Blogcritics: Comments on REAL Hate

Comment by Tom

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 16:19:06 EDT

I think shorter blog entries are good because sometimes I don't have time to read a novel. And I think a flame section would be fun. In college I used to be on psu.flame chat. All we did was flame each other, and we actually got to be good friends, even having our own flame web-site.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:28:31 EDT

TDavid (#28), look for email in a few minutes or so.

Comment by TDavid

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 11:21:58 EDT

Hooray on #27!

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 10:33:47 EDT

New rules going up later today - time for some fundamental changes. Yes, we will create a private area for people to bitch at each other. Publicly, we will ask that members attack only ideas, concepts, themes, not individuals. And no more public posts about the operation of Blogcritics - no one cares but us.

Comment by jaded naivety

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 10:23:14 EDT

don't feel bad about "being lied on" by him Ibelieve that he meant this is possibly a telling phrasology.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 10:16:00 EDT

I think that there needs to be moderators but I have thought that for a bit too. I am against moderators for several reasons. First, you cannot get a moderator who is Fair And Balanced™, because what is acceptable is subjective. Consider for a moment, if you have a spouse and the two of you are eating in a restaurant when suddenly a woman walks up to your spouse and sits on his lap, runs her fingers through his hair and nibbles on his ear (because she does not acknowledge the relationship the two of you have), then everybody around you turns to you and puts their hands on your shoulder restraining you, saying 'now that is her right, she does not believe in your relationship and she is entitled to her opinion. We must respect that.' I'd be real interested in seeing how many conservatives are suddenly open for moderation then. It's subjective. Second, you can usually tell if a post is a critical review of something or if it is a flame within the first sentence or two. You can then scan over the post and move on if you wish. A post, whether it is a flame or not, is a person's voice. 9 times out of 10 when someone does not like a flame, that is not directed at them, it's because it's the 'opposing point of view' anyway. (To wit, the only people who use the V-chip are conservatives who watch FOX - conservative news smashed inbetween those 'immoral' television shows.)

Comment by Ms. Tek

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:48:29 EDT

Ah... moderation raises her ugly head again. yeah, I think that there needs to be moderators but I have thought that for a bit too.

Comment by John Mudd

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:42:51 EDT

But I don't know if you can stop the flames in the public areas .... You can't stop them, however, you can offer an alternative for those who commonly participate. You can also prohibit it in the Comments Policy, except for in the designated section. Comments can be monitored and removed if necessary, or just displaced to a more appropriate forum, the "FLAME ON" section.

Comment by John Mudd

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:35:51 EDT

RJ, you're not alone. There seem to be plenty of hyperactive, histrionic liberals here who will butt heads with any conservative, and then make YOU out to be the bad guy and the presumptious one. Hell with 'em -- keep doing what you do. I regularly read AFF's Brainwash, which you may do as well, being a conservative. However, I don't see distasteful comments on their boards. Try to be more civil in your public posts. Items such as this one should have been and easily could have been DIRECTLY e-mailed to the author. Please keep that in mind in future posts. Thank you. Cheers.

Comment by bhw

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:33:44 EDT

Now I get your drift. But I don't know if you can stop the flames in the public areas ....

Comment by John Mudd

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:28:35 EDT

Blogcritics create a section called "FLAME ON!". This section will be a paid-only section. As I would be willing to do with call waiting on my phone line, this is a section I would be willing to pay to opt OUT of! I can't imagine anyone paying to opt in! Actually, that was the point to proposing the "FLAME ON" section. People come to Blogcritics to read great posts and wonderful articles, not Blogcritics flaming and libeling other Blogcritics. They don't visit to read column after column of Blogcritics contributors flaming each other on the comments boards. They come to read posts, articles, reviews, interviews. The regular readers, of course, have the option of opting out of Blogcritics, altogether, but restricting flaming to a paid-only section would likely reduce that or end it altogether. If people want to destroy your reputation, make them pay for it, I say, rather than let them do it for free and damage the reputation of Blogcritics in the process. Cheers.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:24:09 EDT

...plenty of hyperactive, histrionic liberals here who will butt heads with any conservative, and then make YOU out to be the bad guy and the presumptious one heh. years and years and years of consevative talk radio has had an effect...and not the one intended (actually, i'm not sure what the intent of it is, other than chest-beating). but just maybe some liberals are sick and tired of being unfairly labeled and targeted for all that's wrong with the world. now that they're fighting back, and rubbing your face in it a little...you don't like it one bit. boo hoo.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:16:26 EDT

oh yes, that's it. Compare me to a mentally retarded person, wish second class status on me, put words in my mouth that I didn't say, then when I speak up for myself, label me a hyperactive histrionic liberal who is the one at fault for making you out to be the bad guy! Poor poor conservatives are always under attack by people who just don't understand they really are holier than thou!!

