too much reading!

Well, I for one am in favor of you putting your health and your family first.

Less drama, more cool posts and links.

Ivy, please take care of yourself…this isn’t worth an ulcer or a headache even.

With those words in play, MCB is still ‘worth’ something. I rather like Coma’s idea of some definition of interests/roles. There are certainly enough people interested in politics, sports, and entertainment to make for a core group and a regular diet of interesting banter. I suspect that there are lurkers among us who would step forward to cover less dramatic local issues (visual arts, culinary stuff, non-profit adventures, etc.) particularly if those same lurkers knew that others with some comparable level of interest would be reading/commenting.

I’ll count myself in as one who needs to step up.

How about this: no posts on religion or politics. You know, like a neighborhood bar.

I think all the petty bickering is lame. I know it feels good to the participants at the time, but I think that over time it has really cheapened the MCB experience.

I only say this because I care.

I like Jaxn’s idea a lot.
Of course, I’m a fan of the juke joint.

While I understand there’s a concern about mean spirited posts running rampant, Jackson said it best…”petty bickering is lame.” Those who engage in it appear lame, and that’s on them.

As far as what people post on their own blogs about you, who cares? As long as they provide a link and some traffic, they can slam me any day. If they aren’t providing traffic, no one probably reads it, so where’s the damage?

My greedy side says the answer is more links to my posts–they generate very few comments.

I agree with Jackson.

I’m liberal, but i Never post my opinions on politics (or religion for that matter) anymore. It only leads to arguments. For any conservatives out there, am I really going to change your mind if I declare why I think my beliefs are superior?

How about this: no posts on religion or politics.

Let’s vote on it. This looks like a Democracy. Let’s vote on everything.

Of course those of you that don’t like a post could just read the next post. But that would be too much trouble wouldn’t it?

As I commented downstairs, I think it’s a smart idea to only moderate those comments that put MCB in legal jeopardy or reveal personal information about commenters or bloggers. By that I mean merely true name, address, phone number, family member’s names or other identifying information.

Conversations on blogs can get pretty heated, but that’s just part of it. If you can’t handle two or three commentors unafraid to make asses of themselves in the heat of verbal battle, then move along to another thread. I’ve had to walk away more than once from an unpleasant conversation over here, but I figure someone had to be the grown-up.

As for “no posts on religion or politics,” I hope that’s a joke! That certainly didn’t work for NiT, which has started edging back toward the topical. Religion and politics is pretty much all I blog about, and I have little interest in blogs that don’t cover those topics. If I want a new recipe I’ll call my sister. I don’t have kids, don’t want ‘em, and won’t read about ‘em. So, that’s just me.

It’s an election year. People have strong opinions about the direction the country is headed and the choices we face as a nation. Blogs like this are an important gathering place to share these ideas.

You are very right. I do skip political and religious posts anyway.

And Jeffraham’s over there bitching about MCB. Again.

Guilty, guilty, guilty. Guilty as charged!

Everyone knows that blogging isn’t 90% pointing at what’s going on on another blog.
.

ditto what SoBeale said

Notice the people who are saying we need political posts are people who comment on almost every MCB political post. They are a vocal minority.

There are plenty of places to argue politics on the internet. The question is whether or not Ivy and the others envisioned MCB as one of those places.

NiT and MCB have proven politics cannot exist in moderation at a place like this. Many years ago alt.nashville devolved into the same kind of toxic web community.

So no, my suggestion of eliminating political and religious posts is not a joke. It is a very real and legitimate suggestion (though one that would be fought virociously by the people who get their rocks off on petty political arguments)

Throwing my two cents in, I think that we need a balance of everything. Actually, I was making a joke about drinking. I love politics. Anyone who visits my blog knows that.

So. Beale and William are right. It’s an election year, so that’s going to be a hot topic. Hell, it already is for me at my blog. The General Assembly will be up and running before long. Those are very worthy of discussion.
I don’t live in Nashville, but I like reading about the culture, what Nashvillians are saying and what’s going on as well.
I think we need to link to political idealogy and then let that spark the discussion.
And I also want to take the opportunity to thank Kat for her hard work.

It’s like the wonderful words of Molly Ivins:
“Good thing we’ve still got politics — finest form of free entertainment ever invented.”
Peace to you all.

NiT and MCB have proven politics cannot exist in moderation at a place like this.

Rainbows and bunnies?

http://www.therabbithaven.org/bridge.htm

I don’t think there’s any reason why politics and religion can’t be included in the topics discussed here, but I like the idea of better defining the topics on the site, and possible setting up the RSS feed(s) so that people can opt-in and opt-out of topics that interest or stress them, respectively. I subscribe to quite a few blogs that way — Lifehacker, for instance, allows me to exclude Windows Vista discussions from my RSS feed, and the few posts per week that I get to skip are a welcome relief.

If this is a direction people agree on, I’m volunteering to do as much of the work as I can to help set it up that way.

If this is a direction people agree on, I’m volunteering to do as much of the work as I can to help set it up that way.

This would be because you seriously RAWK when you’re not busy REWLing.
.

I think Mack had a good point in the previous post (and something I’d already considered suggesting). Close comments after a specified period of time.

I think Mack’s suggestion of a day may be a little short. Perhaps 2 days? I don’t know what the right length is to let the decent discussion happen but cut out the crap, but certainly, in most cases, by the time a thread hits it’s third day of comments, nothing new is being said anymore. And it’s once nothing new is being said that the nastiest really starts to come out (don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen plenty get nasty in the very first comment, or even, to a lesser degree, in the post, but I think time limits would help).

I don’t like Jackson’s idea of prohibiting posts on politics or religion. What is the point of a community blog if you right off the back turn away half the community? It’s Music City Bloggers so why avoid two of the largest topics that Music City bloggers are blogging about.

I do think that if you put a time limit on commenting it WILL have the effect of giving the blog a more balanced perception because that comment on knitting a new sweater won’t immediately be lost in the “recent comments” section among the raging political debate from last week.

What is the point of a community blog if you right off the back turn away half the community?

First, they came for the catbloggers, but because I was not a catblogger, I said nothing.

Then, they came for the mommybloggers, but because I was not…
.

Maybe it’d be better if someone set up a site where all the asshats can go practice their asshattery once it wears out everyone else here. We could establish a “safe word,” and change venues when it starts getting rough.
.

(Purely on a voluntary basis, thinking that peer pressure can set the level of decorum appropriate here at MCB vs. LMCF.)
.

It depends on what the purpose is here. If the idea is to eventually generate revenue, then cutting off comments is EXTREMELY counterproductive. Every time someone hits “comment” counts as another pageview, and that is what is going to drive bigger-name advertising.

Now, I’ll surprise a few here: count me in the camp that doesn’t want to cut off political or religious posting. These things (especially political discussions) are very important in a national election year.

It means the loud, Crossfire types will drown out us folks who really want to discuss, but so be it.

Can I make a suggestion? How about doing something that will help MCB live up to its promise?

