Hall Monitor Again


I assure folks that the last thing I have a desire to do is to censor or monitor comments, but despite receiving a heartfelt plea from several commenters that their behavior would get an upgrade and that they would work to contribute to a more constructive atmosphere here, some have slipped into old habits — and I’ve had a ton of complaints.

I have no patience for toxic, vulgar ad hominem attacks on anyone — and thus, am for a while turning on the comments review function again. When things get back to a tone I can accept, then I’ll stop this review. I encourage folks to debate, to critique, to challenge — but if you can’t do it in a civil way, get your own blog. You may not participate here.
I don’t care what you think is right — or what others believe the standards should be. When I receive a dozen or so complaints, that means that hundreds, if not thousands, are offended who did not write. No appeals here — and for the record, I have no patience with people who want to debate my rules, test the lines, or want to argue that I have “sold out” because I won’t permit their vulgarity to dominate the comments section. Some who comment bully others — and I’m now getting lots of comments that otherwise would have been posted to the blog emailed to me privately because they don’t want to be personally attacked by some others who comment.
I’m working on some options that may allow me to accept automatically comments from “trusted commenters” and then review others, but thus far, my platform isn’t allowing me to do this. Will do my best to get a better option up — but for the time being, because of the disappointing behavior of a few, I need to institute this.
Will work to review comments as best I can on a timely basis — but the reality is I’m extremely busy. Shame on those of you who have caused this.
— Steve Clemons


9 comments on “Hall Monitor Again

  1. SkepticalRegularFolk says:

    Well, I guess the glitch on this thread doesn’t warrant repair, eh?
    Thats a first.


  2. Carrieboberry says:

    Thanks Steve.
    I really enjoy your blog and have for years. I can’t think of a time when I have ever commented — maybe a few words about the pooches or that I appreciated the way you handled coming out on the blog.
    Anyway, thanks for the always thoughtful analysis and for creating a civil and interesting community.


  3. Paul Norheim says:

    Me thinks that some otherwise charming influential DC friends have hinted that POA is an embarrassing
    spot on Steve Clemons’ tie.
    Me hopes that Steve finds his way back to his old generous self.


  4. Paul Norheim says:

    “The rules here are simple.” (Steve Clemons)
    “– and for the record, I have no patience with people who want to debate my rules…” (Steve Clemons)
    So let me just point out that you’ve actually changed the rules this time, Steve. In all fairness, “vulgarity”
    was not among your simple rules until now, rules that I, like most people commenting here, regard as
    sound rules, and have tried to respect; and the use of “vulgar” metaphors and rhetoric happen to be an
    essential part of POA’s modus of expression and raison d’


  5. Pissed Off Regular Folk says:

    I’d love to know the political make-up of the complainers. Its not real comforting, after all these years commenting here, knowing that all you need do is organize an email campaign of complaints, and you can manage to force the censorship of a poster.
    Steve, on more than one occasion, has said the DC players are fair game, just don’t attack other commenters. Well since the last dust-up, I have adhered to his wishes, with one or two exceptions, when I took the Pearlman troll to task.
    What “respect”, or “civility”, do I owe the likes of Nelson, or his gang of cohorts in DC??? Its not “we the people” that have engaged us in three wars that are bankrupting this nation. Its not “we the people” that bicker like schoolgirls in our nation’s capital, while Rome burns. Its not “we the people” that decided the highest elected officials need not be accountable before the law.
    Steve bandies terms like “regular folk” when he gushes adoringly at Nelson’s bit of worthless political posturing. Yet when I post Nelson’s PFD, it gets removed. Steve doesn’t think that Nelson’s 16 million dollar net worth is worth mentioning when advancing the premise that Nelson is graciously descending into the gutter with us simple working stiffs?
    Steve should spend a day out here in the REAL Regularfolksville, on a construction site with me, to see what the REAL “regular folks” are saying about these bickering carpetbagging criminals ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE in DC. I’ve got news for him, my stuff is really pretty tame.
    If Steve wants to REALLY get the pulse of whats on the street, perhaps he shouldn’t censor the street, eh?
    Fact is, nobody HAS to read a commenter’s contributions. I pass comments by as a matter of routine. Frankly, some people’s views just don’t interest me. Perhaps I should organize a few friends to complain about those people, eh? Get ’em censored?
    What was removed??? Not ad hominem towards other posters. But very real heart felt disgust and abhorence for what these criminals in DC are doing. Perhaps I stepped on the wrong toe. Nelson’s??? Seems so.
    I strongly suspect that the gripe isn’t vulgarity, or ad hominem that has prompted these people to complain. And it seems Steve is willing to use the delivery as the excuse to silence the message.
    Those poor sensitive readers. I mean hey, who wants to discuss the good folks in DC who are slaughtering and torturing Muslims, looting the coffers, and spitting on the rule of law, when some vulgar pissed off “regular guy” is telling ya what the “regular folks” are REALLY thinking.


  6. rc says:

    Why would they need to do this if there was not something fundamentally wrong with the situation in Palestine-Israel?
    I’d suggest the technique has been well tried and tested here.


  7. JohnH says:

    “The passionate support for Israel expressed on talkback sections of websites, internet chat forums, blogs, Twitters and Facebook may not be all that it seems.


  8. DakotabornKansan says:
  9. Richard says:

    Thank you. Although I don’t always agree with your evenhanded approach, this is one of the few blogs that actually provide quiet analysis. I normally try to leave my more aggressive reactions to my blog because I believe that, in most instances, it is important to take sides because academic discussions of critical, fluid situations don’t offer solutions. Just more talk. However, it is necessary to have a place for this type of discussion, if only to deal with the consequences of those positions that are taken in order to achieve a particular result.


Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *