I'm not sure what you mean, and I'd like to thoroughly understand what your concerns are.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 5:37:43 PM

  (0+)

I'm glad you wrote me personally, Rob - so I could detail what I meant.  for clarity here, I'll say:

I would prefer a "progressive, liberal" site publish articles that exemplify progressive, liberal values.  Allow free rein to those who comment (within normal standards, e.g. no ad hominen attacks, relevant, etc.), but our writers, imo, should reflect "progressive, liberal" values.

This will undoubtedly be unpopular with right wingers, but they have their views aired on TV and in other corporate media.  We get blasted every which way with right wing views - why should OEN publish their articles?

Rob suggested that OEN editors immediately comment on any right wing article they publish.  In the spirit of compromise, I could feel assuaged somewhat, but let's play this idea out a bit.  Will the daily digest also include right wing articles? 

When I open my email from a progressive, liberal news site, and see articles discussing "femi nazis," shouldn't I wonder if the progressive site had been bashed into submission by the dominant culture?

I do agree with you, Rob, that part of being progressive is being tolerant of other views - ergo, my compromise is to allow them to comment. 

If OEN publishes right wing articles, then OEN will lose its personality as a progressive site.  It may become more popular, but at what expense?

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:31:19 PM

  (0+)

I have seen very few articles that would lead one to believe that a Rush Limbaugh soul mate had authored them. For the rest from the right and the Ron Paul boosters particularly, I don't mind seeing them here.

One could think of it as a session in the intellectual gymnasium, where one can sharpen their arguments and thoughts about those claims with which they disagree, to whatever level of vehemence.

A filter must indeed be placed to catch arguments that are without merit due to being simply ad hominem attacks or perhaps when a poster is simply quoting Dubya. We heard all of those noises in junior high school, and they aren't likely to shed much light now.

However, if you love debate, many of these posts provide a valuable service, and if you are a revolutionary,... know thy enemy. 

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 7:37:11 AM

  (0+)

Not many right wingers know the difference between the two!  When you use your right of free speech to insult, or degrade someone because of their race, gender or political stance, it is longer  *free* speech. It becomes *hate* speech. Using your right of free speech to spread bigotry and hatred that results in discrimanation, beatings or even murder (Matthew Shepard and Brandon Tinna.) is criminal. You are just as guilty as the one who pulls the trigger or delivers the blows. No one has the right to use their twisted version of *free speech* to spread such ignorant, Neanderthal, behavior!  I say, ban them for life and wish them into the corn field!!! x Jayne County

by Jayne County (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:27:19 PM

  (0+)

this is one of the few places where free speech is tolerated. Certain monkey sites will not allow talk of 911. Other "left" sites dont tolerate criticism of Dimos. Attempts to control content are very revealing .  Alex Jones has stated he will not talk about "mythical" ambassadors with trillions of dollars. Did Hillary's Childrens Defence Fund recieve 250 million on the orders of a US president ? When subjects are taboo on the MSM then the alternative media must take up the slack. Intelligent debate on "fringe" issues might bring out more facts whether pro or con. Barring profanity or insults is there really any subject that will not bear scrutiny ? If a writer or site is under attack it means someone or their agenda is threatened.

There is an old fable of a troublesome goat. The farmer threw the goat into a deep well and began to shovel dirt in on the goat. As the farmer threw in dirt the goat would shake it off his back and pack it down with his hooves. Finally the old well was filling up to the top and out jumped the goat much to the farmers surprise.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:51:43 AM

  (0+)

Maybe America will reach the top of all the dirt and see freedom once again...

by Michael Morris (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 316 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:56:39 AM

  (0+)

If I write a message-- email, comment, posting-- that is angry and mean or combative-- I sit on it, preferably overnight. I don't send it out right away.

 I do this as well.  But I rarely get mad anymore.  I just let stuff from others go.  I rarely find the negative comments to me so pertinent as to warrant a reply.  Further, ignoring the troll usually makes them move on since they don't get what they want...an angry reply.  I have also found not infrequently, when you don't rebut another will.  But I will admit I censor only very, very rarely, and usually for either bad language or really vile off topic comments.

Editor-in-Chief

Freedom's Phoenix 

by Fascist Nation (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:55:29 AM

  (0+)

I am one of the folks that sometimes likes to instigate some snappy dialog between myself and those who agree with me as well as those who do not. I too have been guilty in the past of participation in flame wars, which I enjoyed quite a lot at the time. Of course I would like to think I have grown past that now.

 I do have to admit there are times even now when I cannot help but respond to comments that include arrogance and uninformed opinions from people who are just being asses.

by Pat Dazis (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:56:09 AM

  (0+)

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."-MLK

 

Having been personally cyber slandered by hundreds and censored and banned from the supposedly progressive

  Democratic Underground:

WAWA Blog  October 24, 2007: Censoring Gravitas, Blowing Out Doors and Tearing Down Walls

http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.

DAILY KOS :

 "It Sure Smells Like a Right Wing Zionist Cabal at The Daily Kos "

I am GRATEFUL that my words are inflaming particular people for I am hitting nerves that need to be hit and I comprehend their venom against me is a reflection of their own heart.