How about strictly enforcing the local connection? Instead of just mirroring the cookie cutter big guys, why not only highlight those blog posts that are either about local/state politics, or, if it’s a national issus, discuss how that issue affects Nashville or TN, or quotes local officials?

That would force all of us, if we want to have our posts highlighted at MCB, to become better writers, because we could no longer cut/paste arguments from the bigger sites, we’d actually have to THINK and APPLY.

Just think about it, y’all.

As the mother of a 12-year old, I can easily compare her personality to the things I see going on here. MCB is just going through some growing pains. It was a beautiful child, but now is going through the “awkward” years. It will be reborn into something mature, dynamic, vital, and self-sufficient. Good luck MCB. I’m rooting for you.

Ivy, sorry to hear about your family drama. Hope you find the right balance between all those things and the things you want to do.

This is one of the biggest hurdles for bloggers just as much as it is for corporate entities: trusting the free market place of ideas online. It’s a powerful force that a lot of people and companies try to control for the wrong reasons with poor results for everyone.

The community is pretty good at coming up with a fair value on other people’s opinions if they are allowed to say what they want as long as they aren’t breaking the law. You’ll never know how much a community really loves you and the space you host for them until you let the people that hate you have their time at the microphone.

Kathy T, your comment just made me all verklempt…time to check my hormone levels again…lol.

She writes a post basically saying that they are going to lighten up with all of the rules, and what do you people suggest, MORE FREAKING RULES. If you don’t like religion or political posts, don’t read them. Good God, you people are freaking amazing.

Glen, you know I’m in the “less rules, more participation” camp. That said, I think there are always circumstances that demand action — posting personal details about people (where they live, their Visa card number, etc.) should universally be a no-no. I don’t have a lot of problem with deleting posts that contain over-the-top namecalling, and little or nothing else (that one meathead that used to post at Brittney’s blog, for example).

I do have a problem with watching someone making an open field tackle, and when I do the same, having the whistle blown, flag thrown, and being admonished that we’re playing touch football.
.

JP, I would have never in a million years banned you, ever. I would have said mean things to you (probably apologizing later) and acted like an all around jerk. But I would have never banned you. I also wouldn’t delete or moderate posts and comments.

Having said that, I respect the fact that I am a guest here and that it is not my business to tell the owners how to run their house.

But the owner just said that she was going to make this place more free, because they learned that lots of control didn’t work. And what do the same cry baby, whiney bitches do? THEY CALL FOR MORE FREAKING RULES! They say get rid of posts on religion and politics. They say close comments after one day. And the very people making these controlling suggestions are the same people who contribute to this thing absolutely none, except to drop in and complain about political discourse or hurt feelings.

It never ends with these folks.

And what do the same cry baby, whiney bitches do?

So, its ok if I come here and respond to that by saying I think you are far too stupid to argue with? That you lack the ability to grasp nuance, and when cornered, revert to name calling?

Then what? You will feel like you must respond, and it never ends.

Without an enforced civility, online forums will devolve into name-calling and constant oneupmanship. The honor system just won’t work. If the same four guys are endlessly arguing over the same old shit, people are going to stay away in droves.

NiT and MCB are not my only models to draw from.

Thanks, Glen — I appreciate your thoughts on this, since we occasionally butt heads (and yet, we still speak to each other, whoa).

Having said that, I respect the fact that I am a guest here and that it is not my business to tell the owners how to run their house.

That’s exactly right — that’s why I wanted to make clear that I didn’t lobby to reverse Kat’s bannings.

Still, I see the other side. There are a lot of good folx here who tire of seeing us being asshats at one another. Sure, for some of us, it’s good clean fun, but for others, they can’t emotionally separate the individual personalities, personas and the forums in which they are expressed. Trying to ride herd over this unwieldy bunch would give anyone an ulcer, if that’s the way one feels about “their” site.

That’s why I suggested setting up a site where we asshats could voluntarily go to continue asshattery that a lot of people tire of here, so quickly.

It’s not a rule so much as a social convention, for those who’re looking for practical solutions, and trying to keep as many people happy as possible.
.

It all depends, Glen. Does Ivy want this place to be a playground for you and JP, or does she want to eventualy make money from the place? It makes all the difference in the world.

If it is the former, then turning it into a shouting ground for emotionally stunted people makes sense, and would be high entertainment.

However, if Ivy is interested in SEO and generating (real) hits, she would be wise in finding a niche. Why recreate something that already exists in a million other places? That’s why I suggested the local angle.

Not for comments, but for the posts that get things started. THis place has the potential to become THE authority on the Nashville blogsphere - in time, when the news media want to report what Nashville bloggers think about something, they’d come HERE.

If you can find your niche and become an authority, the sky is the limit.

Glen, you are thinking too small. For once in my life, I know what I’m talking about.

I’m not talking about restricting debate within the comments; the restraint I’m calling for, I am doing so for business reasons alone.

Y’all (immature, politically active people) have a stranglehold the small corner of the internet that isn’t porn. If someone had the opportunity to offer a new way, I KNOW it would be successful.

I know - I’ve done it. With help, of course. But, these are just suggestions.

And, you sound like a big baby.

Good discussion, all around, today, IMO.
.

And what do the same cry baby, whiney bitches do?

Heh, Glen, remember a long time ago we were having a conversation about why people think you’re so mean?

I can’t imagine MCB without discussions of politics. It is nice to have someone pull together posts from varying sides from other blogs and aggregate them into a single post here on MCB. I think that same model (having someone aggregate other topics) might be worth a shot.

As one who is generally late into the frey, cutting off comments after one day seems a little short. Frankly, I don’t see what setting a cutoff time accomplishes.

If you do not want to be civil in your comments, knock yourself out. It’s your fanny hanging out there in the breeze.

And the very people making these controlling suggestions are the same people who contribute to this thing absolutely none, except to drop in and complain about political discourse or hurt feelings.

Word. So well put.

I have never seen a blog Democracy work. I don’t know if it is even possible. The Wild West idea will fail. We haven’t even started and you can see it will fail.

It has to be a two way street.

The fewer rules the better. I hate banning people. I have been banned at KnoxViews. I understand both sides. But no blog allows trolls. Even KnoxBlab has banned a few people. Some people just want to blow the blog up if they don’t get their own way. And that is a big problem here. Did we not learn anything from NiT?

But while most blogs are self regulating this one is not. The big reason is the demographics. This is a liberal blog in comments. But in terms of posts it is now probably close to fifty fifty and on some days there may be more conservative posts. And this has caused friction. The liberals contributors refused to post if the conservatives post. I stopped posting to help things. Then I receive an email from management asking for posts because several in management have time issues and cannot post.

A lot of contributors are on strike. So unless they see what they want they won’t participate. Mack won’t be a contributor unless “changes are made”. Others have made it clear they won’t participate unless “changes are made”. What does community mean? Just certain people can participate? That is a country club not a community.

It is an interesting situation. Should we hold a town hall meeting?

