« The Laws of Grace | Main | The New York Times' Arthur Sulzberger Sees the Writing on the Wall »

A rather graceless message from the guy whose prayers begin "to whom it may concern..."

As I've said before numerously, I am an agnostic. I tend to doubt the existence of a higher power, but I lack the certainty to proclaim myself an atheist. I ascribe to no belief system that depends on a supreme being, but simply try to live my life by my own moral standard, doing what I determine to be the right and decent thing in each situation. I don't succeed at it as often as I wish, but that's a fairly common failing among us humans.

That being said, I read my colleague DJ Drummond's piece about Grace and kind of shrugged it off. It was well-written, sincere, profound, intensely personal, and didn't reach me in the least.

But that didn't keep several of the regular asshats here from chiming in. Yes, BarneyG2000, nogo postal, Herman, and John, I am referring to you.

Here at Wizbang, we pride ourselves on our tolerance, our openness. I don't know of any other blog with anywhere near our popularity that accepts comments, doesn't require registration, and so seldom bans commenters. We put up with a hell of a lot, because we believe in certain principles. Alan Dershowitz said it best, as far as I'm concerned: the best antidote to "bad speech" is "more speech."

But that open invitation into our virtual home here does not grant anyone permission to drop trou and leave a steaming pile on our dining room table.

Last fall, I wrote a similarly-themed piece, about how some very dear friends of mine had lost parents in the immediate past. And immediately one of the resident trolls -- "muirgeo" -- siezed upon the opportunity to engage in partisan bashing. I asked and warned him to stop it. He persisted. He, in effect, pissed all over my dear friends' times of grief in his mindless hatred and partisanship.

So I took out Olaf's Troll Hammer that Kevin has entrusted me with, and I banned his ass. I did so without a moment's hesitation, and without a hint of regret since.

Now the very same thing is happening, but this time it is not a friend of mine. It is a colleague, a fellow poster here at Wizbang.

As I said before, I tend to be far more protective of others than of myself. (It's part of my odd little self-made ethos.) What those four trolls have done is something I would most likely shrug off if was aimed at me.

But it isn't.

BarneyG2000, nogo postal, Herman, John, consider this your warning. There were a couple of other threads posted today where you could have made your points about Iraq. My own piece about Lt. Watada comes to mind. There was absolutely no call for what you did, you miserable, worthless pieces of shit.

Your choices are simple:

1) You can voluntarily leave this site.
2) You can take this warning to heart and behave yourselves in the future.
3) You can continue your behavior for a brief while, before I catch up with things and ban every IP you've ever posted from.

Regardless of your choice, if you have the slightest shred of human decency and compassion, you will offer your apologies to DJ. Judging by his piece, I suspect he might accept it. It would be in character for a good Christian, presuming your apologies were sincere, and DJ strikes me as someone who tries to live up to those standards.

Personally, I wouldn't accept your apology. But that's because I'm the site's resident non-Christian. I have no inner compunction to forgive those who trespass against me.

Count your blessings that it wasn't one of my pieces you pissed all over.


Comments (96)

Amen.... (Below threshold)

Amen.

Ditto.... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Ditto.

Agreed... (Below threshold)
FMK:

Agreed

I guess we'll see what they... (Below threshold)
Clay:

I guess we'll see what they're made of.

Jay,I think you're... (Below threshold)

Jay,

I think you're too patient and too lenient with these juvenile sociopaths who don't even seem to know how to assume the best of others and begin interactions with empathy and decency.

I might have been willing t... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

I might have been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, since I thought it possible that they didn't know about Mr. Drummond's conditon.

But when Barney kept it up, and nogopostal and Herman jumped in, I believe they showed their true colors. They have no shame, they have no capacity for empathy nor sympathy.

They are the sorts who I wouldn't piss in their ear if their brains were on fire.

One person's opinion.

Are they capable of such ch... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Are they capable of such changes? When hatred is at your core, it is doubtful.

As Al Gore would say:... (Below threshold)
Jill:

As Al Gore would say:

"Zebras don't change their spots."

Jo is the "chinese fortune ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Jo is the "chinese fortune cookie" of conservative homilies. Even when s/he writes a paragraph it's merely a series of disjointed zingers -- sans the zing.

Jay wrote: "So I took out Olaf's Troll Hammer that Kevin has entrusted me with, and I banned his ass. I did so without a moment's hesitation, and without a hint of regret since."

Bad move, then and now, imho. In my experience it will only bring out lurkers to take their place, and typically in an even greater number, as has been noticed by many here on WB! over the last several months since you banned muirego.

I think Barney crossed the line of impropriety, but I think this "I'm holier than thou" attitude of yours, Jay, is over the top. If DJ called for their banning then I'm for it, but there's no indication of that - and I think it's Drummond's call, not yours, Jay. You've set yourself up here as prosecutor, Judge and Jury, and you aren't the aggrieved party -- and the aggrieved party -- I"m guessing -- hasn't requested this. He has more grace.

You should read DJ's post again, and learn from it, as should Barney and the others.

These jackasses wonder why ... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

These jackasses wonder why they get banned and cry and whine about it on other blogs as if they were wronged in some way.

I saw ol' muirgeo trying to start shit on another blog not long ago by breaking just about every rule in the comment policy in a single post. He's still an idiot, just in case anyone was wondering.

Jay as one who has had more... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Jay as one who has had more than his fair share of battles with trolls, I vote you just freaking ban them.

The point at which the comments section went from benifiting the site to hurting the site has long passed. (IMO)

Kevin and I have disussed various aspects of this dozens of times over the years and we both always came down on the same side that open comments where great.

I can't say that anymore.

my 2 cents.

lee:You really gai... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

lee:

You really gained my respect when you told BarneyG to STFU.

Yet, as you know, not only did he not do so, he kept at it.

And then nogo, Herman, and John jumped in.

And this isn't about politics, just as DJ's post wasn't about politics.

I'm curious---what would you do w/ people who behave in behavior that even you grant is beyond the pale?

Remembering that this isn't censorship (we're not talking the government acting), and we're talking about behavior that, fundamentally, is indecent (as in lacking in decency, as in not how one should treat a fellow human being ever).

If someone talked this way about a friend of yours in DJ's condition, or a loved one, would you really just shrug your shoulders and let them keep on, in your own home?

I wouldn't let someone talk that way about you, if you'd posted DJ's comments and were suffering from what he is. That would include wavemaker or Peter F or the proprietors here.

This ain't about politics. It's about basic human decency.

My 2 cents.

I think Barney crossed t... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

I think Barney crossed the line of impropriety, but I think this "I'm holier than thou" attitude of yours, Jay, is over the top. If DJ called for their banning then I'm for it, but there's no indication of that - and I think it's Drummond's call, not yours, Jay. You've set yourself up here as prosecutor, Judge and Jury, and you aren't the aggrieved party -- and the aggrieved party -- I"m guessing -- hasn't requested this. He has more grace.

Since Kevin has entrusted him with the Holy Hammer of Olaf, then I'm afraid he does have the power of prosecutor, Judge and Jury. And frankly, I'm surprised his patience has lasted this long. They should be grateful they got this fair warning. If it were my blog, I would have banned them immediately, with no tears shed.

