Blogcritics: Comments on Homosexuality in the Boy Scouts: The Story of John Dale

Comment by alienboy

Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:34:04 EST

Anthony: Sorry I haven't been available to answer you,been both offline and ill. However, it seems you were correct; you were indeed banned about a year ago, long before BlogCritics had an Editorial Team and nobody was really focussing on your activity with all the other little things we have to do as well. Personally, I would see being forced to ban anybody as a defeat, both for myself and them, as I don't see how an exclusion policy can be anything other than a last resort, rather like banishment. As you can see, not everybody is as tolerant as me, so unless you actually want to be banned, be glad I'm your Comments Editor! lol

Comment by Phillip Winn

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:06:02 EST

Picking childish fights with people who work hard on a volunteer basis, like Alienboy and me. If you want to continue this particular conversation, email me using pwinn at this website domain. Any more comments on this subject here will be considered to have violated your final warning.

Comment by Anthony Grande

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:04:22 EST

Phillip, honestly I am not trying to get banned but what exactly am I doing that Roger isn't to get warnings?

Comment by Phillip Winn

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:01:02 EST

Consider this your last warning.

Comment by RogerMDillon

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:59:59 EST

Ha ha.

Comment by Anthony Grande

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:58:20 EST

So you guys DID oust me once?

Comment by Phillip Winn

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:54:37 EST

Anthony, you're asking to be banned again, and for largely the same reason. This site isn't your playground. You were previously booted for doing destructive things, and your current juvenile tiff with Alienboy, who happens to the comments editor here at Blogcritics.org, is similarly destructive. Consider this your warning.

Comment by Anthony Grande

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:50:42 EST

Notice how I called Alienboy out on his lie and he just shuts up?

Comment by Alienboy

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:10:39 EST

RJ: Thanks for answering my klan question (the c was deliberate, btw), I didn't understand their purpose was to have an opinion, that they can do. On the other hand, as I've said before, absolute freedom of speech seems a problematic idea and certainly over-rated. As to your second point, I don't see that as liberal or conservative, merely factual. There is still debate about Afghanistan and I said it was debatable. The case for Iraq would depend on which unconvincing US Government justification for Bush's executive action you meant. None have sounded plausible to me. And, no, I'm not liberal, in either American or British meanings of the word.

Comment by RJ

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:55:57 EST

"There was a debatable case for going in to Afghanistan and none for Iraq." But you aren't liberal???

Comment by RJ

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:53:01 EST

"Isn't the clan an illegal hate organisation?" The "clan" is not illegal. We do not outlaw unpopular opinions here in the US.

Comment by Anthony Grande

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:50:50 EST

Hey Alienboy, go to http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/09/111301.php and scroll down to comment 592 and you will see the official statement of me being banned.

Comment by Silas Kain

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:17:53 EST

Cleanliness contradicts homosexuality? There's something very humorous in that phrase. Reason and truth contradict fundamentalism.

Comment by Anthony Grande

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:01:20 EST

"Anthony Grande has NEVER been banned from commenting by myself or anybody else for that matter and his remarks in #31 are deluded and false." Anthony Grande wasn't but Anthony G was about a year ago. Do ya see the connection?

Comment by alienboy

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:44:52 EST

There you go Ryan, a free, detailed appraisal by a current working professional jouralist/editor.

Comment by Temple Stark

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:58:00 EST

To the point ::: "unbiased" is the word, and it isn't that you have to be unbiased or even without pre-judgment; it's that you have to present the story as it is being played out in real life without corrupting it with your own prejudices. I'm not going to go point by point. But a couple of examples. You should not be using the word "inspiring" in this sentence, His message holds an implied and inspiring credibility after a nearly decade-long fight in various courts across the nation as that is subjective on your part. Your job as a journalist if you thought you were witnessing people BEING inspired, is to go find someone to quote and tell you that. And the "implied" is completely unnecessary. >>a relatively small crowd Numbers are always better - "about 20." It removes any judgment of "small" or "large." Let the reader decide. Sometimes the modifier is appropriate but a number should also be included. NAME said (or says) is the usual way to go. Either way, pick one or the other, don't move back and forth between "Dale said" and "said Dale." >>first-year political science and languages Samantha Wilson said. Hopefully someone caught that the word "student" was missing. Cleanliness contradicts homosexuality? ??????? Are we sure that's a part of the controversy? Cleanliness can't refer to purity of the soul, because that's what morality refers to. There are all kinds of structural areas that could be improved / fixed but we'll leave that for another time. Oh and lastly, we're assuming you asked the paper, where a copyright notice is prominently displayed, that you can use this here, with permission. That too is a basic rule of writing and journalism. (Sorry for any typos in this note.)