Comment by Mark Edward Manning

Mon, 5 Apr 2004 07:15:37 EDT

Comment by bhw

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 22:34:14 EDT

Blogcritics create a section called "FLAME ON!". This section will be a paid-only section. As I would be willing to do with call waiting on my phone line, this is a section I would be willing to pay to opt OUT of! I can't imagine anyone paying to opt in!

Comment by Natalie Davis

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 21:20:56 EDT

How in the world does that statement denote ethnicity? And which one, pray tell?

Comment by Monty

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 20:42:31 EDT

"...don't feel bad about being lied on by him..." - Excerpt from Mac Diva post above. At long last, we learn the ethnicity of the infamous M?. Diva.

Comment by Chris Kent

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:34:14 EDT

Shark, I only read short posts. Long posts challenge my short attention span.....:)

Comment by Shark

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 15:58:38 EDT

And, again, following me onto a thread and trying to harrass me. ~LOL! Everyone knows I read EVERY entry by RJ, Al Barger, and Flanagan. They're always a riot! Chris K: Write a damn post you can be proud of and stop taking up space. I just wasted 30 seconds of my life reading this thing. Chris, you mean you actually read this stuff?! Kudos!

Comment by Mac Diva

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:43:15 EDT

And, again, following me onto a thread and trying to harrass me. You will get no quarter here. I don't care how old you claim to be, that just means you've been a fool longer. As for your delusions of grandeur, they amuse me. Now run off and come back with some other Neandertal to take up for you. That seems to be the only talent you have.

Comment by Shark

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:01:10 EDT

McD: My advice to him is not to follow people, especially women, around harrassing them, in real life or online, if he doesn't want the victim to think he is insane and possibly dangerous. I'm asking you nicely to stop with the slander. It's really getting out of hand. You can post all the outrageous opinions you want on politics, racism, and social commentary, but please leave me, my personal life, and these insane allegations off the boards. I'm asking you, once again, to respect the most basic online rules and ethics.

Comment by Mac Diva

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 12:07:27 EDT

I am going to briefly treat Shark as if were an reasonable person, instead of a psycho. My advice to him is not to follow people, especially women, around harrassing them, in real life or online, if he doesn't want the victim to think he is insane and possibly dangerous. If he chooses to engage in such behavior, he is creating that impression. He deserves any consequences that result from it.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 12:00:26 EDT

Usually, when I encounter a discriminatory, intolerant viewpoint on the web, it's not to enlighten the writer, that can't be done, but is to offer an alternative viewpoint for others (undecided/open-minded - if there are any left) to consider. Sometimes I wonder just how many 'undecideds' there are out there, though. Something seems to have happened to this country during the whole Kenneth Starr/Clinton era. People seem to now have made up their mind on things regarding politics or civil rights, etc. and it doesn't seem like opinions change anymore. For example, there was a blog posted yesterday (still learning how to 'blog around', sorry for mixing threads) about how getting Rice to testify under oath will hurt the Democrats. What I believe will happen is the same thing that happened when Clarke testified. No matter what is said those that are against Bush will interpret those words to substantiate their view, those for Bush will find words to substantiate their view. When Rice testifies, nobody will change their political beliefs. The anti-Bushes will still be anti-Bush, the pro-Bushes will still be pro-Bush. Just moreso.

Comment by Ms. Tek

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:52:09 EDT

John has a great idea!! Plus, it would be interesing to see who would actually pay to flame other members! Kudos, John!

Comment by John Mudd

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:34:30 EDT

I agree with Ms. Tek. There are a select few bloggers who do not positively contribute to Blogcritics as they do negatively contribute. As someone who has worked to promote Blogcritics and expand its readership, I can say that not all Blogcritics readers enjoy these posts, obviously written to "stir the pot", if you will. Blogcritics' reputation does not need to become one of a regular, old-fashioned BBS where flaming regularly occurs and is permitted. If that reputation exceeds the reputation of Blogcritics being a sinister cabal of superior bloggers, Blogcritics will likely lose readership and prominence. If it loses readership, it is unlikely that sales for Blogcritics products, which has been proposed, will succeed. It is also unlikely that a paid-only section that includes excellent content could be possible. Therefore, I propose the following solution to the current problem: Blogcritics create a section called "FLAME ON!". This section will be a paid-only section. Subscribers and Blogcritics contributors will only be permitted to flame others in this section. They will have to pay to flame and readers can even pay to "get the scoop on the drama" that is going on between various Blogcritics. I would like to continually mention Blogcritics and pitch story ideas including it to the media, but it hurts my reputation to do so when contributors are continually permitted to post pointless items of personal attacks on this blog-based publication. I do hope the powers that be consider what I have said and take into consideration the implementation of my proposal. Thank you. Cheers.