As for who's aggrieved...we all are, when we have to wade through the hubris to get to some reasonable debate.

It behooves us all to remember that we are guests at Wizbang.

Jay Tea holds the Hammer...... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Jay Tea holds the Hammer...this makes him the Admin/Moderator/Boss who has been entrusted with the authority to excercise such judgement as to just what is within the standards of the blog's owner...so no, Lee, he doesn't have to ask DJ anything... He has that authority because the Blog owner trusts him to excercise that judgement.

To the person who shall not... (Below threshold)
FMK:

To the person who shall not be named.....


Then start your own blog and run it any way you want to.

Despite the welcome additio... (Below threshold)
a4g:

Despite the welcome addition of the Polipundit alumni, I read Wizbang less often than I used to because of the vicious, repetitive trollbots here. Debate is fun; moronic juvenile word-vomit is just... boring.

They hurt the brand.

LO: "I'm curious---what ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

LO: "I'm curious---what would you do w/ people who behave in behavior that even you grant is beyond the pale?"

Turn the other cheek. I do it all the time. Doesn't hurt a bit.

JC: "Since Kevin has entrusted him with the Holy Hammer of Olaf, then I'm afraid he does have the power of prosecutor, Judge and Jury."

Kevin entrusted Jay with a responsibility. "Thor's hammer' is Jay's interpretation of that responsibility, and it demonstrates an immaturity on Jay's part to use his responsibility figuratively and literally "as a hammer" by banning them, imho.

Jay exercised his authority when he was the aggrieved party, and I'm sure that if Kim or Lorie requested the hammer come down on someone it would happen. I think it's DJ's decision, not Jay's, in this instance -- that's all.

Some people think "free spe... (Below threshold)

Some people think "free speech" gives them the right to say whatever they want on private property.

Not so, of course.

Like Jay, I favor a very liberal policy on comments. I would never ban or censor someone for an opposing opinion. When all they do is throw poo, and insist on disrupting every single topic with those tactics, my own patience grows thin.

One wonders, "Just WHAT is it they seek to accomplish?" Obviously, they aren't winning any converts to their positions. Neither are they engaging in an exchange of ideas. They merely throw the same insults and formulaic tirades over and over again.

Again, WHY are they here? If anyone has a rational explanation, other than they just want to disrupt the site with their juvenile behavior, I'd love to hear it.

It's not DJ's decision, Lee... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

It's not DJ's decision, Lee...


It's Jay Tea's responsibility.

Lee, the fact that you are ... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Lee, the fact that you are often the very first commenter hardly suggests a policy of "turning the other cheek."

The fact that you respond to many comments (and certainly those aimed at you), as well as the manner of your response, again hardly suggests one who "turns the other cheek."

You'll forgive me, then, for doubting very much that one who spat in the face (literally or figuratively) of you or your loved ones if they were as sick as Mr. Drummond would somehow get a cheek-turning from you.

That's okay. I wouldn't expect that from you, nor from anyone else.

Just don't try to sell that line around here, okay? It's insulting (but not as insulting as BarneyG, nogopostal, Herman, or John, I'll admit).

Well said Jay..I too, have ... (Below threshold)
Ran:

Well said Jay..I too, have stopped reading most of the threads..the circumlocutive BS is too much!. I agree with A4G. It's just gotten hateful. I understand I'm not a "Regular" here..I mostly read 5 or 6 times a day tho.

Jay Tea,I do not h... (Below threshold)
John:

Jay Tea,

I do not have an issue with Mr Drummond, nor his posts, nor have I ever had an unkind word for him. I do understand about his situation.

My post had nothing to do with Iraq. It was purley theological. My thoughts had more to do with the recent victory God sanctioned for the Colts in the Superbowl game, as claimed by their coach. Some of it relates to my feelings about Ted Haggard's successful healing to become 100% heterosexual after 3 weeks of therapy, praise Jesus.

"We" put a lot of words in God's mouth. Some of it's well intentioned, and I believe DJ falls into that category. Other times it's self serving. When I say Jesus was a Liberal, it's the title of one of a series of essays I wrote on the subject.

Here it is. Read it, and ban me if you like. Just realize the purpose of this site is not to entertain or to educate. It's to sell advertising by making the page counter ring. It's the dissenting voices that make the comment threads go deep, and that brings in the revenue. I know you don't have a lot of experience at business, but go look at Wizbang Bomb Squad and see how deep the comments go. Do you know how advertisers feel about the page hits at THAT section of your site?

An Open Letter from God

Jesus was a Liberal. That's why they killed Him...

My children, more and more, I seem to be represented by what you call "Right Wing Conservatives" or "Fundamentalist Christians", who claim to follow Jesus and who reserve the authority to speak on my behalf. I say to you today, these men and women have no insight into my nature. They are motivated by their own greed, lust for power and bigotry. Jesus had nothing in common with these people.

Jesus was a Liberal. That's why they killed Him.

Jesus was born to an unwed mother of no particular fortune, in the most degrading of circumstances. Taken as his son by a humble working man, Jesus learned to make his living with his hands, back, and the sweat of his brow.

We didn't have to do it this way. It would have been a simple matter to be born as the son of a King, eating from a silver spoon, learning for the great Scribes, perfumed, and riding in gilt carriages, with all the honor and privileges that come from such a high birth.

When you see your religious leaders in their fine Armani suits, with their children in private schools, and their shiny luxury automobiles, think about what it means when THEY say they strive to be "Christ-like".

During my Son's great works he healed the sick and comforted the afflicted. He did not ask for anything in return. There was no profit motive, no subsidies, but he dispensed healing to anyone who would come to him. Why do you allow so many of your fellow men to suffer? I gave you enough resources to share so that all could be comforted. Isn't healing the sick and the afflicted, especially the poor, a central Christian value?

One of the great miracles Jesus performed was dividing of the loaves and fishes to feed the multitude. Receiving food from those that could spare it, he increased it's bounty, and gave it away without expecting compensation. All the people were well fed. If you had taken what I gave you, and were wise and compassionate stewards, you would have had enough for all. Instead, you concentrate your wealth so that a few dine as if they were Pharisees, and so many have empty mouths. Why do you allow so many of your children to go to bed hungry each night, or to go to school without a good meal? How do your policies on school lunches and welfare reflect Christian values?

My Son respected the dignity of all people. Among His followers were prostitutes, lepers, tax collectors, soldiers, and the working class - the scorned, mocked, feared or unnoticed people from the society of their day. He did not dine at the table of kings, exchanging favors for power or political advantage. He was inclusive, not an excluder. If you say you want to be Christ-like, welcome everyone equally.

Christ was not born a rich, white man. Please stop making images of a blond haired, blue eyed Christ. If Jesus came back today he'd look like someone you'd expect on a no-fly list. If you want to do nice portraits and statues, at least get it right.

War is not Christian. When you sing "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war", doesn't that give you a little chill? Out of all the songs you've made for me, I dislike that one the most. Jesus did not allow his followers to take the way of the sword. He disarmed the violent, and made the victim whole.

If you had taken all the resources I gave you, and baked bread instead of bombs, what good things could you have done? How do your "Conservative" policies treat other people? With respect, seeking good will? Or shall we just bomb them, until they behave? In the history of the world, hate has never brought forth any fruits other than more hate. Violence only brings more violence. The serpent does not issue truth. I thought I made that clear, but perhaps you were not listening. My children, I am disappointed...

