Today on Blogcritics
Home » Interview: Christopher Rose, Comments Editor for Blogcritics.org

Interview: Christopher Rose, Comments Editor for Blogcritics.org

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The following interview with Christopher Rose was conducted via email a few months ago. The interview is part of a series that will end up in an article that provides history and analysis of Blogcritics.org

How did you come to be involved with Blogcritics.org (BC)?

I just surfed in one day and was drawn in by the way the site is so open and accepting to all kinds of people. I made a few comments and then, nervously as I was a fairly novice blogger, applied to join. After a few months I was offered the role of Comments Editor, which I mostly love.

Can you tell us a little bit more about your role in BC and how it has grown?

After becoming Comments Editor I also started contributing ideas, some well received, about how we could develop the key qualities of the site into other areas. Hopefully some of this will start to become more apparent over the course of this year as we look to develop some more sites.

You are part of three major projects aside from BC. Tell us a little more about those projects and how you juggle your responsibilities.

I don’t know how major they are, but I love the potential the web offers to develop new ideas quickly and economically. In addition to my own three blogs, I love the idea of citizen journalism and have developed a repeatable model of how such sites can be launched and made interesting, relevant and profitable very quickly, and this is something I’d like to develop more fully.

I am also developing an entirely original idea which has the (modest) twin aims of making people’s dreams come true and ploughing a lot of money into micro-credit financing projects to help the world’s poorest people to help themselves. I think the micro-finance model is very strong due to its inherent sustainability and that it doesn’t create welfare dependency, but actually empowers people to help themselves. The project just needs a little work on the payment system and a little legal clarification to be fully actualised, but I need to find solutions to those two issues, so if anybody reading this would like to help, I’d be very grateful!

I am also developing a new news and reviews site to indulge my love for Robots, it’s called Robot of The Week. Beyond that, I am also outlining four hopefully major new online projects, two for BC and two of my own. Taking on a bit more than I can handle is possibly one of my signature habits, but I like to be busy – and life is for living, right!

Ethics, Normative Standards, Policy Making, and BC

At the heart of your decision to blog under your real name is an ethical question that surrounds online media outlets – the issue of accountability. Of course there are real people behind these 'false' online identities and they often are accountable, but somehow the cost free nature of leaving even the most borderline crazy comment or article under an assumed identity does probably sabotage perhaps reasoned commentary. What are your thoughts on the issue?

I think it’s mostly a question of personal preference. I have several online identities, of which the most well known is Alienboy. It’s a name I started using for online gaming, which was reinforced by the fact that I live in Spain, so I am indeed literally an alien boy! I have a semi-dormant-due-to-lack-of-time blog called Alienboy’s World, and when I first joined Blogcritics, I carried on using that ID for a while. I then decided that the character of Alienboy just didn’t seem right for Blogcritics and reverted to using my full name.

Alienboy still has a lot of plans for new sites that will be developed down the road away, but these are temporarily on hold. I don’t see the identity issue as an ethical question unless people abuse it by pretending to be other people, which is obviously totally unacceptable.

As to sabotaging reasoned commentary, that’s actually a more complicated issue.
Freedom of speech is obviously a major concern and ought to be protected, but if people abuse that by making deliberately insulting or offensive remarks then I think there is a case for careful and restrained editing. It’s an incredibly fine line that calls for some serious and careful judgment before hitting the delete key and an issue that I try to keep in the core of my thinking at all times.

In the end, I just do the best I can and hope that will be acceptable but it is impossible to please all the conflicting points of view all the time.

Can you elaborate on how norms are created within a new media organization? The kind of decisions that you had to take, along with rest of the BC community, about the nature, editorial policy and style, and commenting policy of BC.

When an organization forms, obviously the decisions are taken by the people who start it up. The three people that own and maintain BC are mostly incredibly open to input and tolerant of a very broad range of views, and I think that is an important part of what BC is about. It would have been a much less interesting proposition if "The Troika" had tried to imprint their own very diverse views onto the site and wisely they have largely avoided that.

On the other hand, they are all so very busy with stuff that it can be a bit hard to find out what they are up to. I hope to be able to help bridge that gap and enhance the level of communication between us all over the coming months.

Blogcritics is trying to create the norms of running a media organization on the fly. The key policy decisions – open commenting, open attitude towards accepting new writers, etc. – tell me about the behind the scenes struggle that has gone on around them and the kind of ethical questions that you have had to deal with to come to this place.

Those policies were in place before I joined so I can’t shed much light on those early days but I feel they were absolutely crucial decisions. Dogma and other rigid belief systems are absolutely the enemy of all humankind and I very much doubt that I would have become involved with the site if it limited itself in that kind of way.

In your role as a Comments Editor, you probably have had to deal with ad hominem attacks, spam, and other conflagrations with people using all sorts of sophisticated ways to get their message across. Tell me a little more about the challenges and how you deal with them while maintaining a free open commenting policy.

There is a perpetual and natural conflict between freedom of speech and the need to maintain the site’s neutrality, its open door policy, and simple readability. It’s obviously important to foster an atmosphere of mutual respect and try to maintain some basic level of good manners or simple common civility.

On the other hand, to simply not allow any kind of personal remark would render the site sterile and stifling. Wisely, the site uses guidelines rather than rigid rules, which is much more time consuming to manage, but I believe that it is well worth the extra time and effort involved.

How do you deal with people who post multiple comments under different names? Should this practice be frowned upon and why?

It’s not actually that common. There are a few who like to do that for dramatic effect, which is fine. When it is done to create a false sense of support for somebody’s point of view, that is basically just lying and is not tolerated. The worst is when people pretend to be other already known characters in order to create false content and is also not tolerated.

What kind of policy decisions do you think are integral to how you see BC? As in what kind of policies can you not see BC without, if any?

I just think that as long as BC maintains its open door policy and avoids becoming controlled by dogma, it will remain the fascinating multi-faceted jewel it is.

From the policy decisions of BC, how do you look at the role of a Critic? Is there merit in everybody being a critic kind of model? It certainly seems like a competitive market of ideas. What do you see are the positives and negatives of the blogosphere?

There is information and there is the interpretation of information. Making sense of the ever-increasing complexity of the world we live in is a vital part of contemporary life. There are many often conflicting takes on all that on BC and that dialectic struggle is part of what makes it so special.

The blogosphere is widely credited with making mainstream media (MSM) more accountable. Do you see that as its job? If not, then what do you see are the roles of the blogosphere?

It’s both more complicated and simpler than that. There has been a huge flattening of society worldwide, although obviously different parts of the world are at different points in that process, which has been going on for at least fifty years now. A lot of the old school mainstream media have imitated the blogosphere by adding comments space to their websites for example. That’s a step in the right direction, but until they value it as highly as sites like Blogcritics do, it often seems like a token measure rather than really getting the point.

To answer your original question, it’s certainly not the blogosphere’s job to make the MSM do anything. They will either come to understand the nature of the new world order we live in and adapt to it or they will fade away into history.

Blogcritics has grown exponentially over the past three years from a small fringe Internet outpost to a relatively decent sized media outlet. Tell me about some of the key inflection points in this journey as you see them.

The two key points for me have been: 1. The incredibly smart decision by the founders to accept all (legal) points of view on the site and not limit the BC space on any cultural or ideological grounds and 2. The later introduction of having all articles edited rather than self-published. This has been crucial in establishing a massively popular, well-written, non-dogmatic site. The fact that the whole operation, editors and writers alike, is entirely voluntary is pretty impressive, too. We really do work hard to help the writers improve their writing ability and bring their work to as wide an audience as possible.

Perhaps this current place is not the final resting place of this ongoing change. Tell me about your vision of BC for the future?

I think the main site can carry on as it is. I would like to see all the fantastic content by a diverse range of great writers put to better use. I think the simple fact that we have around 1,700 (and rapidly growing) writers offers a lot of potential for the rapid creation of other, more focused sites in the future. I have a few ideas for the kinds of sites we could develop, sites that would offer compelling content around specific themes and those conversations are ongoing. I don’t really know what other ideas the troika may be considering.

It seems the blogosphere itself is going under reorganization – as media companies poach top bloggers and buy more electronic media assets. Do you see a more corporatized blogosphere in a few years time?

Probably both yes and no!

Unless a company understands the interactive essence of the online world, its attempts to operate on the web will be compromised. For example, trying to prevent employees from expressing their views is symptomatic of the old way of doing things. It’s been well documented that companies that empower their workers and include their feedback in the company’s development have a competitive edge over those businesses that try to run an old school centralised command and control structure which sees workers as nothing more than cogs in a machine.

I believe in transparency and that carries through all levels of a business in a particularly powerful way that transforms everything it touches, to the mutual benefit of all. A corporatized blogosphere that seeks to control what is said will always be inferior to one that allows true free expression.

Powered by

About Spincycle

  • http://desicritics.org Aaman

    Very good interview, looking forward to more episodes.

  • http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip Winn

    Great interview, Spincycle, and not just because I love Christopher’s answers. :-)

    Thanks for all the work you do, Christopher. You are really a huge part of making this site great.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Navel-gazing at its deepest.

  • Arch Conservative

    “and the need to maintain the site’s neutrality”

    This coming form Mr. Rose? Rich…..very very….rich.

    But then again, considering I have yet to be banned despite Mr. Roses numerous veiled and unveiled threats to do so, maybe there is someone among the BC editors that is actually earnestly committed to objectivity.

    Without me and perhaps a very small number of others who are not quite as vocal or persistent about exposing the neverending tide of hypocrisy and horseshit coming form the left, BC would bejust another Daily Kos or Moveon.org.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    Ya know, Arch, there are other sections that don’t discuss politics.

    Chris has an unenviable job responsibility, and the line on comments is where Chris says it is, even though I probably would draw a different fault line. Thankfully I don’t have to.

    The blogs at Gawker only allow commenters if they are invited by an editor or another commenter. Yes, it excludes the casual reader, but it actually ups the quality and potency of how people are discussing and bantering, knowing what’s acceptable and what won’t fly.

    But ultimately the job comes down to the commenter. Would you say half the shit on the Internet to a stranger standing in line with you at the bank? Lately I’ve tried to act the same in both the real world (by which I mean the Internet — THESE ARE MY FRIENDS!!!!1!) and the world outside the computer.

  • RogerMDillon

    “Would you say half the shit on the Internet to a stranger standing in line with you at the bank?”

    Of course, he wouldn’t because he is a c#nt, which is an acceptable thing to call someone according to him.

  • Arch Conservative

    “Would you say half the shit on the Internet to a stranger standing in line with you at the bank?”

    Of course not. Most people are constrained by other considerations in the real world that do not exist on the internet. For that reason I think the stuff that people post on BC is more true to what they actually think and feel. I mean if I have a boss that’s a major liberal asshole I’m not going to tell him\her that for fear of losing my job but on BC if I call a liberal asshole a liberal asshole who is helping to ruin this country with all of his bullshit beliefs what I have I really got to lose?

    “Ya know, Arch, there are other sections that don’t discuss politics.”

    I’m aware of that and the few posts in those sections I have read have been unbearable. A recent example was a post I read in the culture section by that couple, Dan and Jennifer, that gives the dating and relationship advice. The post was advising thirty year old men on how to approach and talk to women. I’m sorry but if your a thirty something year old guy and you need a website to instruct you on how to make contact with a woman you’re interested in then you’re a lost cause. The next time I waste my time looking at a Dan and Jennifer article there better be pictures of Dan and Jennifer in full bondage regalia, holding paddles and riding crops, whilst standing over one of their better looking female BC fans that has been stripped, hog tied and has a ball gag in her mouth.

    Until then I think I’ll just stick to the politics.

  • MCH

    Chris;
    I thought for sure you’d say the best part about being comments editor would be the nightmares about chickenhawks and Max Cleland…

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Temple – but what a cute navel!

    Arch – You’re turning into quite the stuck record. Pay attention now and try and take all this on board:- I’ve never tried to ban you ever; I’ve argued against banning you and others; I wouldn’t need permission to ban you if I decided it was necessary. Got it yet?

    Matt – everyone has their own lines. I’m not sure mine is where you think it is!

    Roger – lol!

    Arch – tell me this, is there anybody you disagree with that you actually have any respect for or is it simply that you hate everybody that disagrees with you?