I concur with Bono 2:

"History will be our judge, but what is written is up to us. Who we are, who we've been, what we want to be remembered for. We can't say our generation didn't know how to do it. We can't say our generation couldn't afford to do it. And we can't say our generation didn't have reason to do it. It's up to us. We can choose to shift the responsibility, or… we can choose to shift the paradigm....I AM WIDE AWAKE, I AM WIDE AWAKE, I AM WIDE AWAKE!!!"

e 

http://www.wearewideawake.org/

by Eileen Fleming (172 articles, 101 quicklinks, 274 diaries, 650 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 10:03:30 AM

  (0+)

An example of a Troll commenting:  On one of my first few comments on articles, I was attacked personally by someone whom I have seen on a lot of article comments.  He attacked my summary of my life giving a really scarry comment.   It was so scarry, I wondered if he had sinister intent and was really glad he did not have my address.   His picture made him look like his life was not going so swimmingly either.  I was shocked/frightened when I read his comment on me instead of my comment on an article and the reference life he aligned with mine (to him anyway.)  The first thought was what a protected and benefitted life he must have and have had and how little he knew about the lives many truly single mothers/women  live and that he has a lot of growing to do but that OPEdNews will hopefully help him grow.  No point in sparing with him.  He will come to realization in his own good time as his personal growth allows.  It did not add to the article though and that is the point of commenting as I see it, adding new dimension to what the article addresses.

by ljs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 10:07:10 AM

  (0+)

I thought about deleting it but used it as a teaching moment. (Another editor might disagree and if they wanted to simply delete the attack comments in that thread I would not be sad.)

Let the one hit wonders know that they can smear writers they disagree with many places but NOT HERE. 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_080125_who_s_worse_2c_clinton.htm

In addition, we need to keep reminding people that comments must have at least some relationship to the article being discussed. Too many are simply advertisements for a certain candidate.

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 10:13:57 AM

  (0+)

I saw the post you were talking about and I flagged it.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:11:39 PM

  (0+)

The message will get through sooner or later.

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 2:09:54 PM

  (0+)

I have never commented on Mr. Swanson's articles because I consider them fabricated bait.  I contributed to Downing Street Memo, and recall when it was my HOPE that it would remove the currrent resident from the WH.  I think how DSM is sitting there collecting dust while Mr. Swanson has decided attacking Ron Paul and his supporters on progressive boards in the name of PEACE (where some of his supporters insulate him and attack those who dissagree with him) is better use of his time.  

Mr. Swanson does not realize that there are Ron Paul supporters who FUNDED his DSM, as many of you do not know that Ron Paul supporters have contributed to Rob Kall in APPRECIATION for NOT censoring, editing out, exhiling former progressives like myself who MOVED ON and joined the rEVOLution., which Rush Limpblah and Sean hannity call a CULT, the GOP Neocons call a CULT.  What are you????  What are you and those here talking like Rush and Sean, who HATE Ron Paul?  To me, you're "them".  To many Ron Paul supporters, because you and Mr Swanson address us like Rush and Sean, you attract attack, like Rush and Sean.  You're not innocent darlings here.  You are people who for the last seven years have said, "We need to get NASTY like the neocons."  Congratulations, you arrived.

I have been posting allot on this site in the last month because I want to support Rob Kall more than what I did.  But I have to give myself a reason more than what I have, so I'm searching or investing.  I only gave him $25 because of his honesty (here's my crux) he will NOT support Ron Paul, and the rEVOLution with it's money bombs, Granny Warriors, so many projects..the blimp, billboards, and the awesome unique tee shirts and music people are producing need support and I get spread thin.  I want to support Rob Kall more, but Articles like Mr. Swansons, and posts like yours, who impress me with the same repugnancy you feel for Bush, as in, you have become exactly as that which you propose to hate, YOUR MESSAGE, of censorship, intolerance, elitist attitude which sincerely reeks of Rush and Sean, are telling me, to Move On.  I'm near 200 comments.

So, I'll tell you what, not that you care, being the kind of caring person you Rush and Sean appear to be, but at 200 posts, I'll either contribute more to Rob Kall and OpEd, support him despite you and others wh remind me of a word that is not suggested to be used here, and be glad to be gone. 

I progressed from progressive to rEVOLutionary one that folks like you and Mr. Swanson helped create, from all your past failed promises, that continue to be nothing but propeganda and misleadership. 

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 10:19:51 AM

  (0+)

The article you linked certainly got two people riled up enough to get their comments deleted.  Or the same person got bleeped twice.

Excellent point about 'keeping comments relevant to the article.'

I've said in the past that if the commentor is going to go off-point, he should say such and such reminds of thus and such, and go on to say why. 

Some threads go so far afield of the original point that they are not only a waste of time and space, but they're impossible to follow, so I don't waste my time with them.

And, yes, a lot of usury goes on to self-promote or promote whatever.

by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:12:59 PM

  (0+)

like David with 500+ articles on this site alone. Different points of view are expected and encouraged, but it needs to be done civilly. Ad hominen attacks or holier-than-thou and "I'm right because I said so" rants that are in that thread (and many others) should be deleted. I'm glad others saw fit to do so.

I would challenge any of the opinionated posters to put some real thought into writing a persuasive op-ed on any topic. 

Maybe Rob should make it a rule that you have to submit at least one article or one diary under your real name before being allowed to comment.

That would mean sticking their necks out and showing some bravery. That would mean they would open themselves up to comment and criticism.

It is easy to angrily attack another for their ideas; much harder to write a cogent article presenting your own ideas, not hiccuping some political talking points, but articulating your own thoughts. 

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 2:08:32 PM

  (0+)

But just about everyone has opinions. I'm proud to have lots of newbies who never posted a comment before come here and do so. There are times, as I've alluded to in my article, when people lose it and post uncivil, downright nasty stuff. Some are just flat out trolls and they need to be banned from the site. But some are just new at things, or had a bad day. It's been gratifying to work with these folks and see them turn into model site citizens.

Part of this involves cranking up the "taking offense threshold." 

Part involves modulating the response to uncivil posts. I will sometimes email the commenter and literally ask-- can you function here civilly, without name calling?  Some reply yes. Some tell me to go eff myself. They help me decide.

Bottom line, not everyone will post articles, ever. But many people who will never post articles  will post valuable, insightful comments. How about this idea-- if you see a commenter who says something well, encourage the commenter to post an article or diary.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 5:45:22 PM

  (0+)

Rob, thank you for another great piece and an opening to talk about online etiquette.

Many of my earliest experiences with flamers, trolls and the like occurred when I was on the board of Eugene's Free Net in 1994 to 1995, when the internet was new.

It seems to me that at first, on the net, it is too easy to believe that there is no listening human being out there and it doesn't matter what you say. Such a misperception can lead to "loudness"-- all caps "screaming", hyperbole, exaggeration and such.  In time, we learn people on the net are real.

For many, when there is no constant face-to-face feedback of expressions and gesture, one tends to assume that people (if they're out there) are reacting "how I expect them to react". If your perception is that people are no good, you tend to imagine your audience is composed of nogoodniks.  If you're one of the blessed people who sees good and the best of intentions in everyone you meet, you tend to see your audience that way.

The most amazing thing is the transformation that can occur when someone realizes they are truly being heard.  Truly being heard seems such a rare thing in our culture of "catapulting the propoganda out there" as Bush 43 once put it.  Many don't expect it and and blind-sided by the experience when they discover someone has really taken the time to listen fully to them and respond sincerely. 

 The difference between a "troll" and a "normal" person is that trolls want to abuse people and respond to true listening with more abuse.  Thus, trolls are best ignored.  They typically go away when they don't get what they want.  A "normal" person, on the other hand, responds by being more open, less "loud" and more connected.  It's a beautiful thing.

Once I reluctantly met with a fellow who had compared me to Hitler in an e-mail he sent out to many hundreds of people (back when "all@company.com" addresses were often unregulated).  He was nothing like what I expected and I was glad I took the time to talk to him and thankful for the mutual friends who arranged it. 

I could understand why he, with his own not-so-unusual flaws, listening to the people he was listening to with their perspective and bias, came to this very unfavorable opinion of me and felt he had to overstate his disapproval to be heard.  Before we talked, I had assumed he was being completely disingenuous and couldn't possibly believe any of what he was saying himself.  He also saw me differently after just one cup of coffee.

Finally, I think that internet communication doesn't really achieve its full potential until people have also met in real life or at least on the phone.  When people have met in real life, the online conversations are no longer a substitute for real relationships, they enrich the real relationships.

 That's my two cents.

by Marcus B (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 27 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:42:30 AM

  (0+)

Lurkers are found everywhere.  They hang in the background, sign in with a fake name, and use a picture of cartoon characters as faces. I love lurkers to slam me, because I have the last say.  Once I DECIDE the topic is over, it is over.  It would be my guess that they are 99% men, who would never, ever actually take the risk of posting an actual article or diary - much like chickenhawks, pluuuuck, pluuuck.  I get the last laugh because my source of quotes come from a little known, but famous sage, named Eladicious.

Check out their bio and they have a hundred comments but ZERO articles.  I love it, but I am use to it because, I have a lurker for a brother.  Not one article on any website, right or left, and zippo writing in important, paid-for articles in magazines.  Hope you all had the chance to read my LTTE in Newsweek.  Number 1!  It was in the Newsweek about 3 or 4 weeks ago.  Time emails if my letter is published. Newsweek surprises ya'!  Cool! Remember, you are the one in control, and it burns their butt if you don't get in a flame war with them.

by Dale Hill (59 articles, 0 quicklinks, 107 diaries, 350 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:44:27 AM

  (0+)

Rob, one simple, hard and fast rule is called for:

This site in no place for vicious personal attacks.  Ever!

It's about time that what so many of us regular contributors have been saying for weeks got aired publically, again... I say again, because it has come up previously, and I'm sure it will again.

It's very simple really.  Don't like an opinion.  Fine.  Argue the opinion to death, but use reasons and facts to back it up...just as we do...or try to do most of the time.

I been attacked.  Writers I know and don't know have been attacked.  I've been fiercely defended, and I've done the defending.

I've also flagged, which frequently is as useful as putting out a forest fire with a squirt gun.

One flagging stayed up with the comment marked "flagged," but never went away.  The last comment I flagged, which was ironically funny, had everything deleted except the offensive remark.

Pseudonyms:  There's a lot of that going around.  All the sites I've been to allow people to do that.  A lot of people have reasons, good ones, to want to remain anonymous.  At least the editors can contact them and tell them to back off when necessary.

But...Last August a huge deal was made over the writers using pseudonyms.  The battle raged on for three days.  It forced me to abandon my pseudonym, write under my real name -- whether you choose to believe it or not -- face up to who I am and be responsible for what I write.

During the past few week there's been an epidemic of phoney names being used.  I've counted at least 31, some of which are outrageously silly.

They're so inane, if fact, that I see no reason to read them.

I went to the bios of some of the fake names, and a few -- a very few -- have righteous reasons to use a handle.  They've received threat-threats, death threats, or would in some way be compromised if their true identies were revealed.

I buy that.  I even go along with it when they state it up front in their bio.

In a perfect world there would be no need for this discussion.  Hell, in a perfect world there would be no need for this site.  But, this is an imperfect world and we're dealing with some pretty heady problems.

To make the world of OEN a little more perfect...a spell checker, C & P and the ability to scroll back through the original copy for commenting would be really nice.

by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:55:57 AM

  (0+)

I'm glad you raised this point.  I received an email that pseudonyms were no longer going to be used, but I see they still are being used.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 1:47:59 PM

  (0+)

I have the greatest respect for Rob Kall and this publication.  I contribute an article here and there, but read it every day. 

After reading about trolls, and generally being a responsible person, I wondered if my ardent support for *** **** was expressed with excess passion.  So I read my own comments.  It wasn't.  But it made me question why I am so ardent, so I decided to briefly share my personal journey from apathy to activism.

Like most writers, I am a reader, and I read a book that completely turned my understanding of the world I live in upside down.  While I have been known to inhale a good book in a day, this book took me 2 months to read.  I could only absorb the information a piece at a time. 

Then I read it again, and this time it took longer.  Now as I read I re-framed my historical understanding of the events of the last 100 years.

I feel now everyday the way Neo must have felt in The Matrix.  Remember that scene at the end when the agents fired their guns and as the bullets whizzed towards him, all he could see was the truth of the matrix, a fantasy of numbers cascading down a screen?   He knew then that none of it was real.

Life is like that for me now.  Everywhere I go, I see the matrix, the unreal world that I live in, completely dominated and controlled in such a manner as to completely obscure the unreality of it all.

My friends know I am an eccentric intellectual type, and stopped listening long ago.

And then *** **** and his campaign came along, and I find, suddenly, and to my great joy, there are TONS of people out there who see the world as it really is!  And they want to do something about it!  So do I!  I'm not alone!

It is such an amazing blessing that a man exists, with the position and experience to run for president, who understands the matrix, and knows it is at the heart of all the problems we face, and is willing to turn and confront the beast.  The last guy to even contemplate this had his head blown off in Dallas.

That book is The Creature From Jekyll Island by Griffin.  Anyone who reads the whole book will understand that the really rich people who own banks figured out long ago, 1693 to be precise, that governments, and therefore nations, can be taken over, enslaved and controlled without firing a shot, by taking over control of a nations money, and then putting that government into debt through the most expensive endeavors known to man, war, and the social programs needed to recover from war. 

So I don't care that *** *** isn't pro choice like me.  I rejoice that he exists, and that we have a chance to take down the paradigm that enslaves everyone, most especially those who exist in a matrix and think it's real.

So please excuse the troll.  Perhaps he is overwhelmed by his realization that we have a chance now to fire our slavemasters, and re-create America, using the blueprint our founders gave us.  He is excited because we have what every American, what every human being really wants.  A CHANCE.  And if you snipe at *** ****, you are attacking his chance.

In summary, Oped News is what America is about as well.  A forum where we can talk to one another freely, and learn from each other. 

Thanks for listening. 

by Bob Tracey (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 46 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:05:42 PM

  (0+)

In my haste to let the community know about a great article High Country News published on how women in Western States had the vote long before the suffrage amendment was law, I hit the button too soon. I hadn't had breakfast!

It got to the newsletter without the body of the article, just my comments about being a Wyomingite. And I got a reply, saying he didn't need to see the article because he knew what Wyoming was like. In respectable language, what old Westerns could have scripted as "lower than a snake's belly." Article was written by a Coloradan and took a swipe at Hillary's lack of historical insight.

I reposted. It will be interesting to see what comes after I evoked the name of our former First Lady.

by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1849 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM

  (0+)

In the internet age there are new forms of political expression in which we can observe our own strengths of insight, as well as own inadequacies of organization. When you began this process of bringing together "progressives" there were many things that I am sure that you did not expect regarding the character of political opinion that is out here. But, I think that for the most part you have been able to create a forum in which controversy is empowered and passion is articulated freely.

As someone who has focused on a particular foreign policy issue- the Kurdish question and who has attempted to promote a dialogue regarding a multi-party system in the US, I have been caught off guard at times by a couple of efforts to keep the issue of Kurdish independence off the blog. I find the reasons for this to be less based on any administrative arbitrariness than I do in the lack of political vision for creating a new agenda that moves beyond existing Democratic left agendas. I admit to a specific defined approach towards the issues confronting people in what is now northern Iraq. I have made a sincere effort to publicize these matters both on OPED NEWS and THE CONSERVATIVE VOICE. I must admit that it was only on OPED NEWS that the effort was made to restrict my posts regarding the issue of Kurdistan and its relation to Turkey.

If as political organizers we accept the premises of our own pasts as the focal point of our political action, than we will doom ourselves to political irrelevancy. If it is a starting point for discussion on the new experiences in the 21st century than we become real organizers who have begun to acknowledge the profound political changes that have taken place in our nation in the last thirty years. At that point we can restrain the more vociferous voices from simply trying to drown out innovative and creative ideas and we can analyze the significance of our political experiences and how to integrate the truths that they may contain into a scenario that promises more success in implementing change.

by Martin Zehr (38 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 77 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 1:11:03 PM

  (0+)

there are 26 editors who work on the OpEdNEws queue. They bring different viewpoints and perspectives. When your one article was rejected, I winced. It was not the way I would have handled it. But like the quotations in this article say, the weakness-- the idiosyncratic nature of our editorial process-- is also one of our strengths. We HAVE published most of your articles, and I encourage you to continue posting them.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 5:49:39 PM

  (0+)

Most of what I have read on this site confirms the need for a dramatic shift in the emphasis placed on educational subject matter.  Owing to an ever more liberal approach to education, Americans have all but lost the ability to express themselves using standard English.  Verb agreement, word selection, sentence structure--the building blocks of English grammar--have given way to tautological means of expression firmly rooted in ignorance and just as firmly defended as "democratic."  Utter nonsense.

by Steve Fallon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 1:20:52 PM

  (0+)

Yup, ain't it awful. We also get articles from people who speak English as a second language-- Pakistani, Yemeni, Bangladesh, India, and I'd love to see more-- and we are very tolerant of articles that are less than perfect.

Sure, erudition in writing can be a good thing, in a highfalutin professional literary journal. But this is a not that. OpEdNews has developed a reputation as a place where anyone can post articles-- where you don't have to be famous, don't have to be on Arianna's platinum rolodex. 