Jesus was also a liberal when he taught his lessons on the separation of church and state, and the separation of religion and commerce. His advice to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's'" and the driving of the money changers from the temple were intended to make this clear. Jesus did not even carry money, rather holding it in common for his disciples. Yes, Jesus was a socialist at worst - liberal at best.

So.... The next time you see a fat, white man, in a nice silk tie, telling you what Jesus says, or what Jesus would do, consider what I've told you.

I gave you the sense to tell right from wrong, good from evil. You decide.

Love,

God


I guess we'll see what ... (Below threshold)
marc:

I guess we'll see what they're made of.
Posted by: Clay

I think that was well established a long, long time ago.

Kevin entrusted Jay with a responsibility. "Thor's hammer' is Jay's interpretation of that responsibility, and it demonstrates an immaturity on Jay's part to use his responsibility figuratively and literally "as a hammer" by banning them, imho.

Jay exercised his authority when he was the aggrieved party, and I'm sure that if Kim or Lorie requested the hammer come down on someone it would happen. I think it's DJ's decision, not Jay's, in this instance -- that's all. Posted by: Lee

Sorry Lee you're so far off the mark you didn't even hit the target.

See over there in the left sidebar? It proudly proclaims "Section Editor: Jay Tea"

Jay has more than a metaphorical hammer in his tool chest and with luck it will be used on those that consistently go far outside the normal bounds of human interaction.

Funny, this late in a thread directed at them none of the offenders have come to their own defense.

NOTE: J, he may not have contributed to the atrocity in D.J.'s post you would do us all a favor to extend the same warning to r-puke. He's as bad or worse than the rest.

You know the sad, sick part... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

You know the sad, sick part of John's over-extended comment?

If he really believes this cr*p, then he is trolling, even at the expense of DJ, in order to "drive away readers/advertisers."

Just realize the purpose of this site is not to entertain or to educate. It's to sell advertising by making the page counter ring.

To him and his ilk, driving away an a4g or a Ran is worth whatever pain might incidentally occur to DJ.

"The point at which the com... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"The point at which the comments section went from benefiting the site to hurting the site has long passed. (IMO)"--paul....This is a Comments Blog! That's the purpose it serves best. Do you want this to be one of those "registration temporarily disabled" sites? Why not rename Wizbang "Turtle Time", because that's what the visitor would think. Would you even view comments if it was "ditto", "ditto", "amen"...? Just to add your "amen"? The site would wither on the vine. As it is , it's one of only 5 sites I regularly visit, and the only one where I MIGHT be more intelligent than the posters (which would usually kill the deal, but it doesn't, because it's a COMMENTS BLOG!, i.e. too much deferred interest to be a news/blog review. Not enough vigor to be in the partisan vanguard. It just is what it is. Why mess with success?

JayTea ("Jay") gets my Hero... (Below threshold)
-S-:

JayTea ("Jay") gets my Hero of the Year Award and All -Round Gentleman Citation becuase he is both of those.

I'm -- I guess can be called -- a senior Wizbang poster having used to post very often but in the last year not nearly if at all posted except a few comments lately. So I do not know and am not familiar with the posters here who Jay Tea has discussed, but, if he's upset and concerned, I think anyone can take that to the bank for just the reasons he explains here.

It was partisan during the Fall of the last Election and was difficult to maintain any polarity of opinion accordingly, but there were (and probably still are, just, like me, not posting here too often) a routine few who maintained both polarities with civility, even during that election experience.

But, the internet's alleged anonymity makes it all to easy for irresponsible people to graffitti sites with ill thought out or even destructive comments to and about others. I respect and admire Wizbang for their tolerance in that regard (far more tolerant than I am with my site about that behavior) but when Jay Tea says he's reached his limit, I think it's safe to conclude that the nicest, most tolerant, lenient and engaging blogger as can be found anywhere has reached his tolerance level.

Wizbang is the best of sites. Jay Tea is among the best among that. Partisan hacks, beware. It's not about partisan politics any longer, it's about...well, right and wrong.

About banning and open comm... (Below threshold)
-S-:

About banning and open comments sections, moderated comments slow down interaction to a screeching halt until a site is administered to read them in realtime around the clock, but, unfortunately, they are very often necessary.

Site registration is another possible utility to maintain some degree of control over posters, however; maybe Wizbang could consider that (I know that I am for my own site's pending redesign). The TypeKey registration process is, unfortunately, however, easily abused by Spamemrs and doesn't do anything to maintain comment quality, just to implement a small degree of accountability for those who do comment.

I don't know what the answer is other than to offer site registration for commentors, monitor those and ban when necessary per site administratoin comfort. It does reduce comment volume on any site but sometimes that's better than the drudgery involved with open and often irrresponsible recklessness in commenting.

>>>My children, more and mo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

>>>My children, more and more, I seem to be represented by what you call "Right Wing Conservatives" or "Fundamentalist Christians", who claim to follow Jesus and who reserve the authority to speak on my behalf. I say to you today, these men and women have no insight into my nature. They are motivated by their own greed, lust for power and bigotry. Jesus had nothing in common with these people.

Jesus was a Liberal. That's why they killed Him.

---------------------------------

No, John, Jesus laid down His life for the sake of mankind, as it was commanded and foreordained by God that it be done.

Sins of man killed Jesus Christ's human life, God raised Him up.

Christ is neither "liberal" nor dead.

Placing political (human) terms upon the purpose of Christ is profane, in my view.

And, the issue of warfare and polarities as to Christians...it's late, I'm tired, there's not enough space to go on about these complex issues here, but, suffice it to say, Christians are Christians. There's no "range" of what and who a Christian is, only as to what a man's (or woman's) emotions and politics are. If you believe Christ died for your sins and you accept Him as personal savior and believe in Him accordingly and do what He asks, you are a Christian.

You can't be lukewarm or "too far" in one political range or another as a Christian. You either are one or you are not. There are a lot of people -- a LOT of them -- who define Christianiy and use a church or affiliation as a social club or something cultural, who do not maintain a relationship with Christ. People draw wrongful assumptions accordingly, but Christ remains the same.

I read a lot about typecasting on a political scale who Christians are assumed to be by those who are not Christians -- and that's fine as much as any and all opinions are and can be -- but they're simply inaccurate in regards the faith. You can't be "rightwing" or "leftwing" as A CHRISTIAN, but only as to your own politics.

There are no "fundamentalist Christians" in any actual sense. IF there are, then we're all "fundamentalist Christians" but in my view, there's nothing "fundamentalist" (as in limited, dimwitted, whatever negatively) about Christ and those who believe in Him.

About warfare, I'll leave that to another day or another writer, but, the statement by Christ to those who love Him, that we are to "turn the other cheek" is not one of a call to doormatting but of Christ telling us, in faith, to respond to and confront aggression with authority.

John: Jesus's apostles carr... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

John: Jesus's apostles carried swords and used them. Remember Peter's clean slice in the Garden of Gethsamene? And though Jesus is not described physically in detail (except that he was exceptionally handsome, being "wanting" of nothing), King David is described in the Hebrew as very fair complected. Some Talmudic scholars interpret the descriptive word (?) to mean red-headed, i.e. carrot- topped.