    MCH – Fortunately I’ve yet to dream about BC at all.

  • Arch Conservative

    Arch – tell me this, is there anybody you disagree with that you actually have any respect for or is it simply that you hate everybody that disagrees with you?”

    That’s a pretty fair question Christopher. I guess when it comes to the direction that my nation is going to take and the shaping of the culture I do hate everyone with a far left agenda and have absolutely no respect for them at all. And by far left agenda here are some of the things II am referring to:

    -absolute and gleeful support of abortion in every possible imaginable situation and the use of outright lies to support this position
    -the coddling of illegals to the point where they are treated with more concern and respect than real Americans
    -the support of open borders and the view that we must be global citizens first and americans second and therefore American soveriegnty and national defense must be subject to and approved by the international community
    -the advancement of an ever expanding, socialist like welfare state and the ubiquitous opposition to all forms of capitalism and business
    -the culture of moral relativity…the equating of alll behaviors as equally acceptable and allowable not matter how aggregious
    -the constant interjection of race into every issue for political gain which of course includes calling all republicans and conservatives racists while people like hillary don insulting dummed down southern accents that are more reminisceent of black exploitation culture from the 20’s and 30’s than of todays black people in america
    -the attack on all forms of expression of christianity in our society
    -the refusal to take the threat of islamiofascist terrorism seriously
    -the eco-hypocrites like Al Gore that tell Americans we must drastically alter our lifestyles to reduce global warming but then fly around in wasteful private jets and live in huge energy inefficient homes
    -the attitude that America is an empirialist nation to be blamed for all of the world’s problems
    -the militant feminism that is nothing but a toll for leftist ideology and does nothing to empower women as they idolize men like bill clinton who has most likely single handedly sexually harassed more women than all of the other men in arkansas combined
    -The valuing of political correcntess more than intellectual honesty
    -the indoctrination of young people with far left anti american ideology on our campuses

    All of these things are what the far left in America stands for Christopher and as I said I hate the people that believe in these things and have absolutely no respect for any of them and never will.

    It may make perfect sense to you Christopher for one to give creedence to and show respect for those whose beliefs one abhors and who seek to ruin one’s nation through their agenda, but I think that is just plain dumb. Not all people deserve respect or civility.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Arch – take a deep breath – I oppose all those things too. I also oppose right wing extremism in all its varied forms.

    As to your final sentence above, it’s certainly true that not all people deserve respect or civility but this site requires it. Either obey the house rules or you will be ejected permanently. On the other hand, follow the minimalist guidelines and you can make all the political observations you want.

    Now, are you yet prepared to either apologise for or withdraw the inaccurate remarks you’ve directed my way, both here and on other BC pages? Or do you lack the integrity?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Chris,

    I was prepared to let this whole article go with nary a peep. After all, interviews are supposed to make the interviewee look good and air-brush the less pretty parts out of the picture. I’m a good boy and generally prepared to play along with the game…

    But then Bing wrote,

    “I do hate…

    -absolute and gleeful support of abortion in every possible imaginable situation and the use of outright lies to support this position
    -the coddling of illegals to the point where they are treated with more concern and respect than real Americans
    -the support of open borders and the view that we must be global citizens first and Americans second and therefore American sovereignty and national defense must be subject to and approved by the international community
    -the advancement of an ever expanding, socialist like welfare state and the ubiquitous opposition to all forms of capitalism and business
    -the culture of moral relativity…the equating of all behaviors as equally acceptable and allowable not matter how egregious
    -the constant interjection of race into every issue for political gain which of course includes calling all republicans and conservatives racists while people like Hillary don insulting dumbed down southern accents that are more reminiscent of black exploitation culture from the 20’s and 30’s than of todays black people in America
    -the attack on all forms of expression of Christianity in our society
    -the refusal to take the threat of Islamo-fascist terrorism seriously
    -the eco-hypocrites like Al Gore that tell Americans we must drastically alter our lifestyles to reduce global warming but then fly around in wasteful private jets and live in huge energy inefficient homes
    -the attitude that America is an imperialist nation to be blamed for all of the world’s problems
    -the militant feminism that is nothing but a toll for leftist ideology and does nothing to empower women as they idolize men like bill Clinton who has most likely single handedly sexually harassed more women than all of the other men in Arkansas combined
    -The valuing of political correctness more than intellectual honesty
    -the indoctrination of young people with far left anti-American ideology on our campuses”

    and you responded:

    “take a deep breath – I oppose all those things too….” Then you gave poor Bing a lecture on civility, etc (not that he didn’t need one).

