walt, i believe that you do _not_ censor.
but some of your good friends do… :+)

the best thing, of course, is that there is
no shortage of soapboxes in cyberspace.
indeed, almost anyone can buy one and
shout whatever they want to the world…

the thing is, i feel like we’re now talking
_at_ each other, not _with_ each other…

but like i said, i’m probably just gettin’ old… ;+)

-bowerbird

1. This particular blogger absolutely does not censor based on (relevant) viewpoint. I’ll censor based on language, abusiveness, spam, irrelevance–but not on whether someone agrees with me or not. (As I’ve demonstrated in Cites & Insights, I believe, my record on that is solid.) I have no control over other bloggers–but, in the liblog field (the one I primarily care about), I honestly don’t believe there’s much censorship based on viewpoint.

2. Mail lists (Listserv is a trademark, and as a longtime editor I avoid using it as a generic) haven’t gone away…at least not in libraryland, where they’re doing just fine.

3. There are also group blogs and online forums. There’s room for many online media, including those–one-person blogs, ezines, etc.–where the single authorial voice is central.

except that it is situations which
_are_ “a guided search for truth”
– or at the very least _should_be_ –
where i get most upset at censorship…

(although “upset” is too strong a word,
as these days i’ve become inured to it…)

> Lots of questions have more than one right answer…

but lots of bloggers only seem to want one answer
– _their_answer_, right or wrong — to be heard…

i think it’s the sense of ownership of the blog.

i guess i’m an old fogey, and i miss listserves,
where the object was _communal_ in nature.

-bowerbird

As someone who has been accused of removing or not allowing critical comments on my blog, I have some sympathy for the poor sots dealing with comment software that isn’t sophisticated enough to distinguish between legitimate comments and spam comments. I don’t censor comments on my blog, and anyone (except spammers and hatemongers — not that I’ve had many of the latter) is allowed to comment there. However, because my old comment software was so cludgy, many legitimate comments were lost in the ether, or so I’ve been told.

With the flood of comment spam that has taken over much of the blog commenting world, I would ask that you give your bloggers the benefit of the doubt before accusing them of not allowing negative comments on their blogs.

Bowerbird: It’s not always truth, and it’s not always a guided search. Lots of questions have more than one right answer…

Anyway, I second what Mark said–you’re always more than welcome to criticize what I write or say. I look back on things that I’ve said that now make me cringe, but, you know, if that didn’t happen, it would presumably mean I hadn’t learned anything.

“take someone on” might be a poor choice of phrasing.
the object, i would hope, is a guided search for truth…

but yes, fewer and fewer bloggers seem to _allow_
anyone to disagree with them. those comments are
increasingly being “filtered out” along with the spam.

and that’s when commenting is even turned-on at all.
some people seem to _prefer_ having a bully-puppet.

funny, i thought the benefit of the internet was we are
finally able to engage in many-to-many conversations.
ends up some people still wanna do one-to-many, where
they’re the special “one” and we are their adoring “many”.

there’s a boatload of people out there in the world who
choose to be _personally_insulted_ whenever you’ve
demolished their argument with any solid counters…

i consider them to be a huge opponent to _truth_.

thus, i’ve learned to turn a deaf ear to their squeals.

-bowerbird

p.s. i was trained as a social scientist, so perhaps
that’s why i actually enjoy it when someone can
provide evidence that disconfirms my theories…