John, Jesus wasn't a libera... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

John, Jesus wasn't a liberal in the way you imply. He was an Israelite and pure Hebrew upholding the truths of the Mosaic Law against a half-breed Greco-Aramean dynasty of imposters: the Herodians, who only maintained the appearance of temple worship, etc, as a useful fundraising device; ergo: Christ driving out the moneylenders (money exchangers -for-profit) at the temple.

John: "Render unto Caesar t... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

John: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render unto God the things that are God's" Note: Caesar belongs to God! That's the syllogism that is strangely missed or ignored.

Personally, I think Jay Tea... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Personally, I think Jay Tea has shown great restraint. I would have banned these hosers long ago, not because they compulsively disagree with virtually ever post, but because they are offensive in the extreme and they insist on lowering the quality of the discussion for everybody. It's about taking pleasure from annoying other people, and that's just twisted and wrong.

Banning them is less about stifling their free speech and more about providing freedom of speech for the rest of us.

Long overdue.

Nice going Jay T., but if y... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

Nice going Jay T., but if your going to keep an eye on things, you better make sure your internet stays working!!! lol...........

Jay, I'm under the impressi... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Jay, I'm under the impression that you went through this incident with twice as much handwringing as is necessary.

Those four people you warned will produce 10 insightful comments within the next ice age. Screw it. Let them do it on some other site. Let them drive down the traffic elswhere. Don't warn them, ban them. Make some tough choices about quality vs quantity of comments.

While you're at it, give Thor's Hammer to a couple of regulars that you trust.

Jay, I was so upset by thos... (Below threshold)
goddessoftheclassroom:

Jay, I was so upset by those vicious (as in "characteristic of vis") comments that I almost posted a plea to you to ban their writers.

But I didn't. I figured it wasn't any of my business.

Having read your post and the comments, I've decided that as a long-time Wiz Bang! fan, it is my business. I cherish the free exchange of ideas and the humor I find here. When commenters betray the rules of civlized behavior, they are not fit to comment again.

I echo Jim Addison's comments, and a4g's succinct "they hurt the brand" is very apt.

Jay, you are patient and kind, but I trust that if the problem reoccurs, that hammer will be a terrible swift sword (mixed metaphor intended).

JayUse your own good... (Below threshold)

Jay
Use your own good judgement. A commenter above made a good point about trolls like those you mentioned "hurt(ing) the brand." That is something to consider given the absolute vileness of their comments.

Dang, can't remember who sa... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Dang, can't remember who said it (maybe it was the SpongeBob), but I remember hearing the Freedom comes with resposibility. If ya act irresponsible, ya lose your freedoms.

Jay,Your comments,... (Below threshold)
drlava:

Jay,

Your comments, sensitivity, and wisdom are spoken like a true atheist. It's OK to come out of the closet buddy.

To use an analogy, if this ... (Below threshold)

To use an analogy, if this site were a music radio station, some of the commenters here are just making intolerable noise. Not music, just noise. I change the station because of them. It's like fingernails on a chalkboard. Viscerally repulsive.

I can take anybody's ideas, but gratuitous insults serve no purpose. I can't assume that Jay is going to be the Insult Police, but he certainly can be a Garbage Man.

While only a lurker here (f... (Below threshold)
BChoinski:

While only a lurker here (for the most part), I think Jay should start being a bit more aggressive with the ban stick. There are lots of blogs I go to, but recently it has been hard to get much enthusiasm to read the comments to the entries, due to the mass of troll-crap that has proliferated in the past months.

I have no problem with diverse viewpoints -- echo-chamber comments would be boring as all get out, but some people are just plain sociopathic retards who get off on disrupting things.

Monitor, warn, then ban with no mercy if they can't learn to be civilized.
BC

Well said, Jay.... (Below threshold)
Garion:

Well said, Jay.

Lurking Observer: "Lee, ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Lurking Observer: "Lee, the fact that you are often the very first commenter hardly suggests a policy of "turning the other cheek. The fact that you respond to many comments (and certainly those aimed at you), as well as the manner of your response, again hardly suggests one who "turns the other cheek."

Being first to comment, and not shrinking away from an argument or debate, has nothing to do with my policy of "turning the other cheek". By "turning the other cheek" I was referencing my policy of (attempting) to not respond to personal attacks in-kind. I have more trolls following me, flinging more poo, than most anyone else here. For the vast majority of those personal ah hominem attacks, I turn the other cheek and ignore them

Comments like this "...you miserable, worthless pieces of shit." are thrown around on Wizbang all the time. I've certainly received my share directed at me, and when I do -- for the most part anyway -- I shrug it off as just someone who has little control. In this instance the "you miserable, worthless pieces of shit." line wasn't directed at me, but I receive insults like that pretty much on a daily basis.

So, should someone who refers to their fellow American as "you miserable, worthless pieces of shit." be banned? I don't think so, I think just turning the other cheek is the right answer -- move on. Be and adult and ignore it. It's just someone's attempt to get under your skin in a childish, immature manner.

In this case "you miserable, worthless pieces of shit." was written by Jay Tea, in this very post, and was directed at BarneyG2000, nogo postal, Herman and John -- and that tone is deemed acceptable on this blog. If the " Section Editor" writes it, it must be acceptable, right?

If the policy at Wizbang is such that it is all right to to tell someone that they are a "miserable, worthless pieces of shit" you're going to get some inappropriate actions in return. You reap what you sow. I'm not complaning or suggesting that should change, but if the section editor is the one telling someone that they are a "miserable, worthless pieces of shit", I find it a bit hypocritical for that person to then start swinging the metaphorical hammer when others act inappropriately as well.

But, before some calls me a "miserable, worthless pieces of shit." in response let me point out again that I spoke up against Barney's behaviour on DJ's thread, and support the banning of the the "offenders" if that's DJ's wishes.

As I said, you reap what you sow, but my advice is to just turn the other cheek and go on. We're all adults here. And I apologize if me repeating "you miserable, worthless pieces of shit." was offensive to anyone. I don't use language like that myself. I think it is highly inappropriate and only serves to degrade things further, but it was needed to illustrate the point at hand.

Posting on sites such as th... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Posting on sites such as this one is not a right, but a privilege, something that is usually lost by the left. You all have been obliging in allowing all to voice opinion, but there is no reason to absorb abuse unnecessarily.

You have the right to eliminate anyone who careens outside the bounds of taste, that being defined by you.

It's your home. Not theirs.

I admire how much much detritic verbiage you've tolerated already.

And once more, Godspeed, DJ.

"Jesus was also a liberal w... (Below threshold)
Kristian:

"Jesus was also a liberal when he taught his lessons on the separation of church and state, and the separation of religion and commerce. His advice to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's'" and the driving of the money changers from the temple were intended to make this clear. Jesus did not even carry money, rather holding it in common for his disciples. Yes, Jesus was a socialist at worst - liberal at best."

What? Socialist? Liberal? Okay, seriously, WHAT?

What did John the Baptist and Jesus preach? The KINGDOM of God. To be ruled, forever by the incarnate God. Absolute theocracy, with the Deity sitting on the throne. Everything y'all claim the Christian Right is trying to establish is the exactly what Jesus preached. That man is trying to implement God's plan in Man's time is wrong, and misguided. But to somehow change the message that Jesus preached into that nonesense is also wrong.

