Friday, July 01, 2005
Rules for Comments
Be Constructive in Your Posts
My only rule for commenters to this blog is that they post constructive commentary, and not simply foul language and pure derision. Such posts are not helpful, not part of the learning process where both positive and negative thoughts and opinions are set forth, and they do not promote further dialogue. Hence, I will delete such posts as I deem to be merely scurrilous attacks that are without any redeeming value. I do not value foul language.
Comments:
<< Home
"I will delete such posts as I deem to be merely scurrilous attacks that are without any redeeming value." Let me see if I have this straight - YOU will determine what constitutes a "scurrilous attack", without solid recourse to ANY objective criteria? The foul language stipulation is certainly concrete enough, but the rest sounds totally subjective - your notion ALONE of "constructive", "derision", "scurrilous" or what have you. And you actually expect people to comment here regularly under such ridiculously vague, utterly arbitrary "rules"? Sounds amazingly like "Catch 22"!
Well, Mr. Anonymous, it is MY site after all, so I have editorial priveleges. A string of invectives is certainly not constructive, as I believe you have posted here before...and got deleted. This post of yours, while negative concerning my rules, does not warrant deletion.
I suppose it is indeed vague, my rules, but that is the problem with editors; they have hidden criteria in their heads that are not easy to put into words. It is sort of like porn: one knows it when one sees it. Comity might express it, so might politeness, and civility.
Perhaps if a nub of truth, or suggestion for improvement or a thoughtful criticism were embedded in a comment, it would be quite acceptable. Pure rants, however, are a different matter -- they go!
Why don't you post with your name?
Afraid to? Hmmmm, never thought of that aspect. I frown on that practice, but I will not delete a comment on that basis. So cloak yourself in your anonymity.
I suppose it is indeed vague, my rules, but that is the problem with editors; they have hidden criteria in their heads that are not easy to put into words. It is sort of like porn: one knows it when one sees it. Comity might express it, so might politeness, and civility.
Perhaps if a nub of truth, or suggestion for improvement or a thoughtful criticism were embedded in a comment, it would be quite acceptable. Pure rants, however, are a different matter -- they go!
Why don't you post with your name?
Afraid to? Hmmmm, never thought of that aspect. I frown on that practice, but I will not delete a comment on that basis. So cloak yourself in your anonymity.
["A string of invectives is certainly not constructive, as I believe you have posted here before...and got deleted."] Beg pardon?? Pray tell, how did you arrive at that conclusion -- tea leaves?? And if anonymity "disturbs" you for some reason, why offer the option? It is YOUR site, isn't it?! ["Why don't you post with your name?Afraid to?"] Why don't YOU?? Or is "MaNNNing" supposedly your REAL name? You're a very cheeky individual, and highly presumptious, to say the least.
Yes, tea leaves. Tea leaves that detect a given style of warblogging writing and thinking with which they are familiar.
That option comes with Blogger, and I haven't looked into disabling it...yet. Perhaps I will.
Considering the iffy nature of security on the web, having a pseudonym for use here is necessary. Just as you do, I am sure.
I will take cheeky and presumptious over the usual...LOL!
That option comes with Blogger, and I haven't looked into disabling it...yet. Perhaps I will.
Considering the iffy nature of security on the web, having a pseudonym for use here is necessary. Just as you do, I am sure.
I will take cheeky and presumptious over the usual...LOL!
Manning, thanks for the url - I have added this site to my favorites and look forward to many discussions on the issues.
mc
mc
<< Home
Post a Comment