OK, that’s it–four offensive comments attached to three posts, none of the comments done in a way that gets caught automatically. In all cases, signed with a name or pseudonym that has no meaning to me.
Enough.
Here’s the new policy, with the big changes first:
- Patently offensive posts will be followed with replies that (a) include the email signature, and (b) as much as I can, identify the owner of the IP address. So, you know, if you’re sending obnoxious messages from, oh, say, an international law firm with headquarters in New York and London, I’ll be only too happy to say “This offensive message came from the IP #, which according to WHOIS is owned by XX law firm.”
- I’m the judge of what’s patently offensive.
- “Patently offensive” does not have anything to do with whether you agree with me or not. I love a good discussion and even disagreement. None of these posts fell into that category.
- Pseudonymous posts and those from imaginary names and email addresses are treated more roughly than signed posts.
- If this doesn’t solve the problem, I’ll proceed to turning on moderation completely–so no comments are posted until I approve them. I’d rather not do that.
I’m sure you know who you are. I didn’t save the previous offensive messages, so don’t know whether it’s the same IP address in all cases (but wouldn’t be surprised).
Don’t like my blog? Fine. Go away. Write your own damn blog. Your oh-so-humorous “senior” comments aren’t that funny and are that annoying. Nobody is forcing you to read my stuff, and I’m explicitly encouraging you not to. I’m sure somebody who works in an international law firm has other means of amusement.
Walt – Keep up the good work. There’s always somebody who likes to stir the pot. Don’t let them get to you.
The new policy works for me and, I suspect, anyone who’s been online more than a year or two.
This policy comes off like the denture-clicking silliness of a cantankerous old thumb-twiddler. This blog had close to zilch comments in the past. Take away the “offensive” ones (oh, offensive posts – the horror, the horror!) and the interplay remains as lame as ever. Time to inject some juice into this library voice! Come on, Walt, don’t be so arbitrary and closed-minded. Open up the commentary floodgates. Stir the pot (Brian, such stirring is bad?!). Sorry if this post is too “offensive.” You can always delete it and devote more verbiage to grapefruits and low-budget Italian horror DVDs.
I’m not going to delete the comment above. I’m not sure why there are some people who feel the need to insult other people on those people’s blogs or attempt to set the tone of those blogs, but I guess not having a life can be a problem. In any case, this time the age-related insults are just stupid, not specifically offensive.
But let’s do a little fisking here, “Larry prescott” (from a site in the Netherlands if it’s not rerouted/spoofed):
*The first sentence serves no purpose other than to say “You’re old, Walt.” If I’m so old that I’m uninteresting–quite possible–then go somewhere more interesting. Simple. (Psst: people in the Crest Generation don’t often have dentures, and I’m no exception.)
*This blog doesn’t have loads of comments. Neither do most other liblogs: this blog is typically in the top fifth of such blogs for comment activity. So? This is your problem why?
*I haven’t closed the floodgates on controversy or discussion. Never did. This has nothing to do with being close-minded; it has to do with it being my blog, not yours.
*Re the last sentence, which I read as another “You’re writing about things I don’t care about,, stop it” whine: If you don’t like my posts, there are several million other blogs you can read. Please do so.
People used to hang a sign next to their swimming pools that began “We don’t swim in your toilet, please don’t piss in our pool.” I guess for some people pissing in other people’s pools is one of the few pleasures in otherwise pointless lives. If that’s not the case, surely you must have something better to do.
Walt, delete and move on.
Nah, Steve, fisking was more fun. And it means more comments in the otherwise pitiful comment stream. No actual controversy or useful discussion, but what’s new about that?
Heh. You’re grading the hate-mail.
Ruth Ellen: Very good, but I’m no John Scalzi… (In an almost uncountable number of ways, I’m no John Scalzi.)
Don’t know what’s more pathetic and hyper-sensitive – Walt’s oh-so-analytical and overwrought riposte to a slightly crude baiting, or Ruth Ellen’s reference to the bait as “hate-mail.” Both are the responses of navel-gazing vanity blogging that go into spasms of indignation and melodrama when antagonized. Far too precious for the blogosphere. But then again, it’s your blog not anyone else’s (nah-nah-nah-nah). The public domain can never have too many incisive personal musings on fresh fruit or DVD movie reviews.
Dear Lars/Larry/whoever:
Here’s what’s more pathetic: Despite the subtle clue (“I’m no John Scalzi”) in my response to Ruth Ellen, you totally fail to get that she’s making a sly reference to John Scalzi’s Hugo-award winning book, Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded.
Also more pathetic: Having so little to do of any value that you’re compelled to keep coming up with new names, new email accounts and new snide little comments.
And, for that matter, using “the public domain” for material that is not in the public domain. A CC BY-NC license is absolutely not placing material into the public domain.
(Then there’s “vanity blogging”–as opposed to what? Blogging that goes through full double-blind peer review and editorial oversight? Self-effacing blogging? Right…)
Blacklisted. You may not have better things to do, but I do.