    Now all the above is Bing’s agenda (I tried to fix some of the spelling errors – I just couldn’t stand all those words underlined in red – but some of the stuff was just unfixable), not mine, so we’ll not fight over things he believes in.

    But you oppose “the attack on all forms of expression of Christianity in our society?”

    Chris, you are the fellow who calls every version of faith or religion poison in society, a cruel con job that prevents people from seeing reality, etc… That is the Chris Rose I have come to know at this site.

    I’m not trying to misrepresent your views, and I’m not interested in debating them here, but you can’t oppose “the attack on all forms of expression of Christianity in our society” and condemn Christianity (and all other forms of religion) as a poison to society all at once and at the same time.

    My point here is not what you believe in. My point is that none of us likes to be patted on the head like “good little boys” because with rare exceptions, none of us are good little boys. We are sentient (hopefully) adults attempting to express our points of view. Which means we expect someone who says “I agree with all of the above,” when talking about our heart-felt beliefs, to mean it. Which means that he actually has to read through it.

    ‘Nuff said?

  • bliffle

    Strange words from Archie, as usual. How do you feel about the politics of the Political Editor, Archie? Too leftist for you?

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Ruvy, I’m not at all surprised that you have chimed in here for you share the same lack of nuance as Arch.

    I can indeed

    oppose the attack on all forms of expression of Christianity in our society” and condemn Christianity (and all other forms of religion) as a poison to society all at once and at the same time.

    I believe that faithism is an understandable but false set of ideas, mostly these days based around the naive monotheist dogma. I also believe it harms us all.

    I don’t think people should be forbidden to believe it so I would oppose attacks on the expression of the view. Got it? I hope so…

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Oh yeah, interviews are NOT supposed to make the interviewee look good, they’re supposed to inform. I am committed to honesty and openness as far as is practical, unlike idealogues…

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “I can indeed oppose the attack on all forms of expression of Christianity in our society” and condemn Christianity (and all other forms of religion) as a poison to society all at once and at the same time.

    I believe that faithism is an understandable but false set of ideas, mostly these days based around the naive monotheist dogma. I also believe it harms us all.

    I don’t think people should be forbidden to believe it so I would oppose attacks on the expression of the view. Got it? I hope so…”

    Well, bless you, Chris. You have managed doublethink, that creation of Eric Blair in his novel, 1984.

    Mazel Tov!!

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    That’s not doublethink, Ruvy, though I can understand why it suits you to think so.

    What it is is recognising the difference between my opinions and the general rights of others. You should try it sometime…

  • zingzing

    jesus christ, ruvy. you’re going a little nuts again.

    if chris said, “i support the right of others to have an abortion, but i wouldn’t like my child aborted,” is that doublespeak?

    of course not.

    so why can’t he believe that christians have a right to speak (within the limits that we all do) about the things they believe, even if he thinks those beliefs are dangerous and really fucking silly at the same time?

    the “really fucking silly” was mine, not his. obviously.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Thank you, zinger, yer a gent and a scholar, you fucker! :-)

  • zingzing

    oh boy.

    -absolute and gleeful support of abortion in every possible imaginable situation and the use of outright lies to support this position

    that’s just stupid. no one is like that.

    -the coddling of illegals to the point where they are treated with more concern and respect than real Americans

    nope. just want to respect them as human beings.

    -the support of open borders and the view that we must be global citizens first and americans second and therefore American soveriegnty and national defense must be subject to and approved by the international community

    “america” really doesn’t exist, it’s just lines on a map. we live in a global economy. we should think of ourselves as citizens of the globe. when american “soveriegnty” oversteps its political boundaries… like when we confuse “national defense” with “aggressive war.” whatever.