I am in total support of yo... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I am in total support of you Jay. I will also agree with another poster to say Wizbang has always been my main stop when on the internet. But lately I find myself hesitating to check in because of all the hate and bile that is spewed and tolerated. We can have differing opinions, persuasive arguing without the vile names and insults thrown about. It lessens the import of the comment. I know both sides do this, but the lefties provoke and instigate, baiting the hook as they say, and some on this site take it. Unkind to say the least. ww

It seems that on a politica... (Below threshold)
mantis:

It seems that on a political blog with open comments, there are often times when commenters are too caught up in trying to score points that they don't recognize that some posts are merely meant to be humorous, and others are deeply personal, and that we should act accordingly. I've been guilty of this myself (only on the humor side, I believe), but what happened on DJ's thread reveals a level of tone-deafness and lack of civility among a number of the interlopers here that was embarrassing. When I read his post I, like Jay, found it sincere and well-written, but as I am not religious it did not touch me in the way it may some. What it do was make me concerned for DJ's health, as it could mean there has been a turn for the worse (of course it could also mean the opposite). That in that context the first thought on some people's minds was to bash religion or harp about Iraq is really quite sad. You guys need to grow up.

And that, mantis, is... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

And that, mantis, is why, while I disagree w/ you a fair bit, I respect where you're coming from.

Kudos on your understanding the basis for rational, civilized discourse.

DITTO, L.O.I find ... (Below threshold)

DITTO, L.O.

I find it disconcerting how the cloak of anonymity enboldens people to display their worst instincts. Can you imagine that any of "the four interlopers" would dare to express themselves in such a fashion publicly? If DJ's statement had been part of a lecture, would they make their comments to his face? I would hope not. There is in (most of) us the instinct to exercise common courtesy, discretion, tact. That we are anonymous makes it harder to resist baser temptations, but it is sort of a character check.

DJ's post was in reg... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:


DJ's post was in regards to the relationship between God, man and law. That is all fine and good, and I did not have any particular opinion regarding his beliefs or statement.

I guess I should have left it at that, but I thought it would humorous to point out that almost every post ends up about Iraq or Bush. The comment "And how does this relate to Iraq?" was clearly tongue-in-cheek.

My second comment was off base, and was very snarky, and I will take the hit for that, but I do not see where either comment justified responses such as:

You are a s**thead s**theap, and frankly are worth less than the scrapings off the bottom of a pair of boots that just walked through a cow pasture.

Way to be such a stinking jackass, Barney!


Was there some hidden meaning in the post? Is God off limits here? Did it have to do with DJ's cancer? If that was the case, I was not aware of these hidden rules/meanings at the time of my first two posts.

As far as cancer, many posters said that I had no empathy. I found this odd, since DJ on the 2nd wrote this about someone that died the day before of cancer:
"I always found Ivins representative of that self-devoted clique of liberal narcissists in the media who thought they owed no honor to anyone with whom they disagreed, and like the KKK were inclined to shrug off protests from decent folk regarding their conduct - they know better than we common folk, don't you know?"

So in that paragraph DJ show empathy how, by calling Ivers a "narcissist", indecent, honor less, and KKK like? And I am the asshole?

Jay, you run a wonderful blog. You put up with much more then most. I hope that you have noticed that I almost never use profanities, and try to add to the debate, not just tell others, with opinions I disagree with, to go kill themselves.

You can go a head and ban me if you wish, but like so many other sites, it is no fun debating against people that agree with you.

Sadly, wavemaker, I know a ... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Sadly, wavemaker, I know a few who would do exactly that.

They are sad people. They view everything through a political lens. Sympathy is metered out, based on the "worthiness" of the person who is suffering. (The exact opposite of Shakespeare.)

If a political opponent (not even a personal one) is suffering, they celebrate, sometimes in private, sometimes not. If an ideological opposite is sick or in pain, they take the time to try and make them feel worse. "That's what they deserve" they say self-righteously.

Fear not, come wartime, they are first to decry the "demonization" of an enemy.

And there's always a "lesson" to be gained from their nastiness. Lecturing the dying and pontificating before the pain-wracked, that's their ticket. Head-tilt and all.

I used to think it was b/c they were young---but I've encountered those easily old enough to know better, and have concluded that it's a character flaw. Sure, being anonymous might reduce the public restraints on them. But it merely removes a mask that covers what was always there for many.

There is such a thing as ra... (Below threshold)

There is such a thing as rational discourse and then there is abusive nonsense. The site belongs, not to the trolls but to the people who administer it. If they choose to remove permission for people to be abusive, seriously nasty or just plain nutty - that's THEIR choice and not the choice of anyone else. I exercise the same controls and make no apologies for it. I would refuse to permit commenting altogether, but luckily most of those who do comment are rational, intelligent human beings, and thus their opinions and comments are of interest to me. In fact sometimes, those comments help me to take my own thinking in a slightly different direction, rethink some gut reaction I may have had. Of course, this is possible because I am not hopelessly mired in jingoistic, mindless partisanship.

My heart, as always is with DJ, and Jay Tea - you know I respect and admire you greatly.

Sorry, BarneyG, no sale. <... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Sorry, BarneyG, no sale.

You were posting that crapola after you were told DJ's condition.

--I noted DJ's condition at 5:31.
--Lee, hardly a wingnut, told you to chill at 5:46.

You write about "Lorraine Day" at 5:48. You even reference the 5:31 post. What was up with that comment, Barney? Was that "humor" Was that "sympathy"?

Then, at 6:11, you're claiming that the right has no sense of humor. Which is supposed to reference your first post? Why was that humor, if you didn't claim (now) that you even knew about Mr. Drummond's condition?

Think about that, Barney. Your comments are so out of line that even Lee is telling you to chill it.

But that's not what you did, is it. Including after you were told what was on Mr. Drummond's mind. Just as John, and nogopostal, and Herman, and John did.

John, maybe sometime I'll t... (Below threshold)
Chase:

John, maybe sometime I'll take the time to rip your little "Jesus was a liberal" essay apart.

Jay, thanks for posting this. It's a shame a sincere post by DJ had to be twisted and politicized.

All this rage over a respon... (Below threshold)
Reality:

All this rage over a response to a blog post, none to the continuing carnage in Iraq. Grow a pair.

JT: I was goi... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

JT:
I was going to say that I find it pathetic and appalling that, after all this, BarneyG and John show up, not to apologize (not a word of apology there in either of their long commentary), but to argue "Hey, don't ban me, b/c your site would suffer."

Such altruism!

But then I looked at the column Barney referenced about how Mr. Drummond was lacking in empathy b/c of what he wrote regarding Molly Ivins, and I am so utterly appalled that I think the piece of s*** needs to be directly rebutted.

Barney claims that Mr. Drummond was somehow unempathetic b/c his column observed his disagreements with Ivins.

But Mr. Drummond LABELS the post "Peace and Rest to Molly Ivins, Solace to Her Family and Friends", and specifically notes that he's commenting on her articles, not on the person herself.

And what is the very next line in that post?