I like it that way. Some folks will misspell. Some will miss the mark grammatically. So be it.

That said, we DO reject articles that have an excess of misspellings and grammatical flaws. We DO expect writers to proofread before posting.

But we are not the word police. We don't want to get too anal about it.

And yes, we do tolerate expletives in comments and articles, just not on the front page, meaning not in titles or descriptions, with a few, very rare exceptions.  

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 5:56:39 PM

  (0+)

I have dealt with both for many years on various posting boards. A lurker is merely someone who does not contribute much and mostly observes. I have seen many discuss trolls and some get close but for me there are two types of trolls:

1) Those who have sparse comments and no articles who suddenly pop into threads for the sole purpose of mucking it up. Their comments are not germane, could be off topic, or push an agenda as opposed to respond.

2) Government trolls - i believe there are people who troll the internet for the express purpose of pushing the govt side of things. I know this sounds conspiratorial but the alternative is to believe that some people are just entirely too stupid to be allowed to continue to breathe. This includes govt operatives who are poisening the well. An example is the people who think holograms were used on 911, so their theory can be dismissed as tinfoil hat stuff, along with reasonable theories.

Good article Rob.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 1:28:21 PM

  (0+)

Are not we better to use "shill", or "agent" for those who are professionally engaged in spreading disinformation? My understanding of the word "troll" is that it originally meant something like "sh*t disturber", probably malicious, and no connotation of Cointelpro.

The problem with "shill" is, unless we see the pay stubs, we can only infer motivation based upon nebulous evidence. 

by Michael Zimmer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 3:59:19 PM

  (0+)

I have not had the pleasure of being attacked on your site Rob; however, I have been attacked and ridiculed beyond contempt on a site I regularly post on. After a year of being bashed and beat up verbally for my liberal stance, I finally learned to "let it go" and laugh it off. I still get bashed on that site(mostly very conservative Billo ppl) but less often. I learned if you ignore their "snare", it just takes all their fun away.

 However, on your site, I feel more adjoined with posters on their values and opinions. It's a pleasure to be a part of this team of posters. Maybe someone has bashed me on this site and I never returned to find out. Bummer for them. Bullies like to get under your skin. I don't allow them to do such...that simple!

On another point, I find it a good thing that more ppl are reading Rob Kall's Op-ed news. To open the eyes of the blind, is the most beneficial move towards the pursuit to restore THE RULE OF LAW.

Just remember, everything you say and write online can and will be used against you in a military tribunal! (if you're lucky to even get one of those).

Btw, Aol banned me from receiving my emails from the original FDA, Code Pink, Truthout.org, and various other enlightening emails I receive. I do get all of them now except the FDA notices as AOL has "their own" FDA notices and I am only allowed those filtered ones (isn't that just special). I am a Human Rights Watch recipient, and lately they barred me from those notices. I am pursuing that fight currently.

Freedom of speech? Hardly. I guess we take what we can get so make it civil.

Good day to all.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 2:27:42 PM

  (0+)

Kathlyn:

I like your input. I argued the same idea about names. I use my real name and most of the attacks have been from cowards who attack the person with threats and abusiveness. Those who have been under fire in real life remain unimpressed by cowardly attackers whose names remain hidden. They fire away from ambush. I know not one reason why a person needs a pseudonym. i have friends who work for large corporations ownwed by Republicans who write for large metro newspapers under their own names without fear.
So, if someone is afraid to post their name how is that courageous? Some people have died for what they believe and here people are afraid to write in their own names? I say, if people only make vicious, comments, or personal attacks, we, the authors should have the right to zap that comment. I said that Last Summer/Fall when we discussed this issue and I still say it now. I don't see Paul Krugman hiding behind a pseudonym.

You are on target, here, again.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 3:00:53 PM

  (0+)

are we really committed to it? IMO, we can't afford to be quiet about where we stand.  So let's keep on, Pete. :-)

Is Sibel Edmonds hiding behind a pseudonym?

Gee, would MLK have been as effective if he would have used a pen name?

I am self employed in a field where a great majority have benefitted from the corporatization of government and the Bush wars. People can look me up and decide not to work with me based on my views, which some label as "leftist."  I have labels for them, too, which they may or may not like.

That's ok!  Being American, IMO, means you don't have to worry about sucking up to people you don't respect or agree with.

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 6:11:49 PM

  (0+)

I agree. I believe that this year a Gov troll was working these PAGES trying to trap someone into expressing treason. He repeatedly tried to trap some into expressions of violence/revolution. I and my staff, as well as my readers reject violence. When he realized he was dealing with non-violent people he SLINKED AWAY AND disappeared.

"EVERYTHING WHICH HAS EVER OCCURRED WAS/IS CONSPIRATORIAL, EXCEPT ACTS OF GOD AND EVEN HE CAREFULLY PLANS THOSE THINGS. SMART PEOPLE MAKE PLANS THEY DO NOT WAIT FOR "THINGS TO HAPPEN!"

I NOT SO HUMBLY QUOTE MYSELF ABOVE

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 3:10:13 PM

  (0+)

I thought it was just me playing "spot the mole"!!

I discovered a new person posting on here who followed closely on my heels of publishing about the real Iraqi war statistics.

THEN Mr. High Tech, how has now established a wooooooooooonderful new url in the past YEAR, had data mined my entire blog and juiced it up a bit.

Niiiiiiiiiice.

I notice said plant doesn't show up since I posted comment on his article.

Do they REALLY think we are so dumb, moronic we can't play spot the plant?  Who on here would believe a single US government statistic on Iraqi war casualties?

If one looks back they will see I publish a lot of "dots" - but I sincerely not try to connect them unless I am absolutely positively certain that they can be connected.  Yet, I see one hit wonders connect "dots" with everything in the known Universe on here.

I am STILL digging up "dots" on Barksdale for instance - and once in a while I post a little update - hey! we were dealing with real nukes, well worth the effort. But the one hit wonders?  They don't really feel a sense of community, of responsibility and that's what gets my goat when certain people on a certain POLITICAL bandwagon who aren't in the least bit progressive start commenting on something I've written.  I don't want to get political advertising.

And while I am here I am going to raise this point another time - in a certain presidential candidate's roster of supporters is a contingent of people from something called

OPERATION CLAMBAKE

and they go to schools called

DELPHI

and they have studied how to take over the good internet sites for many many years.  They are cunning, baffling, powerful and insidious.

And it's going to take some time for OpEd News to come to grips with their techniques.

We have much to deal with here, and the lurkers sure aren't the problem. But   government plants    Operation Clambakers   cointelpro agents   sexist pigs (and I've had messages from them in my massage centre bos) racists (covert and overt)    flamers

Well, they most certainly ARE.

by ladybroadoak (39 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 394 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 8:16:31 AM

  (0+)

Cunning, baffling, and powerful - a friend of Bill, no doubt.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 7:26:57 PM

  (0+)

     Thanx for the thoughful aricle Rob. As Dale alluded to in his comment, I am one of those who is a relative newbie @ OpEd. who has been here a few months, 0 articles, a few diaries, and 100+ comments. I hope that doesn't disqualify me from the priority of a sincere response.

     I too am capable of momentarily being a quart low in a throw down. It is rare, but I've done it 2 or 3 times when as soon as I hit the POST, the 'what have I done' was racing up the back of my throat. 

     There are those that are lookin for the party, one timers, elixir salesmen who care not for an exchange beyond theirs. That you have the broom does not make me envious.

     I am in such appreciation for this forum that for the heavy numbered arrivals you are getting these days, the suggestion of individual flagging sounds good to me too. It doesn't bother me, nor do I guess most sifting through "oh that guy again". More often, I just move on, and/or chuckle.

     Freedom (speech) is a responsibility. Most understand that.

     You do a great job.

     Here's one of my favorites. Respond intelligently even to unintelligent treatment....Lao Tzu

by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 3:52:46 PM

  (0+)

I  am here for a long time.  Malice is my only criteria  for the harsh response.   If I see malice ( and usually in my comment  I specify what is malicious) I respond.

Also, I would advise to post more supportive comments. We do  not have many of those 

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 3:56:04 PM

  (0+)

 I can't tell you how many times I've read something on-line, or heard something on radio or TV that has grated against every nerve in my body and mind, and sent me off to pen a masterpiece of venom and spite, only to proof read it and discover that I no longer have any desire to verbally castrate the person or organization that offended me. Journaling is a powerful tool used by myself, and many other mental health therapists, to help cronically pissed off individuals vent their rage in a non violent and theraputic fashion. Often, just the time involved in writing down one's feelings is sufficient to quell their rage, while for others it's reading their own thoughts and emotions that causes them to take a step back and realize that perhaps they might have over reacted.  Then there's this absurd notion, nobody, I repeat, nobody can 'make' you 'feel' anything or any way. How we re-act to another person's imput, be it nasty or not, is absolutely a choice we make. I have worked with people who say they suffer from uncontrollable rage, and that they just explode without warning. I have been successful in many cases to help them understand that although they think, at first, that their rage is instant, there is always a period of ramping up, and once they recognize the process of rage, they are able to stop it before it escalates into inappropriate behavior. So, the moral is to check yourself before you say or do something that you will regret. Make the right choice and avoid being chastised, or worse, banned altogether.

by Rick Mason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 4:22:24 PM

  (0+)

I notice you haven't posted an article. Your introspective account of your experience is excellent and would, if expande to 500 or more words, probably stand as a solid article. It's not necessarily about politics and that's okay. OpEdNews welcomes experiential and slice of life articles.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 6:03:53 PM

  (0+)

I too research multiple sites in an effort to get a feel for what people are concerned with, and how they perceive a given issue for my own publication. There are many times when I come across comments or ideas and positions that are diametrically opposed to what I think or feel. To me that is a good thing. It makes me take a look at another side of the issue that I may not have considered, and maybe it might make me re-think my position.

In all of that research that I do daily, there is a chronic attempt by people who do "troll" to inject vulgarity, personal attacks, mis-information, dis-information, and out right lies into the discussion. There are comments by posters that are so filthy that I cannot believe that even under an assumed and anonymous name, that they could actually write them.

Trolls are people who become frightened to death of anyone or anything that doesn't fit into their concept of "how things should be". They are frightened, scared people who have found a convenient means of displaying their true nature without having to expose their true identity.

Free speech is under attack under S 1959. And, even though you or I will probably be targeted by it if it does pass, those "trolls" will somehow slip through the cracks and never be found. They serve a purpose for certain elements.

Most trolls spend their time online cruising various sites, registering and posting the most obscene comments and attacks, and then disappear. I guess when you feel small and powerless, this has become the vehicle of choice for those who probably either are bullies in real life, or who were bullied......Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example of someone bullied his entire life who now uses the media to get back at everyone who picked on him and do some bullying of his own. Trolls, as with Limbaugh, appeal to the worst in human nature. They thrive on it. They are getting even. So when you see these kinds of postings.......start scrolling and move on to the relevant comments.

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 4:59:51 PM

  (0+)

I’d like to know the person who sent it. Who knows? He or she might even convince me it's a good idea.

The only reason a person would not use their real name is because they won’t stand behind their idea. If you won’t stand behind your idea, you don’t deserve to post it (this is my revised thinking from when I previously caved in to the death threat thing).

Every comment on this site should have someone willing to stand behind and defend their idea. So the idea doesn’t stand up—bfd! We all learn from it. Several of my ideas have been shot down, and I appreciate that. That’s part of why I post things--to learn from others. (Just don’t shoot down this idea, ‘cause it’s a good one!)

And now for my unrelated thought about getting angry: A lot of people give me the excuse that they’re a little behind. I say it's better to be a little behind than to be a big ass.

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 6:10:41 PM

  (0+)

The standard on the web is that handles and pseudnonyms are fine for diaires/blogs.

I've asked our editors to publish articles with pseudonyms as diaries, unless...

some people put their real name in their bio.

Some people have expressed acceptable reasons to me for using pen names. Some have been doing it for a long time. I make a point of finding out who they are.

I probably need to reinforce the rules for pen names with our editors.

Of course, this does not deal with commenters. Lately, we've had a growing number of people, these one-hit-wonders, who sign in with obviously fake info-- and insulting user names, handles and bios. I'm considering simply requiring that people get off to a good start with OpEdNews-- meaning signing up with honest info.

OTOH, a lot of people complain that it's a real pain to sign up, so we want to simplify it. Then, as people choose to participate in the site, they'll be required to add more info to their profile.  

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 6:33:16 PM

  (0+)

 The only thing that I'm intolerant of is 'intolerance'.  Has anyone learned how to reconcile that?

I'm happy to remind fools and trolls..........................

 "That if there were more people like me there'd be less people like you!"

by mrcnw (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 6:14:07 PM

  (0+)

 It depends on how you define trolls I guess,  I read the boards and have for quite sometime, long before a certian individual was running for office.
  However I have this huge privacy issue thing which keeps me from joining "communities".   Most of the time I find that someone else has something far more intellegent then I could of and expressed my view point so I don't feel the need.  
 Will I donate to the site.. I enjoy the set up sure I enjoy the way people can post what they want however and I enjoy reading peoples opinions weather i agree or disagree, weather I'll spend my hard earned money on anything has alot to do with how my normally quiet pressence is handled, Let me start that most us "trolls" are probably the ones most willing to donate at least once.  
 I have commented Once maybe twice on these boards Again I don't feel that I express myself ellegantly over message boards and therefore normally choose not to do so at all. 
 Also the fact that I am a SysAdmin elsewhere, forces me usually to stay quiet cause I hate angry people just like everyone else. 
 What you volunteers mostly need to realize is that with anything and everything you can not and will not make everyone happy all the time the best you can do is make some of the people happy some of the time.  
  I think you all are doing a fine job and who knows if a week can go by without you trying to find a way to get rid of us quiet people maybe just maybe I'd consider hitting that donate button...
 However the way i took this post is that Someone doesn't like a "certian group" that is currently using there forums and wants to find away to get rid of them without inciting a for lack of better words "riot" against the forums and if this is the case there is no way of bowing out gracefully just state what you really mean and let the chips lay where they may.

    Or perhaps change the way people post opinions. Just remember you do not want to cut the nose off just to spite the face :) Well keep up the post and remember sometimes us "Trolls" aren't really trolls.

~Kitt~

by Kitt Rezner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 6:29:51 PM

  (0+)

... it attracts "ditto heads," that is- idealogues who feel passionate enough about a certain canned "position" to seek out... and spam/flame... those who they feel "oppose" them.  Then the content gets cluttered with "tis-taint."  It's a daunting task for a "moderator," and "I feel your pain." 

(parentheticl disclaimer:  I am just as guilty of dirty no-no words to try to illustrate what I think is "my position," even though an original "position" is as rare as duck lips)   

Content is the main deal, and form is subordinate.   The cool thing about on-line communities is they can enhance the evolution of ideas... the question si:  what "selection pressure" should the "moderator" impose?  Brainless cheap software can filter out no-no words.  it takes a human reader to evaluate content... and this is expensive. 

Rob, I do not envy your dilemma.  

by waldopaper (15 articles, 3 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 609 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 7:26:49 PM

  (0+)

Dear Rob and Community,

I have to disagree with the idea that Trolls and Lurkers are not wanted. In fact in all the web mastery throughout the internet Trolls are not wanted. Now think of the benefits Trolls give to a Community. They express the behavior we tend to not like, but in fact it has a value. Have we not heard "Sticks and Stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me."

Perhaps it is a temperature gauge to ourselves to see if we will explode ! Without trolls how would we check our own behavior?

Have you ever heard of a Website that WELCOMES TROLLS? I sure haven't! It would be a new one on the plane of cyberwebspace. Could OpEdNews be that place, where Trolls can be welcomed to a community? It sure would bring a new level of understanding to our world of intoleration. Ask yourself would Jesus not put his hand out to a Troll, to a Lurker?

We have people who are attacking and going to War against the government using nice words is hardly a prescription to describe we as not being a troll community. And the fact that most Right Wingers are war fanatics, surely proves it in their writing skills, but we want and should encourage trolls because they are people too.

Just because they are out there in another space or thought process, does not mean they are totally bad. If we had more places where we could express our real opinions, I think the troll situation would disappear, because we all are really Trolls aren't we?

If I can make a friend with a Troll and show him why I think the way I do, maybe that toleration of understanding will bloom into something beautiful. After all those who claim that manure is not fertilzer, and does not bear fruit are mistaken. Am I right?

We are human, we all have our bad days. We have good ones too, that is what makes us continue on the behalf of faith and goodness, when we are able to tolerate until the time comes that the toleration dissolves, because we recognize the value in each other.

Just think if GW Bush tolerated the TROLL binLadin? Just think if Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld tolerated the TROLL Saddam Hussein. We would have a different path, and different idea, a different plane in which we co-exist on this planet of diverging views and principles.

I would like to see us support TROLLS and LURKERS, and make OpEdNews more than a News site, but an actual visual Educational Tool. That being a place where we all learn tolerance.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 7:32:16 PM

  (0+)

I DO attempt, when it seems there is some promise, to work with some trolls. Some of our editors do too.

But by definition, (uncivil, personally attacking) trolls are not desirable. People with difference of opinion, who can function civilly, are fine.  

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 7:57:08 PM

  (0+)

But by definition, (uncivil, personally attacking) trolls are not desirable. People with difference of opinion, who can function civilly, are fine.  

Yes I agree Rob, and the reason is? Because what does uncivil personal attacks represent or accomplish? Absolutely nothing! The aggressive words do not explain or support a point of view. I can go on and on to what Bush is, but the personal attacks on him do not explain why we think he is wrong. When we have supporting ideas, to why and explain them, we have accomplished a form of understandable communication.  The battle against those who use weapons and violence to support their views is more of a challenge than using those same methods the aggressor uses, but indeed the end result of nonviolence ultimately wins because kindness is the water that snuffs out undesirable flames of injury..

This is my journey anyway. Bravo Rob

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:59:04 PM

  (0+)

Well, yes, I am.

I find myself "trolling" this site hoping to read the dribble of most people searching for insight in the opinions of others. Most of the time I find people with an opinion on a subject lacking full knowledge of the subject they write about.

Yes, this is a comment from an a**hole.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 8:01:07 PM

  (0+)

A timely and well-presented article, Rob.  And in what some might think a surprise, I agree with Mr. Sashine's remarks about posting comments that are more supportive (or at least informative) than negative or destructive. 

I admit that, on ocassion (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more), my comments tend to be counter to the idea or premise in the article or other comments.  I usually try to support my counter assertions with references, but sometimes there's a futility in that when attempting to defend your position.

Regardless, civility is a must and Rob's warning on anger is one of wisdom.  Fear and its close cousins of anger and hate are typically found as the source of many of humankind's problems.  The start of the slippery slope into anger and then hate starts with the fear of uncontrol and dehumanizing of the cause of the fear or other.  That dehumanizing then takes the form of ever degrading incivility. 

It's always worthwhile to remember that there's another human - like you - on the opposite end of your comment, and there are quite literally thousands of other humans reading your words.  It's one thing to have a differing opinion and quite another to represent that opinion with rancor and moral bankruptcy.  With the later, any message you have is lost in the manner of its delivery.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 8:31:42 PM

  (0+)

As a heavy duty conservative who hopefully reads, listens, and thinks about all ideas I come across I like this site even though it leans heavily to the left. The thing that I like most about the site is the fact that alternative opinions are allowed though probably not appreciated.

I can't recall ever being personally attacked for my poorly written view points. It doesn't bother me but it sure lowers the level of discourse in a hurry when someone uses what I call brownshirt language to try to discredit the writer personally rather than refute the writer's ideas in a logical, factual, and honest way.

I have been banned from more than leftwing website for being nothing but a 'troll' which is a very offensive term. that politically and intellectually insecure people use to label those who disagree with their ideas. Those people will never grow or contribute in a meaningful way to discussions. Everyone should realize that neither side has a monopoly on good ideas or solutions. If this is to become a better country we need to work together to find the best solutions, not just the Democratic or Republican solution, to our problems. We need leaders who think that way too.

Rob has created something worthwhile here and deserves everyone's support. I have contributed a very minor amount financially and probably will again even though I probably disagree with about 91.53% of Rob's politics. Rob's politics do not matter, the forum he provides us does.

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:14:35 PM

  (0+)

I see the back and forth about the value of allowing 'right wingers' to post at this site because of their perceived domination of the mainstream media. I think what needs to be realized is that this is their fault. Open dialouge is always best and will only improve any persons understanding of the issues. What if I don't want to be grouped into one of these catogories? What if none of them fit me perfectly?

What exactly is 'progressive'? I'm a Paul supporter, a libertarian, which I suppose means some of my views are 'conservative' or 'right-wing' (fiscal policy, no personal income tax, limited government, etc.) or 'progressive' or 'left-wing' (personal freedom, privacy, civil/human rights, legalized drugs, peace/no war) some I'm torn about (e.g. abortion brutal, inhumane and inconsistant legally, not to mention the possible rights of the unborn, yet because of personal (her body) and privacy issues it's not something I believe the government should dictate to a woman). All of these definitions and catagorizations are about as useful as trying to fit a certain piece of music into a particular category or a person of mixed decent into one category or the other (e.g. father black, mother white, person forced to pick one group or the other). The left right paradigm and other forms of 'groupthink' only serves to divide us a people. We should be more focused on individuals, individual rights and their protection.

by Ro Bo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 2:03:44 PM

  (0+)

I too find this whole "progressive" thing interesting, because I see myself as progressive in many ways, yet my comments have drawn reponses such as

"You need an intervention sir cultists such as you can be cured"

I am glad to be a part of this community, even if some don't welcome me; but I must be honest - I have never read so many ad hominem attacks on any site as I have seen here, so it's kind of funny to read all these posts condemning them. In my opinion, it isn't the Paul supporters who are initiating most of these personal attacks - it's the "progressive" locals.

My feeling is, I tell it like I see it, I back up my arguments, and I don't take crap from anyone. Ban me or publish me - it's up to you, Rob, but if attacked or ridiculed in an abusive manner, as has happened repeatedly, I will continue to respond as long as I am allowed to.

by Tom deSabla (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 51 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 3:05:10 AM

  (0+)