If you have left anonymous comments which did not appear within several hours, it usually means that I’ve decided not to post them.
Normally, I would let you know and see if the problems could be worked out. However, if you post anonymously, or leave only a fictitious email address, this obviously isn’t possible.
Why would I decide not to post a comment? If it is particularly nasty in attacking someone else personally, or with sweeping generalizations (smears?) unsupported by facts. These are the comments most of us cringe at when reading the daily newspaper, and this site is not a vehicle for such diatribes. You are free to present contrary views, but, as the other guys say, do it civilly and it’s not a problem.
You may consider this “censorship”. To me, it’s keeping some semblance of control and order on this participatory site.
And if you would like to be consulted, simply register and provide a valid email address.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Makes sense to me on several levels. First, it’s your blog. Your blog, your rules.
Second, the general standard should be Would it appear in the “mainstream” media?
I’ve noticed an increasing number of media such as Sporting News publish letters from people without their real names. But the content of those letters don’t have profanity, flames, crude insults, infantile attacks, etc.
My standard is Would I say what I just wrote to a group of people I just met? That is, I was in the same room with them.
I suspect if this were the standard, the quality of the posts would increase exponentially. Unless, of course, people really do talk like they post in these blogs.
This is why it doesn’t bother me that people don’t use real names. (After all, anyone can use someone name in the blogosphere and how do you prove it’s not the real person?)
What does bother me is the coarseness and crudity of some of the remarks.
Well, if anyone desperately wants to know my real name, all they have to do is read my bio (“About”) on my blog.
I chose to use gigi-hawaii simply because it was fun and had a nice ring to it.
No problem with that, I hope!
People are always confusing editing with what they claim is “censorship.” These people need a crash course in civics.
Private entities, including newspapers, can’t “censor.” That is a government function.
I used to get those complaints every day as letters editor at the Star-Bulletin. “You didn’t publish my long-winded, factually incorrect screed full of racial slurs suggesting that everyone of a particular religion, ethnic group or sexual orientation should be put into a rocket and shot to the moon! You’re censoring me! Waaaah!”
But they weren’t always that extreme. We simply couldn’t fit every letter in the paper. So if we didn’t publish a particular letter, invariably it was because we disagreed with its content and were censoring the writer.
*sigh*
lol, totally lol!!!! 🙂
You may consider this “censorship”.
You say this as if it’s a bad thing…
Thanks! Sounds like a good policy t o uphold!
98 percent of us thank you for this policy Ian.
Waiting for the other 2% to start b*tching in 5,4,3,2… ho, nice!
Thanks, Ian. We shouldn’t have to retreat to a “gated community” behind a paywall in order for us to have civil discussions.
If I invite people into my home for a discussion, or even a party, I hope people will have the manners to behave themselves. If they get overloaded with alcohol, testosterone or just passionate ignorance, I will ask them to leave.
It is clear from reading comments on the Star-Advertiser’s discussion boards that a lot of people view discussion of political issues as an amoral contact sport. Whatever tactics work to upset your “opponent,” to score points for snark, or to derail reasonable arguments, is fair game.
Such an approach is inherently anti-democratic, so it is no surprise that listeners of Fox News and talk radio engage in those tactics. What is disturbing to me, however, is when advocates for progressive positions allow themselves to get sucked into the same sort of tactics. It degrades us all.
Sorry if it adds to your burden to have to police us. But it elevates the level of the discourse and the value of a visit to your blog.
Mucho mahalos!
I think the Star Advertiser should do the same.
I am just curious. Were there any comments ommitted from this post?
Yes. From the same person whose earlier comment triggered the post.
Sorry! I’ll try to be more civil.