But Ivins passed away this week, and from breast cancer to boot. Since my own diagnosis I have learned quite a bit about cancer. There is no peaceful, gentle way to die from it.

So much for Barney's claim that he didn't know about Mr. Drummond's condition.

And then Barney has the temerity to argue that it's not he who's lacking in empathy, but Mr. Drummond?! Perhaps he feels DJ owes him an apology?!

(wavemaker, this is what I mean. Disagreeing w/ Molly Ivins, and noting said disagreement, is somehow the same thing as saying a sick person's observations should relate back to Iraq.)

Utterly revolting. Vomit-inducingly revolting.

John, it is so DEEPLY disho... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

John, it is so DEEPLY dishonest for you, and frankly all the other liberals claiming this same nonsense, to say, "My thoughts had more to do with the recent victory God sanctioned for the Colts in the Superbowl game, as claimed by their coach."

In NO WAY whatsoever did Tony Dungy claim that God let them win the superbowl. What he said was:

"But again, more than anything, Lovie Smith and I are not only African-American but also Christian coaches, showing you can do it the Lord's way. We're more proud of that."

Not once did he say God let them win, he said that he and Smith did it the Lord's way, meaning they carried themselves throughout the entire season as good Christians. Lovie Smith said:

"We're pro football coaches, but we are also men of faith. A faith that defines who we are. It comforts us in tough times and produces hope in the midst of adversity. It is through our common faith in Jesus Christ that we have individually experienced God's love and forgiveness."

Dungy never claimed God let them win, he lives as a good and decent man and tries every day to instill that in his team and his organization, along with Lovie Smith. These are traits that, sadly, you will never understand.

Jay Tea, I haven't seen it ... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Jay Tea, I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but if it has I'm sorry for the repetition. In my opinion, I think the trolls who wrote what they did on DJ's piece were trying to bait you into banning them, so that they would have their "documentation" that you have banned them, to lend credence to their Kos Kiddie's piece. They are reprehensible, and lend absolutely nothing to the context of the piece. Banning them might only fuel their agenda; ignoring them entirely takes the wind out of their sails, so to speak.

One of the marks of the tro... (Below threshold)
Listkeeper:

One of the marks of the troll is that it immediately turns to rationalization of its actions when confronted....

Jay,When I first rea... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

Jay,
When I first read those (Barney's) comments I was so angered by them that I immediately wrote and erased four comments, trying to find the right words. You have the responsibility to "protect" the board and I support your stance.

John, as for the comments about:
1. "onward Christian Soldiers", the song is about "spiritual battle" not about actual "war"- but about a spiritual battle against Satan (liberals love Jesus as a liberal but ignore his central purpose of being God in the flesh).

2. Jesus - "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Again, a spiritual sword.

3. Jesus' healings and miracles were done to turn people to repentance and a relationship with God, not out of some liberal utopian ideal.

4. When Judas said "we should sell this perfume and give the money to the poor" - Jesus rebuked him and said "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me"

5. "My Son respected the dignity of all people" - you mean like when he said to Peter "get behind me, Satan!"

6. To say "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's'" is about separation of church and state is, honestly, one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. That was a teaching about submission to (whatever) authority you are under.

7. And about preacher's getting paid "well", - the apostle Paul said "Church leaders who do their job well deserve to be paid twice as much, especially if they work hard at preaching and teaching. It is just as the Scriptures say, "Don't muzzle an ox when you are using it to grind grain." You also know the saying, "Workers are worth their pay." That doesn't mean they should live extravagantly, nor does it mean they should be destitute.

And, please be careful putting words in God's mouth. How do you know "the spirit of the Lord is upon me...to set the captives free" wasn't referring to those oppressed under Sadam Hussein. Your "essay" isn't Scripture and isn't His words.

Barney, I find you very typ... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Barney, I find you very typical of liberals who throw out snarky, hateful, off-topic junk, then when you're called on it (often with strong words, and admmitedly mine were strong) you claim you were just joking, then accuse everyone else for not having a sense of humor.



Why do John and other liber... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Why do John and other liberals claim Jesus was a liberal, and then go on to try to scrub the world of any mention of Jesus, or God, or Christmas?!

Frequently when I read Wizb... (Below threshold)
Farmer Joe:

Frequently when I read Wizbang, I ask myself, "Why do I even bother reading the comments here?" It is franky unconcionable to me that anybody, no matter what their political leanings, would attack, cajole, make fun of, or otherwise deride a sick man's profession of faith. And I am an atheist making that statement.

D.J., I wish you the best. Jay, I say ban away, and don't agonize over it.

Those of you who have been less that gracious to D.J. - eat it.

John - Jesus was NOT a libe... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

John - Jesus was NOT a liberal, nor was He a conservative. He was and is the Son of God. Don't dare to label him with human constructs. He came to do His Father's business, not lead a political movement.

Your understanding of scripture and the gospel is no more clear than that of the Pharisees. For example, the feeding of the 5000 equates to the school lunch program and welfare? That's one of the loopiest things I've ever read, and illustrates your profound ignorance of the Bible.

Jesus Christ fed the 5000 to teach them a lesson. Ever gospel records the miracle. But only John records the ultimate conclusion. The crowds, their bellies full, followed Jesus around the lake. They were thinking that Jesus was THE ONE, the messiah. And they were right, but for the wrong reasons. They wanted to make Him king! to over throw the Romans and restore Israel. But the Lord saw right through them.

He then preached a sermon so offensive to their ears that most of the crowd melted away, many never to return. The sermon? "I am the bread of life."

"I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe."

The entire episode is recorded in John 6.

So you see, John, feeding the 5,000 was not a "liberal" act of compassion, but rather served a purpose of wresting Jesus' followers from their stomachs and miracles and onto bigger things: coming to God.

John, I suggest you get yourself a good study Bible before you do some real damage by passing around your Biblical illiteracy again.

Lurking, I never said that ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Lurking, I never said that I was unaware of DJ's condition. I was not aware that his post was in reference to his condition. I only recently found out about his condition per the Molly Ivins post, which I found in very poor taste.

My humor comment was about my first "Iraq" reference, and nothing else.

In none of comments did I insult or mock DJ's condition or his faith in God. I even included a piece about a cancer survivor that beat her disease through her in faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. What is so terrible about that?

If you and others took it the wrong way, that was not my intention.

"For the vast majority o... (Below threshold)

"For the vast majority of those personal ah hominem attacks, I turn the other cheek and ignore them..."

That's hogwash, Lee. No you don't. You dish it out too. Your snidery and insults are common and sometimes preceed any others. I've been personally insulted by you with no provocation. So don't feed me that. While you're quick to point out you don't use the phrase, or some derivatve thereof, that you repeated ad nauseum in your recent commentary, then constantly using "moron", "idiot" and other colorful phraseology I can assume is A-OK by you as it seems you have a shortcut key to spell those out.

You use "idiot" and "moron" quite liberally and Jay uses "miserable, worthless pieces of shit" seldom.

It seems only a matter of quality over quantity to me.

The way I see it is that the four commenters under review acted wholly inappropriately, Jay called them a name and warned them. YOU make a meek comment (almost in passing) about their impropriety and go on and on and on about Jay's admonition.

What you have failed to acknowledge here is that Jay didn't ban them. He gave them a firm warning. And you seem to be vehemently opposed to that warning.

Your snidery and insults... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Your snidery and insults are common and sometimes preceed any others.

What kind of other behavior should one expect from a hypocrite?

And Lee, you are a hypocrite. And you're convicted by your very own words.

"If you and others took it ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"If you and others took it the wrong way, that was not my intention."

It figures that barney would take the typical liberal non-apology. "I'm not sorry for what I said, I'm sorry that you took what I said the wrong way."

As an occasional reader of ... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

As an occasional reader of this site, I would have had no idea that DJ was battling cancer from reading his post, so I think it's a bit much to take the attitude of "How can you say that? He has Cancer." While I certainly sympathize with DJ, and have no ill will towards him, I think it's a bit much to assume that any commenter to that post would know that he was referring to his own battle with cancer (assuming he was.)

I waasn't particularly impressed with the comments in question, but I think it's more than a little hypocritical for you to draw a line in the sand, as if decency has ever been a priority for this blog. The only time I seem to read an objection to comments is when they come from someone who differs with you.

"Whenever you get the moonbats agitated, you can be sure you are on the right track.

Just be careful to stay a safe distance clear of their cages - they tend to throw their poop a lot."

"Puke and Lee are prime examples of what would come out of the liberal sewage."

"You really ARE a miserable, pathetic little turd, ain't you?" (Thos one authored by Jay Tea)

(Concerning Pelosi) "This photo was shortly after her clitorectomy.

As mentioned by Ann Colter on H&C last night."

This is just from the last couple of posts. You could also throw in just about any comment from Scrapiron. The fact is, there's a mentality on this board that anyone who espouses a liberal point of view is a "troll." It would be nice if some of you actually knew how that word is applied. Someone who makes a point, then repeatedly comes back to defend their point and answer criticisms, is hardly a troll. Lee is a perfect example. He rarely name calls, and ussually tries to back his points up with facts. Yet I see him consistently referred to as a troll. The number of people on this board who are eager to cancel out any viewpoint other than their own is a joke.

As for DJ, I haven't read a lot of his posts, but I have read enough where he defends the war in Iraq and calls for further killing, that I think it's appropriate to call him out when he talks about God's grace. Many people on the right hide behind the Bible to promote their political beliefs. You may disagree with that assertion, but it certainly is fair game for debate.

This is primarily a political board, with a lot of very hot debates. To the extent that DJ wants to talk about his illness and his feelings about grace, fine. But he also posts about a lot of other things. When I read that post, I thought it was a bit overblown, and not something I particularly agreed with, being an agnostic. I also had no idesa the author was battling a serious illness. I think it's unfair to presume that everyone was responding to him as the sick guy, rather than as the proseletyzer.

OK, let the evil name calling begin.

ChrisO that is all well and... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

ChrisO that is all well and good that you didn't know about DJ's condition, neither did I, and the post confused me, but the point of this whole thing is that barney, nogo and john DO and DID know of his condition and took advantage of what they saw as an opportunity to bash. Because you don't have a history here doesn't mean the ones being called out don't, that is the whole reason they were called out, because of their history here.

ChrisO,Troll!... (Below threshold)
mantis:

ChrisO,

Troll!

I used to visit Wizbang mul... (Below threshold)
Thrush:

I used to visit Wizbang multiple times a day to see what was new. But I've been coming here less and less in the last few months. It's not the content of the stories that is driving me away, it's the comment sections.

While I can count the number of discussions I've participated in using both hands, it was the quality of discussion that made it interesting (even if I was not an active participant). This quality has gone severely downhill.

BDS, general disrespect, insane logic and cheap partisan point scoring are the norm in the comments section these days. It's no longer a discussion, it's two sides spewing vitriol at each other. Those who would behave in a civilized fashion are drowned out.

I'm not looking for an echo chamber. I'm looking for intelligent dialog.

I no longer care to take the time to wade the garbage that is the current comments section. It's a rare case when I expand the section these days.

Well said, ChrisO - and tha... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Well said, ChrisO - and thank you.

As far as cancer, many post... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

As far as cancer, many posters said that I had no empathy. I found this odd, since DJ on the 2nd wrote this about someone that died the day before of cancer:
"I always found Ivins representative of that self-devoted clique of liberal narcissists in the media who thought they owed no honor to anyone with whom they disagreed, and like the KKK were inclined to shrug off protests from decent folk regarding their conduct - they know better than we common folk, don't you know?"

I could not stand her, but I would not mock any effort of hers to express some spirituality. And DJ was right on target.

So in that paragraph DJ show empathy how, by calling Ivers a "narcissist", indecent, honor less, and KKK like? And I am the asshole?

Yes. This was neither the place or the time for you to wreak venegance. "Vengeance is mine," sayeth Jay Tea.

Jay, you run a wonderful blog. You put up with much more then most. I hope that you have noticed that I almost never use profanities, and try to add to the debate, not just tell others, with opinions I disagree with, to go kill themselves.

You can go a head and ban me if you wish, but like so many other sites, it is no fun debating against people that agree with you.

A fair point, but you made a stupid choice for this battle.

"Jay Tea, I haven't seen it... (Below threshold)
Dave:

"Jay Tea, I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but if it has I'm sorry for the repetition. In my opinion, I think the trolls who wrote what they did on DJ's piece were trying to bait you into banning them, so that they would have their "documentation" that you have banned them, to lend credence to their Kos Kiddie's piece. They are reprehensible, and lend absolutely nothing to the context of the piece. Banning them might only fuel their agenda; ignoring them entirely takes the wind out of their sails, so to speak. "

They may be under the illusion of being aggrieved. None of that, or what they say at Kos is as important as this website. However, if Jay hates banning people, merely replace their comments with haikus honoring Bush.

In Honor of W:
If he had a long white robe,
long hair and a beard,
He'd almost look like Jesus.

I'm unfortunately, having t... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I'm unfortunately, having the same problem, Thrush.

I don't come around as often as I used to. I think I started when I found myself replying to people with thinly-veiled, or overt taunts as a form of response.

I've always tried to avoid that and go for reasoned debate, but it'd been more and more difficult. And it does absolutely suck to wade, ankle-deep through shit just to find a salient point or on-topic post...and both sides of the political spectrum are to blame for this.

I think my interest will pique again, but if it doesn't, I've enjoyed my time here and learned alot.

ChrisO & p'p'-birds of a fe... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

ChrisO & p'p'-birds of a feather....

as if on cue..... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

as if on cue..

D-HoggsI looked at... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

D-Hoggs

I looked at all of DJ's posts that appeared from the headline that they might have addressed his illness, and I didn't see any of the people in question commenting. On what do you base your assertion that they knew about it? To clarify, I didn't say I have no history here. I still read the blog with some regularity, so I can understand how someone who doesn't read every single post muight not have known about DJ's struggle. I say I'm an occasional visitor, because I used to be much more regular. I posted quite a bit about Valerie Plame, in particular. The reason I stopped posting is because I would literally spend an hour researching what I was going to say, because I expect the people here to disagree with me, but I'm determined not to be called out for having my facts wrong. The responses would usually run about 5-1 in favor of people insulting me, or dismissing my comments with statements like "The trolls are out today." The reason I would come here, and why I have hardly ever gone to Kos or DDU, is that I like to know what the other side is thinking, and what kinds of arguments they'e making. But there was so little discourse, and so much name-calling, I just got tired of it.

I did notice that DJ wrote a very gracious post about Ed Bradley's passing, followed by this from spurwing plover in the comments section: "Would god want anything to do with these secular journalists anyway?" I guess I missed Jay Tea's outraged response.

And my original point still stands. I can't recall when I've seen Jay Tea, or any of the other moderators, respond with any kind of criticism to vile comments from conservatives on this board. I think his outrage now is a little puffed up.

All this rage over a re... (Below threshold)
marc:

All this rage over a response to a blog post, none to the continuing carnage in Iraq. Grow a pair.
Posted by: Reality at February 8, 2007 10:25 AM

Added to the list?

ChrisO & p'p'-birds of a feather....
Posted by: jhow66 at February 8, 2007 01:31 PM

Should be a charter member of the list.

Jay, I am a believer and I ... (Below threshold)
DaleC:

Jay, I am a believer and I can forgive, but I see nothing from these 4 (BarneyG2000, nogo postal, Herman, John) that seems they seek forgiveness. Personally I would have already thrown overboard.

"D-Hoggs, I looked at all o... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"D-Hoggs, I looked at all of DJ's posts that appeared from the headline that they might have addressed his illness, and I didn't see any of the people in question commenting. On what do you base your assertion that they knew about it? "

Guess you didn't look close enough ChrisO, john comments:

"Please accept my best wishes for a full recovery.
John"

barney comments:
"Lurking, I never said that I was unaware of DJ's condition"

nogo comments on a thread that DJ is speaking about his cancer:
"first...Thank you for expressing respect for someone
who was a true voice of not only Texas but we "damn liberals."
...as well as several other comments on that one

The bottom line is, they knew, barney and nogo post on pretty much every single thread on this website, of course they knew. And if they didn't, which doesn't matter as they did, they could easily come here and say, "I'm sorry, I didn't know".

ChrisO, in case you missed ... (Below threshold)

ChrisO, in case you missed it, I'd suggest carefully reading DJ's post in question and please explain to me why it was appropriate, or even excusable, for the commentary that followed regardless of DJ's condition.

They did indeed know from whence his post was inspired and even if they didn't, their responses were nothing more than an attempt to foul the surroundings. They read this blog daily. That they didn't comment on the very post in which DJ revealed his condition in no way indicates they didn't know. I didn't comment on it either, but I remember the post clearly.

This is exactly why I, too, rarely open the comments section anymore.

ChrisO,While I thi... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

ChrisO,

While I think your comments about Lee and are a little off and your support of John and Barney is weak, I completely agree with the lack of warning against some of the more vile commenters who lean right.

jhow and his stupid, unwarranted, childish, comebacks (to Lee especially) have done more to derail comments section by bringing the level of discourse down to a grade school playground then anyone elses. And Rob in LA has almost nothing to contribute except vile insults through lazy use of slurs and profanity. I wish we could extend the warning to those two as well.

We all get carried away sometimes and succomb to rather childish tactics while making a point or refuting someone else's. The folks Jay calls out would do well to just apologize, move on, and calm down. Although it seems Barney and John are taking the warning as an insult instead of a criticism.

J.R.,On one hand, ... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

J.R.,

On one hand, I see what you are saying about jhow and Rob.

On the other hand, if the trolls were gone, or at least well behaved, I doubt those two would make the kinds of comments you are talking about.

Sheik Yur Bouty <i... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Sheik Yur Bouty

"On the other hand, if the trolls were gone, or at least well behaved, I doubt those two (jhow and RobLA Ca) would make the kinds of comments you are talking about"

You got to be kidding, Sheik. These two are genetically incapable of anything else. If they both dropped their pants and tried to count their IQ, they couldn't get past 3 in combination.

I've certainly been comment... (Below threshold)

I've certainly been commenting less lately on WB simply because I can't stand wading through the comments. There are people on both sides of the aisle (though more come from the left) who do nothing but stir up trouble. Some of them have already been named, some have not. It gets old very fast. I have better things to do than listen to children whine, complain, and sling mud at each other over and over.

Jay Tea, I think you are far too soft on trolls. I have no problem with healthy debate (it's the reason I think people like mantis should be allowed to stay), but most of the leftward commenters are idiots who need to be banned. They're driving off those of us who would otherwise love to stay.

I would extend the list you made to jp2 and (probably) Lee. I think you could bring down the banhammer on jhow66 as well because all (s)he does is stir up trouble with the rest of the trolls.

I admire WB's open comment policy, but that policy only works as long as the commenters show some respect for the hosts and the rest of the commenters. I think you're wise enough to distinguish between dissent and trolling as shown by your past actions.

"You can go a head and ban ... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

"You can go a head and ban me if you wish, but like so many other sites, it is no fun debating against people that agree with you."

Posted by: BarneyG2000

It amazes me that you can call what you do here "debate", BarneyBut it certainly doesn't shock me.

Puke,Once again, t... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Puke,

Once again, thanks for raising the level of debate. It's nice to see you are taking the whole situation to heart.

J.R. thanks for letting me ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

J.R. thanks for letting me know that I get under your skin also. If you don't like what I post don't read it dumbass.
"pukeface already knows what I think of him.
SilverB' are you trying to tell us that you are the only "intellectual" that posts here? Who cares whether you have "problems" with anything. Until Jay says for me to cool it stay tuned.
S'Y'B' you have it right. Nite nite trolls.

Until Jay says for me to... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Until Jay says for me to cool it stay tuned.

But he won't. That would demonstrate consistency and a lack of bias on his part. So feel free to keep posting your vapid, content-free insults.

jhow,You don't get... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

jhow,

You don't get under my skin. I think you are an immature child, with the intellectual capacity of a peanut. And I don't read your posts, I skip them, my only problem with you is that you bring down the level of discussion and do nothing to add to the conversation.

So, ChrisO, I'm curious. </... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

So, ChrisO, I'm curious.

We now have BarneyG saying "Yes, I knew DJ was ill." And we have him saying "My comments were justified." And we have him saying "I won't apologies [sic]."

Still justified? Would you criticize BarneyG?

Why do I doubt it?

Hooo boy! We have us anothe... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hooo boy! We have us another smartie nerd in J.R. He has to be "smart" as he knows what I post without reading them. Peanuts are smart. Just ask Jimmy Carter. I don't try to bring anything to the discussion. If I did it would bury you even if I am as dumb as a peanut. I just troll around for the trolls and get under their skin like I did yours. Oh I forgot that wasn't why you answered because you didn't read my post. Sorry.

And Brainless you don't ins... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

And Brainless you don't insult anyone? Naaaa

jhow, how do you live with ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

jhow, how do you live with yourself? You must annoy your parents to no end. You're absolutely right though, you bring nothing to the conversation. You would do us all a favor if you just left. Grow up.

And sorry, I do read your posts, and I laugh at them, because I can't believe there is someone out there dumb enough to actually write that crap and think he is getting under someone's skin. You're pathetic.

The Hammer of Odin is swift... (Below threshold)
epador:

The Hammer of Odin is swift and silent. The noise the object it hammers is loud but is quickly followed by silence. Everlasting silence.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy