Comments on: Clarifications, changes, and an update: Three posts in one!

By: walt

walt — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:12:40 +0000

Angel–interesting, your comment wasn’t emailed to me (which is supposed to be automatic). No, I meant the Monty Python running gag in one episode. See my response to Ruth Ellen. Cheers.

By: Elena O'Malley

Elena O'Malley — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 22:24:55 +0000

Funny, a friend of mine just had to moderate/ban today on her blog, which she normally doesn’t do. Is Mercury in retrograde?

By: Angel

Angel — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 22:08:48 +0000

Totally understandable on the issue of civility. I have always debated that myself and have reached similar conclusions that I would not tolerate any yelling, personal attacks, slander and defamation and other assorted flames. I think that is something every blogger should feel comfortable about doing, and if the visitor dislikes it, like you say, it is a free country, and there are other places out there for that kind of rudeness.

Oh, and did you mean. . .?

“The Inquisition, what a show.
The Inquisition, here we go.
We know you’re wishin’ that we’d go away!
So all you Muslims and you Jews
We got big news for all of yous:
You’d better change your point of views TODAY!
‘Cause the Inquisition’s here and it’s here to stay!”

Just a little humor. Best.

By: walt

walt — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:03:27 +0000

1. Well, I said “clearer about two things”–then proceeded to clarify three things. The punch line of each instance of that particular Monty Python running gag, where the people bursting in always relied on one more thing than they announced they relied on.

2. I’m not apologizing. I’m rethinking. The effect of banning individual posts that don’t meet my standards for civility may turn out to be the same as banning the poster, but it may not.

By: Ruth Ellen

Ruth Ellen — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:27:05 +0000

Two things:
1. I know the quote, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with it.
2. Don’t apologize for banning people who have repeatedly behaved badly.