(One of a series of posts in the original web log tradition: notes and "thinking out loud." These posts will be most easily understood by regular visitors here, and are written with them in mind. But others are welcome.)
Folks,
You most likely know that at McClatchy's Raleigh News & Observer's The Editor's Blog The N&O's exec editor for news Melanie Sill has threatened to ban me.
Sill says in the 14th comment of the Convergence debate:
I'll ask you again to respect the guidelines, and if you don't accept them, you will be the first person I've had to ban.As you may know, banning a person from commenting at a blog is an extremely series action usually done in response to a person physically threatening another, using obscene language, using comments to promote commercial activity, especially pornography.
I've done none of that. I my response to Sill I asked her to provide specifics as to why she would ban me. You can find my response a little further down the Convergence debate thread from Sill's comment (number 14). Note I end my comment with: Specifics, Melanie, specifics. That request did generate any specifics from Melanie. Instead she replied as follows
John:Melanie has never shown me where a comment was off point. Many of my comments are short and others are shorter than ones other commentators leave.
Being critical is fine. I've no desire to ban you or anyone else. All I ask is that you respect and follow these really broad guidelines on length and staying on point to the topic of the post. I think that if you read through comments in this post and others you see that I try to address questions as time permits. Thanks.
I've not gotten into a back and forth about it all with Melanie at The Editor's Blog but I think she relishes questions from readers that contain mistakes or which she can talk around.
I often ask here questions such as: "Why in a 2000 word article about the affects of the DLC on Duke's reputation all the Duke students and alums quoted were very critical of the university?"
When Melanie says things that don't fit with the facts I put the facts out there and ask her way the discrepancy.
Tomorrow in another Talking with Regulars post I'll give you specific examples of what I mean.
Also, I've had some experience with Judge Ron Stephens and a few of the defense attorneys. I've decided to share some impressions with you and then maybe turn them into posts.
More soon. Thanks for visiting.
John
5 comments:
John, the fact is that -- how can I put this delicately enough? -- you deserve to be banned because your comments are merely self-congratulatory, your opinions unsupported by fact, and your tone divisibly uninterested in dialogue with others. In other words, you contribute nothing of value. What you need is to grow up, and if banning you sends you that message, then you ought to thank Melanie for caring enough to hold up a mirror in front of your tiresome posting.
Anonymous, you sir are an idiot. I mean that in the kindest possible way. You could not possibly believe what you said if you were mentally whole and honest. Though, I suppose, the absence of either attribute would suffice for you to deposit such meadow muffins in polite company.
I have yet to hear John's opinion of the issue he asks questions about. Though, I agree that his opinion of the N&O is obvious. How could it not be? They have tried every dishonest trick in the yellow dog journalistic book to inflame dangerous passions at the expense of truth, and only for increased readership. That behavior may not be criminal but it is certainly immoral.
The facts are not available in the N&O of the issue,and the fact of Ms. Sill's refusal to address that question put to her by many commenters is just that, a fact.
A dialogue is not possible with someone that ignores germane comments on the topic, as does Ms. Sill. Your comment here is so disingenuous that I find myself wondering if you are not Ms. Sill, herself, trying to create a little breathing room for your feckless behavior.
Sorry John, I know you don't need my help to engage an empty shell, but I just hate dishonesty. Especially when it tries to masquerade as maturity or concern.
I suppose it never occurred to our brain deficient empty shell that the only reason your posts could possibly be considered tiresome is because they must be repeated time and again as no answers have yet been forthcoming.
Anon. why don't you get the answers to the legitimate questions she has been asked? Or would someone find it tiresome if you had to keep asking because she won't answer? DUH!
Anon (1) -
Interesting post. How many words did it take you to call JinC a juvenile fool?
-AC
To anonymous said "John, the fact is that......"
I'll respond to you soon.
Meanwhile, to all the rest of you who've responded online and offline.
First, thank you. I appreciate your comments very much.
Second, it's possible anonymous said is one of those people at blogs who take on different "personas."
That sometimes includes seeming to speak for one side when their hearts are really with the other side.
Often such people present as mean or ill informed just to embarrass the side they are claiming to represent.
I'm not saying anonymous said has done that. Anonymous said may actually be precisely the sort of person who’d make that comment.
Whichever side of things anonymous said is really on, I hope anonymous said will make reasoned, civil and fact-based comments in the future.
BTW – I know it seemed redundant to keep repeating “anonymous said” but it would have been presumptuous and possibly wrong to use either “he” or “she.” For that matter, we don’t even know whether anonymous said is an adult.
Again, thanks.
John
Post a Comment