    -the advancement of an ever expanding, socialist like welfare state and the ubiquitous opposition to all forms of capitalism and business

    oh, we leftists hate capitalism and business. i’m going to starbucks for my soy fucking latte now. wearing my chucks and my levis and listening to my chicago/atlanta indie rock cds…

    -the culture of moral relativity…the equating of alll behaviors as equally acceptable and allowable not matter how aggregious

    “aggregious?” “aggregious” to who? you? your morals offend me sometimes. but they are just your morals. that’s why morality is relative. you see no problem with several hundred thousand dead muslims. i do. i see no problem with gay marriage. some people do.

    -the constant interjection of race into every issue for political gain which of course includes calling all republicans and conservatives racists while people like hillary don insulting dummed down southern accents that are more reminisceent of black exploitation culture from the 20’s and 30’s than of todays black people in america

    race is political. there are lots of racial problems in this country. what are the biggest issues in america right now? oh, the cockroach mexicans and the savage a-rabs, right? right? right?!

    -the attack on all forms of expression of christianity in our society

    already gone over this… 1,000 times…

    -the refusal to take the threat of islamiofascist terrorism seriously

    i’ve never seen an “islamiofascist.” as far as terrorism goes, yeah it’s a problem. has been forever. it’s not that we don’t take it as a serious threat, we just think that going about killing more people does not stop “terror.” now does it?

    -the eco-hypocrites like Al Gore that tell Americans we must drastically alter our lifestyles to reduce global warming but then fly around in wasteful private jets and live in huge energy inefficient homes

    gore does his part. you know, we know it. we’ll see about the rest.

    -the attitude that America is an empirialist nation to be blamed for all of the world’s problems

    empirialist! wow. takes me back. my underwear is made out of straw. we do overstep our bounds now and again (like in iraq). and the world is rightfully afraid that we’ll do it again. we are the world’s bad daddy. we aren’t to blame for the world’s problems, but we aren’t helping them either.

    -the militant feminism that is nothing but a toll for leftist ideology and does nothing to empower women as they idolize men like bill clinton who has most likely single handedly sexually harassed more women than all of the other men in arkansas combined

    ok. whatever. are you talking about feminazis? straight-up bull-dyke man-haters? riot grrls? and bill clinton…

    -The valuing of political correcntess more than intellectual honesty

    i don’t think anyone would agree to that.

    -the indoctrination of young people with far left anti american ideology on our campuses

    yes! yes! i came out of my southern state college with a far-left anti-american ideology! and here i thought it was a liberal arts degree. we’ve gone over this 1,000 times as well. i don’t see it. no one but the far righties see it.

    you forgot about the media. that’s why this whole nation is so far left wing. we can’t escape it in college, then we get it in the news papers! and on the television! it’s all around! the vast left-wing conspiracy to indoctrinate us all against ourselves! HATE YOURSELF! HATE YOURSELF! it’s all we get day and night…

  • zingzing

    “when american “soveriegnty” oversteps its political boundaries… like when we confuse “national defense” with “aggressive war.” whatever.”

    ok… trailed off there. i mean to add that when we confuse “national defense” with “aggressive war,” we do need to be reigned in by the rest of the world. going to iraq, especially without a way back out, was certainly stupid. it was also not about national defense. “preemptive war?” a war so that we don’t have a war? what, if we are going to have a war, might as well have a war now? right in the middle of another war? fuck it, eh?

  • Arch Conservative

    Just for the record Ruvy. They’re not spelling errors, they’re typing errors.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Arch – re #11, I’m still waiting for your response…

  • Arch Conservative

    “Now, are you yet prepared to either apologize for or withdraw the inaccurate remarks you’ve directed my way, both here and on other BC pages? Or do you lack the integrity?”

    Is that what you’re referring to?

    Here are the comments verbatim that you posted the other day after I went on my little tirade about the Romney revolution and the evils of all things left wing………

    “If I see one more occurrence of you doing that, I am going to ask the bosses how they feel about your persistent crass vulgarity and rudeness.

    I hope in that scenario they will see that you are incapable of behaving with a basic level of civility and will have to be banned. I also hope you won’t force the issue but the matter is in your own hands. For the moment…”

    Technically you did not threaten to ban me but you did say you hoped I would be banned. Not so very far from what I said.