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:49:41 EST

I won't argue with you, Temple. Especailly if your make your dough as a print journalist. Though I live in a different neighborhood than you do, and it sure ain't America. And the Jeruslam Post or Haaretz sometimes read like American papers. You've only driven home my point about the analogy that Ryan used in his article.

Comment by Temple Stark

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:32:11 EST

Point of order ::: >>The attorney speaks for the client - and so in newspaper accounts, it is reported that the client spoke Newspaper accounts don't read that way (At least in this neighborhood of America where I live). The attorney is quoted by name. It's an important distinction, the same as when the US President's Press Secretary speaks, it is he that is quoted,not the president. Though it is every now and then accompanied by the phrase, "speaking for the president." -Temple, print journalist / newspaper reporter.

Comment by alienboy

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:08:55 EST

I do in fact get to see every single comment Ruvy. It's actually quite hard work and demands a certain level of concentration. That's the hard part in our muti-tasking world but I feel that the comments are where BlogCritics really comes alive and deserve their integrity to be preserved.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:31:00 EST

Alienboy, if you are rhe comments editor, that means you have to slog through all the comments I post along with that of everybody else, no? You truly have my sympathy. How high are your hip boots, and how do you keep them deodorized? (g)

Comment by alienboy

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:17:24 EST

COMMENTS EDITOR: Anthony Grande has NEVER been banned from commenting by myself or anybody else for that matter and his remarks in #31 are deluded and false.

Comment by Anthony Grande

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:38:37 EST

5 bucks says he bans me, again. He would just love a one sided, dry and boring Blogcritics. I think I am the only regular Conservative commenter here, am I not?

Comment by Anthony Grande

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:32:34 EST

You call me prejudice and when I call you on it you decide that you aren't going to talk to me? ahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaahah ahahahhaahhahahahhahahahhahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a copout!!! That is just unbelievable. You use all these negative stereotypes saying that there are no Conservatives in Cali and that saying that there isn't a single pedophile that happens to be gay and saying all pedophiles are priests and that all the Palestinians want is to have a border. And the funny thing is that no matter what you still have to read my "frozen mindset and inability to neither write coherently nor process any information that jars with your large set of prejudices" comments. Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahah!!!! I can't believe this. This is so funny. I defeat all his biased partisan arguments and then he refuses to talk to me. Hhahahahahhahahahhahhahahhahha!!!!! This is in the top 10 highlights of my 2 years at Blogcritics.

Comment by alienboy

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:09:14 EST

ANTHONY: I know I'm not the first person on here to tell you this, as I'm the person that reads ALL the comments, but your frozen mindset and inability to neither write coherently nor process any information that jars with your large set of prejudices means that I have reluctantly decided not to bother with you anymore. Your kind of damaged thinking processes just can't be reasoned with, so from now on I shall just read your posts to make sure that they comply with BlogCritics Comments Policy.

Comment by Anthony Grande

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:54:36 EST

ALIENBOY: I have been disappointed in you for a long time now. Spreading false liberal propaganda and such. And I am the prejudiced one? Who is the one who is justifying the terror attacks on innocent Jews who never have done anything to deserve this? I would like you to tell me and everyone how, Anthony Grande, is a racist. Give me one example. Can you tell me how ANY Palestinians are in danger? "I'm going to be laughing at that one for weeks to come" Explain. How are normal, law abiding, unterror affiliated Palestinians in danger (besided by being blown up by their own people)?