    So yes I stand corrected….you did not threaten to ban me in that instance. I apologize for misconstruing your sentiments and words although they were pretty much tantamount to what I said they were. I will try to be more accurate in my

    As for this one…which I said earlier:

    “and the need to maintain the site’s neutrality”

    This coming form Mr. Rose? Rich…..very very….rich.”

    I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for an apology on that one. I do not believe you’re objective…many others on this site agree with me and I don’t think stating the fact that I think an editor is not objective is either crass, vulgar or violates the BC policy.

  • zingzing

    in my time here, i’ve only known of a few people getting banned from the site (or put on “vacation”). those have been richard brodie (who is a flat out racist), justoneman (who is a conservative, and an ass), and moonraven (who is a liberal, and an ass).

    i suppose you could say that chris (if indeed it was chris that started the ball rolling on those bans,) has shown consistency, have banned one conservative and one liberal. richard brodie is barely human, so he doesn’t count.

    if there is anyone else who was banned, etc. let me know.

    i guess that anthony grande character was banned, but wasn’t that because he actually threatened to do something to a fellow commentor? it was before my time anyway.

    any others?

    i suppose that chris could have tried to ban dave nalle for the v.p. fiasco. but he didn’t. his edited my comments quite often. i have a dirty mouth. my fingers smell funny.

    chris may not agree with you politically, archie, but in his role as the comments editor, he doesn’t seem to follow any political lines, as far as i can tell. if you have a different opinion than me on that subject, well, i wouldn’t be surprised.

    you pompous worm. lalala.

  • bliffle

    Actually, I’m amazed at C Rose’s patience with commentors that have nothing, apparently, to contribute except cuss words and lurid sex demands.

  • MCH

    “in my time here, i’ve only known of a few people getting banned from the site (or put on “vacation”). those have been richard brodie (who is a flat out racist), justoneman (who is a conservative, and an ass), and moonraven (who is a liberal, and an ass).”

    Yes, and don’t forget Mac Diva and RJ Elliott. Several years ago, RJ was temporarily banned for personal attacks against Mac Diva (although he kept posting using false pseudonyms, like “Reggie,” “anonymous,” etc.); whom herself was later permanently banned for making an allegation against E.O.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “everyone has their own lines. I’m not sure mine is where you think it is!”

    I’d be shocked if they were equal, that’s all.

  • STM

    My view on the point of view of people like Richard Brodie is that we should let them comment, so we never forget how vile their ideas are. And Moonraven’s little holiday … I think she’s back, anyway. I suspect anyhow she was just having a little sport at our expense, as someone on another website who claims to have worked with her says she can be prickly, but is nothing like her cyber/BC persona in the flesh.

    I reckon Chris does a great job of ensuring a modicum of decorum on this site, although I suspect that like the English cricket team, it’s often largely a matter of good luck luck rather than good management :)

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Arch, I see now that one of your issues is that you can’t actually see things for what they are because you’re so dogmatic.

    I didn’t say that I hoped you would be banned, I said that if you continue to ignore the house rules, I’ll reluctantly have to ban you. I also specifically said “I also hope you won’t force the issue but the matter is in your own hands.” So it was in fact exactly what I said and not your own massively subjective interpretation of it.

    I haven’t claimed to be objective, indeed absolute objectivity is a very very hard thing to do. However, I am aware of my own biases and try very hard not to let them make me overstep the mark.

    You, on the other hand, are always so willing to accuse others, myself amongst them, of holding views they don’t actually have. That is what you should apologise for.

    My opinion is that you don’t have the integrity to be truthful about any of these matters as you are in the grip of a strong set of prejudices that actually blind you to the truth. We shall see.

    Finally Arch, please take on board this:- there are three fucking dots in an ellipsis, THREE!

  • Arch Conservative

    “I didn’t say that I hoped you would be banned”

    Yes you did. I cut and paste those very words from one of your posts.

    ” I hope in that scenario they will see that you are incapable of behaving with a basic level of civility and will have to be banned”

    Maybe it’s time you stop playing semantic games and own up to the things which you have said CHristopher.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Arch, you’re so comprehension challenged it’s kind of embarrassing.

    Please contrast and compare:-

    1. I hope you are banned.

    2. If I see one more occurrence of you doing that, I am going to ask the bosses how they feel about your persistent crass vulgarity and rudeness.

    I hope in that scenario they will see that you are incapable of behaving with a basic level of civility and will have to be banned. I also hope you won’t force the issue but the matter is in your own hands. For the moment…

    The first is a statement.

    The second is a conditional argument based upon responses to your own future behaviour.

    You just took out a part of what I said and then misrepresented its meaning.

    Finally, I don’t need permission to ban you if I decide it’s necessary. I just like to keep the troika on board.

    Frankly, they’re far less patient with you than I am and you would have been banned already if I hadn’t spoken against it, as I also did with other recent bannings…

  • Arch Conservative

    ” I hope in that scenario they will see that you are incapable of behaving with a basic level of civility and will have to be banned”

    That’s what you said Christopher.

    I didn’t misrepresent it’s meaning at all.

    Anyone can clearly see that the meaning of that sentence is

    A. That you hope the editors see that I am incapable of behaving civilly

    B. You hope I get banned because of the editors seeing this.

    You’re the only one guilty of misrepresenting anything around here Christopher.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Arch, I’m not going back and forth with you on this any more. You’re clearly incapable of believing anything outside of your fixed idea set, even when it’s right there in front of you. Have a nice illusory life.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    And Moonraven’s little holiday … I think she’s back, anyway. I suspect anyhow she was just having a little sport at our expense, as someone on another website who claims to have worked with her says she can be prickly, but is nothing like her cyber/BC persona in the flesh.

    NOTHING like her cyber/BC persona? You mean she has faculties of reason in real life? That would be refreshing.

  • bliffle

    Don’t waste time with Archie: he’s totally self-involved and has nothing to contribute.

  • Dr Dreadful

    You have a tricky job, Chris. You can’t please everybody and I think the line you take, of firmly reminding people of the guidelines when necessary, is the fairest way to go.

    We should all respect the idea of free speech but also that this site is privately owned and the owners have the right to make house rules. You don’t visit someone’s house and crap on the carpet because you don’t like the other guests.

    I’m all for the occasional insult or cuss word – when used judiciously they can add spice and wit to an argument. However, Arch doesn’t understand the norms of civilized discourse. He doesn’t see that his constant use of insults, aggression and foul language are both antisocial and detrimental to his own arguments being taken seriously. If he behaved that way in a spoken – as opposed to virtual – debate, he’d be thrown out in a heartbeat.

    When he does refrain from those tactics – which isn’t often – he’s actually quite stimulating to argue with and I’d hate to see him banned. But I’d understand completely why.

  • Arch Conservative

    “However, Arch doesn’t understand the norms of civilized discourse. He doesn’t see that his constant use of insults, aggression and foul language are both antisocial and detrimental to his own arguments being taken seriously. If he behaved that way in a spoken – as opposed to virtual – debate, he’d be thrown out in a heartbeat.”

    What you may fail to realize is that I see the refusal of a bunch of leftists to take me seriously as no great loss Dreadful. Posting on BC is very cathartic for me. The opportunity to vent here is sometimes the only thing that keeps me from running every moonbat I see that still has a Kerry Edwards bumper sticker still on their auto right off the road!

  • http://no archLeftist

    Arch Conservative, next time you have a thought – just let it go. [Personal attack deleted] And if you want to run over leftists – go ahead man. You know dimwit I don’t mind sacrificing a leftist brother so that you remain in jail for the rest of your sorry life. [Personal attack deleted]

  • STM

    Oh, no … please, tell me it ain’t true: not two Archies on BC, at polar opposites of the political spectrum. Heaven help us.

  • http://no archLeftist

    Arch Conservative is nothing but a nasty little conservative [Personal attack deleted]. [Personal attack deleted]

    And STM – I am a conservative. It is just I need to use a name to give [Personal attack deleted] the Arch Conservative – [Personal attack deleted] who can only straw man the left because they are too intellectually inferior to do anything else – a little jolt of reality.

    Chris – Ban this guy. He is begging for it. He will beg for it everyday and then when you do ban him he will cry wolf – oh my god another leftist site banned me. Yeah bro, because you don’t have a civilized bone in your jacket. [Personal attack deleted]