First rule of blogs, the more you try to please everyone the more you alienate everyone.

I don’t know the answer. Perhaps the Solomon route. Divide the blog in half?

Or maybe people like JP could just act responsibly? Kevin is back for less than an hour and takes an incredibly cheap shot at Kat. I think it sucks.

The bottom line is we have to figure out what community means. I don’t think it means cliques and bans on posts of politics and religion. I think it means a two way street.

If there wasn’t so much enabling and protecting the poor behavior we wouldn’t need this discussion.

You have to acknowledge the other sides right to exist. And that is the problem. There are too many people here who want this to be a one way street.

It is an interesting situation. Should we hold a town hall meeting?

I had the idea that was what was, in fact, being done, right here.

Or maybe people like JP could just act responsibly? Kevin is back for less than an hour and takes an incredibly cheap shot at Kat. I think it sucks.

I honestly thought I had been, at least since Brittney’s going-away party at La Paz. I chided Kevin for his comment, because it sounded like gloating, to me, and I’d rather that Kat stick around.
.

Slarti, it should be noted that I wasn’t directing my comments to you. The fact is, Ivy can do whatever she wants with this place. If she wants to make it a nonpolitical blog, that is her business. If she wants to go back to having comments deleted, posts moderated, and all of that, then that is her business.

But to say that people like myself, Southern Beale, Reason Over Religion, William, Serr8d, Ned, Sarcastro, Number 9, Kevin, Andy Axel, and whoever else discusses issues, bring down this site and cause people to go away is just something that I have to refute.

I remember one time Brittney was talking about how she really hated to talk about politics, but since Nashville Is Talking about politics, she had to read and link to political posts. Like it or not, most people like to talk about politics. And NIT got really nasty at times. Also guess what, it was the “same old people” arguing. People like me, AC, or Number 9. That sure as hell didn’t harm NIT’s traffic, did it? Politics dominated the conversation over there and when I guestblogged, the place got as much or more traffic that weekend as any weekend.

The people I mentioned above are the heart and soul of this community. They say some nasty sounding things to each other from time to time, but overall they respect one another and they know how to take a little coarse language.

They are not the problem. Let me repeat that. They are not the problem. Not only that, but the idea that they drive traffic away is just false. By driving traffic away, I mean generally, not individuals who are just appalled at hard language.

The problem is the people who somehow think their eyes are going to bleed if they read something harsh.

The liberals contributors refused to post if the conservatives post. […]

A lot of contributors are on strike. So unless they see what they want they won’t participate. Mack won’t be a contributor unless “changes are made”. Others have made it clear they won’t participate unless “changes are made”. […]

I don’t want to call out people by name who might prefer to remain quiet about their decisions, so I’ll just ask are you absolutely sure these liberal contributors are “refusing” to post if the conservative contributors post? I know I’ve been out of touch, but I’ve heard nothing of this.

I wonder if you might be reading a bit too much into contributors’ time constraints and real-life situations taking precedence over blogging.

(I, for one, have been throwing myself completely into my work and have little time to maintain my own blog, let alone the others I’m supposed to contribute to.)

Glen Dean says:

And the very people making these controlling suggestions are the same people who contribute to this thing absolutely none, except to drop in and complain about political discourse or hurt feelings.

Mack says:

If the same four guys are endlessly arguing over the same old shit, people are going to stay away in droves.

Those two quotes are directly related.

I’m taking a break from Bible study to peek in at what’s going on here. Between Noah getting drunk and passing out in his tent and Glen calling people whiny bitches, I’m not sure which drama I prefer.

Anyway, here’s what I am envisioning for the site, and I’m not sure how to get from here to there. I’d like a cross between a magazine with posts that examine things thoroughly and a forum where people discuss things. Preferably rationally. You know, where people read a comment and say, “Here’s where I think you’re wrong” instead of, “You big idiot, STFU!”

I’m not entirely sure how to get from here to there. I think closing comments once a conversation has completely been exhausted is a good idea. I think 24 hours is probably too short an amount of time. I think this is something that a moderator would need to decide. And, if the commenters want to go over to another site and keep it up, sounds like a good plan.

I’d like to address #9’s comment. I don’t see where we are protecting anybody by lifting bans and opening up comments. The way I see it, say something asshattish, get smacked down by the other commenters. I think there is a time to ban people, but I think we haven’t gotten to that point yet with anyone.

It is very frustrating to me to see all the people who are saying they won’t contribute. I like to consume just as much as everyone else here, but someone has to do the providing, and nobody has enough time to hold this down and post constantly, so it does need to be a team effort.

This is why I like the idea of having certain people cover certain topics. Let’s say we Bob Smith to cover TN politics and Jane Johnson to cover music. Could we get those people to commit to just 5 posts a week? If we have enough people covering enough subjects, could this work?

BTW, 9, this is NOT a democracy. I’m opening this up to everyone’s ideas because I’m not entirely sure how to get what I have in mind from ideas to reality. But the person that makes the final decisions is still me. Benevolent dictatorship, etc. And as long as I’m paying the bills here, that’s how it’ll roll. Otherwise, I probably would have just said fuck it, I feel like crocheting instead of dealing with this drama a long, long time ago.

[genuflecting in the general direction of Murfreesboro]
.

Ivy,
you and your health and your family are number one most important. this is just the internet. And I think it’s a very dangerous thing to place too much importance on what happens here. This is not real life. You should give yourself priority over everything internety.

People take cheap shots at me all the time. But, I’d rather have the cheap shots than have people say a bunch of niceties they don’t really feel or believe. For example, I’d rather Glen be his bigotted goofball self, than say a bunch of junk he doesn’t believe, just to make nice-nice.

In every person there is a hero, and an asshat. These, and all other dimensions of the human should be given space, and place. Ultimately, MCB will be a better place with less hands on censoring. If you want to be king of all you survey, you should survey it on your own personal blog - as I do.

I’d like to address #9’s comment. I don’t see where we are protecting anybody by lifting bans and opening up comments. The way I see it, say something asshattish, get smacked down by the other commenters. I think there is a time to ban people, but I think we haven’t gotten to that point yet with anyone.

If it is a two way street and both sides can hit at will it is not an issue. Time will tell. I will be surprised if the Wild West meme will play here. My concern is it will drive people on the fence away. I cut my teeth at KnoxBlab and SayUncle, I habla Wild West. This is very tame compared to Knoxville.

I thought people at MCB liked the “no insults” rule. Maybe I am wrong. Anything that makes life easier for moderators and keeps readers is good.

Not a fan of banning people. You may recall I suggested an alternative. The timeout idea that was not received well.

A comment was made about the same four people posting. That can drive people away. It can be monotonous. My pet peeve is the one liner. A taunt. Nothing is more irritating than a 100 comment post with 40 one liners. JP, is that subtle enough?

If we all are honest, sometimes the drama is fun. serr8d is defending JP so JP can come back and serr8d can have more target practice. That is a strange relationship. JP feels the same way. They enjoy the contest. But do other readers? From what I read the answer is no.

I think this may be a town hall meeting. I don’t know how many readers there are. But the number of active contributors is less than a dozen. The number of commenters a couple dozen.

Most blogs close comments after a week or two due to spam. I don’t see closing comments after a week or so is a bad concept. Two days is too little. So is three days.

It is an election year. So things will get heated. The past four years haven’t been great. Everyone is pissed about something.

But I would listen to the people that participate. There are enough arm chair quarterbacks in football.

A comment was made about the same four people posting. That can drive people away. It can be monotonous. My pet peeve is the one liner. A taunt. Nothing is more irritating than a 100 comment post with 40 one liners. JP, is that subtle enough?

If we all are honest, sometimes the drama is fun. serr8d is defending JP so JP can come back and serr8d can have more target practice. That is a strange relationship. JP feels the same way. They enjoy the contest. But do other readers? From what I read the answer is no.

That’s why I recommended the separate site, where we asshats can take our asshattery when it’s plainly wearing on the rest of the tea party. I’m not unsympathetic to those complaints, at all.
.

Another, more technological solution might also be appealing, but I’m not sure how well Wordpress plays with haloscan… comments on haloscan can be individually filtered, using the greasemonkey script, “killfile” along with Firefox. That allows one to read a haloscan thread anywhere, and never have to see certain asshats’ comments, ever again.
.

Ivy,
One idea I have is, since none of us can really be full-time here, what about taking turns, by week, to be a moderator and fill-in contributor?

If you set up a sort of editorial board with contributors focused on certain topics who will commit to posting five times a week, like you suggested, you could make a rotation schedule using that same group of people to be weekly moderators. I could probably explain what I mean better in person if this doesn’t make any sense!

That being said, I’d be very happy and willing to help out in that capacity, if you go in that direction. And I’ll continue to post here no matter what you decide!

How about self restraint?

JP, thats funny.

Kevin, great comments. I don’t consider myself to be a bigot, but you do and that’s okay.

9, I just don’t think that anybody is driving people away, not even the monotony of the “same four people posting” . All of the political posting here is creating traffic, not driving it away. If a nasty comment drives somebody away, then let that person go. Two more will take his place. If they are that thin skinned, they need to just stay in the house and lock the door, never to come out. As far as this discussion is concerned, JP, Kevin, and you, and me ought to be on the same side here.

Still though, as I have said before, this is Ivy’s house. If she wants to cave to the self-righteous non-political apathetic crowd, then that is her business. 100% hers.

Okay, we take the gloves off. Let people stand on their arguments. This is what I am used to.

It won’t take long for the chorus to chime in, “You hit him, you bastard”.

Too many tender sensibilities.

I wonder if Brittney would consider dumping that bigtime, full time gig in San Fran and come back and do this? Nothing against nobody here but Brittney was/is a pro. I miss her.

Well, that’s just it, though — she was/is a pro. As is professional. As in paid. Having the paid time to dedicate to running a blog like this seems like a whole different beast from trying to run it on the side.

Kat and Ivy have done an amazing job, in my view, in light of the fact that neither of them makes (or made) a living off of this project.

Kate is right on this one. I miss BG too, but this was done on the side with real people with real jobs.
Kat and Ivy have been incredible.

Nothing against nobody here but Brittney was/is a pro. I miss her.

Everyone does. I hope she makes a big mark, out there.

I think MCB is good pretty much the way it is, today. I’ve seen very little smacktalkin’ today, even with a playoff game goin’ on. Everyone’s pitching in with ideas, Kate O’ has done up the new RSS feed (how awesome is that?).

The community is intact; few people seem sore about any of it (and hopefully NO one will be sore, as time marches on).

What could be better than this?
.

Kat and Ivy have been incredible.

That they somehow manage to put up with our shit, and haven’t pulled the plug yet is a testament to their desire to keep the community together, for better and worse. They pretty much REWL for getting the ball rolling here, but I think it’s up to all of the participants to keep the place tidy and/or maintain whatever level of decorum the community desires.

Btw, anyone that has any future beefs with me, my e-mail’s listed in the top graphic at my blog. If you have a complaint about something I’ve said, before you bother Ivy, et al, e-mail me, first. I won’t promise a fair hearing, but I’ll read what you have to say!
.

Obviously, BG was paid. I know it’s a whole different animal, I’m just saying I miss her objectivity. I think they’ve done a great job here, considering the power struggles but hopefully that will ease up now. I couldn’t do this all the time. It would totally take the fun out of blogging for me.

The community has to step up.

I don’t think anyone wants to go Jerry Springer.

Objective? Ha!

My obligation is to my employer who decided that a site featuring what other local bloggers are talking about would be good for his station. In planning that site, he decided that having a blogger appear unbiased would result in a boring blog. Not only that, but pretending not to have biases is often ridiculously transparent. People can see right through that.

The idea was to hire a blogger who let her prejudices show–and that people could then debate the facts with all the various biases out in the open.

Non-”MSM” bloggers shine when they are partisan and opinionated. That is what we wanted for Nashville Is Talking as well.
Posted by: brittney at December 22, 2005 02:50 PM

I hope Smiff gets a whiff of what she’s shoveling. Nice try to rewrite history the way it didn’t happen. Kudos.

I’ve just come upon this tonight, and I’ve no idea what to say.

And I’m not sure where exactly things are standing at the moment, but as far as this:

“I think Mack’s suggestion of a day may be a little short. Perhaps 2 days? I don’t know what the right length is to let the decent discussion happen but cut out the crap, but certainly, in most cases, by the time a thread hits it’s third day of comments, nothing new is being said anymore.”

I realize I’ve become a part-timer, and I realize most threads die after a few days, but some of us don’t get here but once or twice a week anymore. If you’re going to close comments, I think a week or two weeks would be acceptable enough. A couple or three days will alienate at least part of your audience… even if the general conversation at hand is somewhat dead by then. At least those of us who can’t get here every day or several times a day anymore still feel like we can participate a little. *shrug*

My $0.02, for what it’s worth (maybe about $0.01)…

“Obviously, BG was paid. I know it’s a whole different animal, I’m just saying I miss her objectivity.”

She never claimed to be and never was objective. Her liberal leanings always showed brightly.

I realize I’ve become a part-timer, and I realize most threads die after a few days, but some of us don’t get here but once or twice a week anymore.

Lynnster, you know i have mad love for ya, but you have exactly hit on why its important to close the threads. I’d like to see a sense of urgency instilled in people about this site. That is, a thread goes up, discussion ensues, and it closes in 24 hours. If I know I can check in and catch up every two or three days, whats my incentive to check in frequently? If a subject is truly generating some interest, then the author is free to post Part Two.

The way it is now, I promise you that nobody is tuning in to watch the same four egos endlessly vie for teh Last Word.

My .02 cents

If you’re going to close comments, I think a week or two weeks would be acceptable enough.

A week or two if you goal is to reduce spam. I’ve hunted through the archives and have had trouble finding a post (even with 100s of comments on it) which was still active 3 days after the OP.

I’d like to see a sense of urgency instilled in people about this site.

So the idea is to micromanage readers. Lynn is right, readers have busy lives. They come here at their convenience.

I think two or three weeks works well if it is to be done at all. Two days is nanny state crap.

I thought this was Wild West time? Can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Micromanage? Wild West? Nanny State?

Whew. You stopped making sense long ago.

Again, 9, your response is a perfect example of whats wrong here. I think you fancy yourself the online equivalent of a gun-slinger, all leathery faced and battle hardened because you can sling insults all day. Someone better grounded in reality would have voiced their opinion without all those silly references, and without an admonishment to leave.

Ultimately, it will be up to Ivy to steer this back on course, but she has asked for ideas, and I have some.

For what it’s worth, and to borrow your own phrase, Mack–you know I’ve got mad love for ya–I really don’t like the idea closing comments. If you all will remember, NiT didn’t have a listing of “Recent Comments” in the sidebar…you had to go look at the threads yourself because you didn’t have that preview…or dare I say it: crutch(?)

To me, we’re all big boys and girls…why can’t we just think for ourselves, and if a topic interests us, go to it…scan the thread…if we don’t like how folks have run it into the ground, ignore and go to the next thread.

It just seems so simple, yet it’s gotten so complicated…

Fair points, Ginger. Too bad you’re wrong.

because you can sling insults all day

Dude, those weren’t insults. Calling micromanagement what it is, is not an insult.

The two day idea is nanny state. It is way too heavy handed.

If the same four people bother you so much you could participate instead of carping from the sidelines.

*SNORK* @ Mack

Hey Ginger and Ivy. Why don’t you guys just meet with Mack? Let him tell you everything thats wrong with the site and which people get on his nerves and need to be let go, then implement every single thing that he wants. Then the enlightened one will surely decide to contribute to your site and we can all can be enlightened by his friendly, unbiased commentary.

See how that works out. Otherwise, run this website whichever way you want to, and if some of us, including myself don’t like it, we’ll go somewhere else.

Can someone please please please bring up the Nazis?

I thought this was Wild West time?

Really? I thought it was “please use the comment section of this post to tell me what you’d like to see out of the site” time.

If you go longer than two days, closing the comments will serve no purpose so you may as well leave them open. Since alot of people aren’t keen on the idea of closing comments after a prescribed period of time, I’d like to second the suggestion on the other thread that each post have an individual comment feed.

The reason people don’t want to see comment threads closed (well I suspect some don’t so that they can continue to beat a dead horse for a bit longer, but I’m referring to others here) is because they don’t visit daily. The problem is that if you don’t visit daily (or hourly) a single popular thread can knock all the other comments out of recent comments. If we’re catering to people who are busy, by not closing comments after a couple of days, then it doesn’t make sense to assume they have the time to hunt through pages of archived threads to see if anybody left a comment on one that interested them (sorry Ginger). With individual comment feeds, readers could simply subscribe to any post (for as long or as short as they wanted which is a benefit over “email me responses”) that interested them and easily keep up to date with what was going on in the comments of that particular post.

Glen, please…it’s ok for everyone to give their input…I’m glad Mack is being vocal about what he thinks…this ain’t his first rodeo in the online community world, ok????

Your input…everybody’s input is WELCOME.

We’re going to take everyone’s suggestions, weigh them out, and then come up with our own plan.

Otherwise, run this website whichever way you want to, and if some of us, including myself don’t like it, we’ll go somewhere else.

The problem with this smart-ass response is that Ginger and Ivy ARE running the site whatever way they want and at the moment that consists of asking for opinions on how the site could be made better. Why don’t you participate by actually offering one?

Ultimately, it will be up to Ivy to steer this back on course

Interesting premise. I wonder how many people think MCB is off course? I don’t see it. Looks good to me.

If people see MCB as off course, when was it on course? That is a fascinating statement.

You called, Kathy T? ;D

For what it’s worth, most of my thoughts on this kerfuffle are posted on the thread at 6MB. Including (at risk of bringing down some yelps and invective, but since when have I cared about that?) this unanswered question…

My inclusion in that second round of K. Coble’s bans was done so at her whim, based on her own capriciousness and her current state of vindictiveness, brought on by some sort of hormonal imbalance…or prove me wrong.

No proof forthcoming.

But, as similarity, (as I love to throw bombs!) this episode of female strangeness illustrates again that Hillarity shouldn’t be Mistress President, because of the hormones…since Margaret Thatcher, have we seen a strong woman leader who didn’t fuck up, much?

Oh, and #9,

“serr8d is defending JP so JP can come back and serr8d can have more target practice.”

No, no, no! Not that reason at all. Look again at the “Leave Jeffraham Alone!” poster. My defense was based entirely on my (28%-er style) principles.

Now, where’s that yelper? I can’t wait…hilarity ensues, 3, 2, 1…

I am so gonna dropkick you, Serr.

Serr8d, your sexism and misogyny is showing…

Btw, if the haloscan/greasemonkey/killfile thang looks like something Ivy, Kate, et al, thinks is feasible/desirable, I’ll gladly write up the instructions (w/screen shots) for downloading and installing greasemonkey, etc. Of course, the other tech solutions that Kate’s already implementing (separate RSS feeds) look promising, as well!
.

Serr8d: “Drop kick my, Ivy, through the goalposts of the Batman building.”

I am so gonna dropkick you, Serr.

… through the uprights of the Batman Building of life?

.

I owe Ginger a Coke.

Put it on the tab with all the beers I owe everyone else, here.
.

Too bad we don’t know what Serr8d looks like or we could get a fun photoshop going.

On a more serious note to all the lovely ladies that bring (and have brought) us MCB:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/technology/07blogger.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
.

I owe Ginger a Coke.

I’d like a Sonic Rt. 44 Diet Coke w/ Chocolate, pleeze.

I hear serr8d is 6′4″ tall with piercing blue eyes. Maybe he looks like the Hoff?

Snork:

http://gregcookland.com/journal/uploaded_images/picHasselHoff-747711.jpg

Do NOT hassle the Hoff, now! That picture is priceless, 9.

I’d like a Sonic Rt. 44 Diet Coke w/ Chocolate, pleeze.

Let me know when you’re in West Gnashvegas — the Sonic on Charlotte is within even bad-weather scootin’ range!
.

Doh, it is Mack who is 6′4″tall with piercing blue eyes.

My bad.

Errr…Mack is shorter than I am, I believe.

i’ve moderated email listserv groups before and you either have to let everything go for broke or edit. if you edit, then you can legally become liable for what you edit out since you’re taking ownership.

This is Ivy’s sandbox. If she wants to fill it with itching powder and fleas, it’s her decision. It’s NOT worth an ulcer; it’s only the tubes. It’s not like real life is involved…

[…] know deep in my heart that this is all going to work out.  It really […]

http://coyotechronicles.wordpress.com/about/

It’s that damn allegory again. I must be allegorically challenged.

Mack, you know I heart you too and I see your point, but I just think 24 hours is too short and I have to wholly agree with something Ginger said…

Ginger said: “If you all will remember, NiT didn’t have a listing of “Recent Comments” in the sidebar…you had to go look at the threads yourself because you didn’t have that preview…or dare I say it: crutch(?)”

GOOD point, Ginger!! Granted, I have been perpetually behind over here for months, but I still manage to say sort of on top of discussion here in a way I *never* did at NIT because probably 80% of the discussions I never checked back in on because it was too much of a pain to do so, even when I was there a dozen or more times a day every day.

With the “Recent Comments” in the sidebar I actually do stay sort of on top of both key discussions I don’t want to miss no matter what, as well as discussions I’m interested in but are not necessarily must-not-miss (i.e., ones I would have never checked back on @ NIT, or rarely).

If there is to be a decision to close comments, 24 hours is just way too short. 48 hours - eh. 72 hours maybe. People do go on vacations (and don’t check their laptops constantly - really!), long extended weekends in either direction of the calendar, etc. I could probably deal with a 72 hour limit and still participate in most discussions I want to, though obviously not all. Kill comments in 24 hours and you lose me, others like me at present, and probably even others that *aren’t* as time-pressed as I am most days these days as well.

What I meant by the “O” word was that she was fair to everybody in terms of posting a little of everything. I know she was very liberal (I am not) and that didn’t bother me at all. I’m not into politics and usually skip things of a political nature.

So, sue me. I used the wrong word. Either way, she was good at what she did and I miss her. I love Ivy. She is my friend. She does a fantastic job. So there.

[…] is a good discussion going on at MusicCityBloggers (MCB) between the site’s owners and the community on the best […]

This is indeed an interesting window into MCB’s tweener/teenaged developement. I personally skip over most of the religion and political posts because like most opinion based discussion on hot button topics they eventually devolve down into name calling by all of the parties involved. Does this ruin MCB for others? I don’t know but at some point it does cheapen the arguments put forth earlier by the name callers in the thread. I might take some of the opinions and ideas more into consideration if the person making the comment showed more class down the line in any of the threads no matter what the topic.

I would like to see some personal responsibility show by commenters on any/all topics. Would you say these things at the dinner table with your family? to the other person in real life? over the phone? Comment moderation is a slippery slope full of subjective decisions and potential censorship by any central figure in a discussion, but also spending all day reading, policing and moderating comments will suck your soul and burn out any love of people, community or blogging in general. I can only be responsible for how I react, respond and comment for myself; I would like to expect this same level of ownership and responsbility from each person who participates in this community with everyone else.

Also as a standard on several other professional web boards and discussion sites that I have worked with and used, an arbitrary limit of 100 comments is standard practice on a thread or article with the caveat that if the discussion or issue needs to be continued that and additional thread be carried elsewhwere. It works quite well.

Also as a standard on several other professional web boards and discussion sites that I have worked with and used, an arbitrary limit of 100 comments is standard practice on a thread or article with the caveat that if the discussion or issue needs to be continued that and additional thread be carried elsewhere. It works quite well.

saraclark, you come in and make some absolute statements that don’t hold water. For example, “I personally skip over most of the religion and political posts because like most opinion based discussion on hot button topics they eventually devolve down into name calling by all of the parties involved.” Some do, many do not. We should stick to issues and refrain from calling names. But in real life people do call names. Is this not real life? You really can only control what you do. Are we our brothers keeper?

You write, “I might take some of the opinions and ideas more into consideration if the person making the comment showed more class down the line in any of the threads no matter what the topic.” Who is the decider? That is a very subjective statement. This is another “rainbows and bunnies” wish that isn’t real life. Only so much “turning the cheek” is possible. There are commenters/provocateurs who would try the patience of Job. JP.

You also write, “I can only be responsible for how I react, respond and comment for myself; I would like to expect this same level of ownership and responsibility from each person who participates in this community with everyone else.” Bravo, that is the highpoint of your comment. Yes, I agree, in the end personal responsibility is key. The idea to lead by example is excellent. A standard we should all aspire to. Maybe the best suggestion yet.

But your suggestion at the end is much like Mack’s idea to limit discussion. The idea of an arbitrary 100 comment limit is more nanny statism, in my opinion. I don’t think the idea of “Okay that is number 100, so someone start a post with Part II” is a great idea. It is like saying you want to stop the conversation before it may become overheated. Grownups are talking here. Do we need supervision? This idea defeats the purpose, in my opinion.

Saraclark:

Given the fear of the uterus that has shown through on several threads now, I think we may have to revise that estimate downward.

nm: BINGO! You win the internet today! (I’m sure Aunt B won’t mind if I award it out today on her behalf.)

Might I add that it’s pretty obvious from Glen’s post over at his place that he just isn’t one for playing at a place
“filled with highly emotional females.”

Thank you for your feedback on my comment Number9.

As to the “Who is the decider?” question that you ask in relation to my comment on ideas and comments content in threads, I have to say that for myself only “I am” and it is a totally subjective decision made by me. I am firmly against censorship in any medium of communication and expression in life. Mainly because the choice to read or not, to be offended by content or not is totally up to me. I have the power to skip the link, turn off the channel or change the station at any time that I don’t like the content. I am pretty broad in my personal interests and I cross over a lot of lines that bother other people, but I don’t necessarily want someone else filtering my content. Not everyone feels the same and typically the person paying the bills in life gets to make the big decisions about things. Right or wrong, that’s how the world turns.

A comment limit is usually put in place as a size and bandwidth management tool rather than a censorship tool. Most professional sports blogs use thread limits as well as several gardening blogs that I have participated in. Comments rarely reach the limits in either setting, but it has not seemed to cause any less contentious arguments on issues in either setting. I like a quantity limit better than a date limit if there has to be one.

In the see it now and instant gratification world of the internets anything over 24hrs is old news anyways.

I look forward to reading the next evolution of MCB and all of its contributers.

Given the fear of the uterus that has shown through on several threads now, I think we may have to revise that estimate downward.

I thought we were discussing ideas, not who the ideas came from.

nm, that is a little surprising coming from you. You who accuses other of calling names.

It is okay to disagree with an idea without being a misogynist isn’t it?

I have to say that for myself only “I am” and it is a totally subjective decision made by me. I am firmly against censorship in any medium of communication and expression in life. Mainly because the choice to read or not, to be offended by content or not is totally up to me. I have the power to skip the link, turn off the channel or change the station at any time that I don’t like the content. I am pretty broad in my personal interests and I cross over a lot of lines that bother other people, but I don’t necessarily want someone else filtering my content.

saraclark, I like your self-actualized viewpoints on personal responsibility.

Are you a MCB contributor?

#9, what do you call this? Or this???

That’s why I suggested setting up a site where we asshats could voluntarily go to continue asshattery that a lot of people tire of here, so quickly.

Yes! You can all come to my (what would certainly soon become commercial) blog!

I don’t see the need for capping the number of comments. As long as people can “Check to receive future comments for this post” and as long as there is a “recent posts” widget, then the fact that “recent comment” is loaded up merely indicates where everyone has gathered.

Folks who take cheap shots will over time be ostracized, I think; and though few of us are inclined to defend a cheap shooter (usually on the other side of the aisle) who receives a well-earned cheap shot, over time people who are ignored take their leave.

I thought we were, too. Which is why I find references to hormonal levels, female incapacity, and the like out of place on this and other threads. Yes, I do accuse those slinging that kind of stuff of inappropriateness and name calling. You can disagree with me, of course. But your disagreement does not make me wrong in this instance, I’m fairly sure.

Sorry, my post just above is in response to 9 @ 2:26.

#9, what do you call this? Or this???

TIMEOUT.

Ginger, you know exactly what I think about those comments. They were cheap shots and were totally inappropriate. I think you know me well enough to know that. I had already commented about those cheap shots.

nm made a comment right after my comment which would lead people to think that I had made a misogynistic statement. Which is NOT true.

nm should have been more careful with her statement.

Carry on.

And, Ginger, please don’t forget Serr8whatever’s reference to “this episode of female strangeness,” “Hillarity,” and hormones earlier today on this very thread. Not to mention repeated references to “nanny” states.

They delete comments over at Pith. No one seems to object that much. There are sometimes comments made here that if allowed to stand, reflect poorly on the community as a whole. Who decides? The person paying the bills.

Banning doesn’t work. It is almost impossible to do anyway. Deleting comments isn’t censorship. One can express any viewpoint they desire, right up to the point that they cross whatever “line” as determined by the blog host.
This ain’t a democracy.

Talk about simple.

nm made a comment right after my comment which would lead people to think that I had made a misogynistic statement.

Why would it lead people to think that? First, your post is on display for all to see anyways. Second her post was addressed to an entirely different person and referenced what she had seen “on several threads.” I find it difficult to see how anybody could think she was talking specifically to you.

Oh, please, #9. I was explicitly following up on and agreeing with something Saraclark had written, which was several posts above yours. I mentioned her by name and all. If you like, though, I’ll adopt a sig file along the lines of “nothing in this comment is in response to #9 unless I explicitly say it is.”

And may I just point out that as someone who is, in this very thread, advocating for people taking insults in stride, you need to take insults in stride, even if you are imagining them.

Not to mention repeated references to “nanny” states.

nm, are you stating in public here on MCB that the term “nanny state” is misogynistic?

Yes or no?

OddInteger, what does “nanny state” mean by your definition?

btw, I’m not trying to be snarky…I honestly don’t understand what that means…

OddInteger, what does “nanny state” mean by your definition?

You can call me Nine.

I think that is a great example of what to do in a a debate. Ask the person what they mean. Many a battle can be avoided with that intelligence.

What does it mean?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-25,GGLJ:en&q=nanny+state

To me it is a term which speaks of an all powerful form of government which may be either totalitarian, authoritarian, or perhaps even fascist.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the female sex or form. It is a term of oppressive government.

What does it mean to you?

Nonsense, 9. That’s not what “nanny state” means. The power of the phrase lies in the implication that gov’t is treating adults like children, and that giving instructions is bossy when done by a woman, or by a gov’t with whose policies one doesn’t agree.

It was carefully crafted by those who first used it (evidently British Tories, back in the 1960s) to appeal to those who don’t like to have women in charge of things (because it makes them feel that they are reduced to childhood again) and to those who find cerain concerns to be too feminine for gov’ts to be concerned about. That doesn’t mean that everyone who uses the phrase is thinking along those lines, and certainly not thinking in those terms explicitly every time s/he uses it. But on balance, yes, I do find it misogynistic. If I were to label, oh, let’s say, gov’t interference in people’s private sexual behavior “daddy gov’t,” and was able to get the phrase to catch on, wouldn’t you find repated use of it misanthropic?

Now, kindly stop your great example of thread derailment.

No, actually, I’m glad Nine brought it up, because I’m learning something here…

Now, kindly stop your great example of thread derailment.

I wasn’t aware you were in charge, teacher. But I must protest. In your argument you use the word “evidently”, which indicts a degree of doubt.

While I was kind enough to provide some limited sourcing you have provided none. Which isn’t cricket.

Some may think that the term nanny state was a corollary of “Big Brother”, which is indicative of an all powerful totalitarian, authoritarian, or perhaps even fascist form of oppression disguised as government.

Without sourcing, it is difficult to see your position as anything other than opinion.

indicts=indicates

I am so getting a B- now.

If I were to label, oh, let’s say, gov’t interference in people’s private sexual behavior “daddy gov’t,” and was able to get the phrase to catch on, wouldn’t you find repeated use of it misanthropic?

No, I would not.

Logic and analytical reasoning are the firewall which prevents feelings from distracting from what is true, real, and provable.

But you have given me a great idea for a new post.

Well, even taking away the usage of the term “nanny state”, I and others have definitely sensed a misogynistic undertone to this whole debacle. I seriously wonder how different the attitudes of some of the commenters would have been had this been Mike Sechrist or some other man running this blog with his rules, etc.

Just sayin’…

What 9 says I wrote: In your argument you use the word “evidently”, which indicts a degree of doubt.

What I wrote: those who first used it (evidently British Tories, back in the 1960s)

Yes, there is some doubt as to who first used the phrase, which is why I didn’t make an unqualified assertion about it. That has nothing to do with what the phrase means, though.

And may I point out that you are once again being non-responsive and changing the topic under discussion? That’s far more problematic than typos, and doesn’t get you anywhere near the B range at all, I’m afraid.

Well, even taking away the usage of the term “nanny state”, I and others have definitely sensed a misogynistic undertone to this whole debacle.

That is a completely different issue. But not everyone was part of that. And it isn’t right to paint those who were not with the same brush. I was defending myself only.

I agree there has been a misogynistic undertone which is uncalled for and should be called out. Kat, Ivy, and Ginger have all been insulted. And each time it was a cheap shot.

I seriously wonder how different the attitudes of some of the commenters would have been had this been Mike Sechrist or some other man running this blog with his rules, etc.

Agreed. And I’m not talking about you, specifically, 9- but I can think of one comment, I think it was Kevin, who said “Well, Brittney did a good job because she had a boss”. If I had more time I’d run down the exact comment, but there has been a lot of misogyny throughout this process. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but many of us women have.

That is a completely different issue. But not everyone was part of that. And it isn’t right to paint those who were not with the same brush. I was defending myself only.

I agree there has been a misogynistic undertone which is uncalled for and should be called out. Kat, Ivy, and Ginger have all been insulted. And each time it was a cheap shot.

Dang, it took us a long time to understand that we all agree.

Logic and analytical reasoning are the firewall which prevents feelings from distracting from what is true, real, and provable.

The same logic and analytical reasoning that first got into a snit because I said something about misogyny that showed up just after a post of yours? And that then couldn’t tell what phrase “evidently” was modifying? Right.

Not to mention that in suggesting that I’m responding on the basis of emotion rather than reason, you are the one getting into general, personal insults, rather than dealing with specifics. Which is fine, except that it’s the point at which I get out of interacting with you in this thread. So, bye. If I think up any suggestions for the moderators, I’ll be sure to mention them.

One of my first comments, post-bannination, was to express disappointment with particular misogynistic comments aimed at Kat.
.

And may I point out that you are once again being non-responsive and changing the topic under discussion?

My response to YOUR charge that I have made a misogynistic statement is not a thread derailment.

It is a clarification and a defense.

Teacher, do you want to debate me about something?

You made a serious charge and now you accuse me of the crime of changing the subject?

How does that work, exactly?

My response to YOUR charge that I have made a misogynistic statement is not a thread derailment.

I think the point is she made no such charge.

Speaking of debate…it would be interesting to see formalized debates on occasion.

Which is fine, except that it’s the point at which I get out of interacting with you in this thread.

Oh, the passive aggressive style of attack. First you slip in a little innuendo that maybe just possibly I made a misogynistic statement, then you retreat.

After being called on it you say the term “nanny state” is misogynistic. Then when challenged on the definition of “nanny state” you admit you don’t really know the sourcing. Then you come back and revert to your first incorrect sourcing trying to misdirect when your word of “evidently” was used. To completely confuse all but the most determined reader.

What a pitiful debate. You know almost no one will take the time to find the truth.

You are a coward. In my opinion of course.

Sorry, Wild West rules in effect.

You just don’t get it, do you? You nit-pick and parse until you find some, ANY point to contend. This evidently fulfills some pathetic need you have for attention. People stop addressing you because of this, and you will never admit it.

NM would totally level you in any debate format. You are (continuing in the Wild West theme) bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I’m done with this thread, so feel free to have The Last Word.

French Soldier: You don’t frighten us, English pig dogs. Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called “Arthur King,” you and all your silly English K-nig-hts.
French Soldier: Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of silly persons!

I waft my ovaries in your general direction. or do you want another nasty taunting?

Time to laugh and move on.

Nine, I have a question, and I’m serious. What is it you are trying to accomplish in this thread?

Whatever it was, you seemed to have lost sight of it and instead have climbed down a rabbit hole.

Of course, it could just be hormones.

I’d bet it is the male kind of hormones.

Nine, I have a question, and I’m serious. What is it you are trying to accomplish in this thread?

I assume you mean the latter part of the thread.

Second time nm has tried this tactic. One time too many. It’s nothing personal. nm is a very high level intellect.

But it could be allegorical. Perhaps there is a hidden meaning.

wow, and I thought it was a bad thing to be stuck in a meeting all day so i missed this. was i ever wrong.

Okay, if we were to set up the “safe word,” I’d be calling it about now.

Asshats, start your engines!

.

Okay, if we were to set up the “safe word,” I’d be calling it about now.

As the architect of so much of the trouble here it really takes amazing gall to promote your new website here.

You have figured out why no one replies to your comments haven’t you? The biblical term is pariah.

[…] This is where I end up sounding 90 years old.  What’s really bugging me about the recent nastiness at MCB is that it really highlights the fact that there are very,very few true gentlemen left in the […]

Which is fine, except that it’s the point at which I get out of interacting with you in this thread.

Oh, the passive aggressive style of attack.

Fine, then. I’ll fisk you first and then go away. Because I’ve realized the problem is that you can’t read.

First you slip in a little innuendo that maybe just possibly I made a misogynistic statement,

I did not. I posted a comment in response to a comment by Saraclark. It was not a response to you. It addressed her by name, and referred to the content of what she had written. Several other commenters pointed out that they knew perfectly well what I was talking about, and that it had nothing to do with you. I wasn’t thinking of you when I wrote it, so I didn’t feel the slightest need to say “BTW, this comment isn’t about 9.” And, having (in view of your response) read it and reread it a number of times, I have to say that I still don’t see how anyone, including you, could possibly have thought that it was about you.

then you retreat.

If by “retreat” you mean pointing out that I wasn’t talking to you or about you.

After being called on it you say the term “nanny state” is misogynistic.

I didn’t have to be called on it. I said it out loud, clear, and plain, without being prompted. Once again, please note, I didn’t say it about you, or about just any use of the phrase, but about Serr8ed’s frequent use of the term.

Now, once you expressed some surprise about that, I expanded on my statement and pointed out the context in which I find the misogyny. (I’m pointing that out because you never responded to it, and may have missed it.) You will notice that I did not say, in my comment, “anyone who ever uses the term ‘nanny state’ is always a horrible sexist, all the time.” In fact, I was very careful to say that “That doesn’t mean that everyone who uses the phrase is thinking along those lines, and certainly not thinking in those terms explicitly every time s/he uses it.” Which leads me to some puzzlement as to what you’re going on about, but whatever.

Then when challenged on the definition of “nanny state” you admit you don’t really know the sourcing.

Wow, this is so wrong. You didn’t challenge my definition of NS. You didn’t address my definition in the least. You said, “In your argument you use the word evidently’, which indicts a degree of doubt.” That’s not a challenge to my definition. A challenge would be something along the lines of “gee, what you wrote is wrong because of X.” Instead, your comment suggests that I defined it but wasn’t sure about the definition. I pointed out to you that the ordinary rules of English grammar make it very clear that what I wasn’t sure about was who first used the phrase; I have no doubts about its denotations and connotations. And just so we’re clear, no one needs to know who first coined a phrase to be able to define it.

Then you come back and revert to your first incorrect sourcing trying to misdirect when your word of “evidently” was used.

Misdirect? You are accusing me of lying? The comment is there to be read. Or perhaps I somehow mysteriously got the keys to MCB and went back and edited my comment? I wrote what I wrote; clear writing means what it says. (Oh, and do you know that my sourcing is incorrect? I noted that I’m not sure who invented “NS” — have you got evidence that it wasn’t the Tories in the ’60s? Because if not, you have no business claiming that I’m incorrect, either.

To completely confuse all but the most determined reader.

Hey, big boy, I thought it was Wild West rules here. My own six-gun is grammatical English. If you can’t take it, leave it alone.

What a pitiful debate. You know almost no one will take the time to find the truth.

If by “find the truth” you mean “read what nm and Number9 have written,” you have a really low opinion of the readers here.

You are a coward. In my opinion of course.

Of course. I will repeat that you’re the one who started out insisting that I had insulted you when I hadn’t. I don’t, myself, think it’s cowardly to point that out. But I’m going to insult you now: 9, you are so ready to pick fights where there aren’t any that you are willing to sacrifice the sense I’m pretty sure you were born with and the reading skills some people must have spent a lot of time teaching you to try to prove to yourself that I must be a monster. A cowardly monster. But that doesn’t make it true. Get over yourself, dude.

I agree there has been a misogynistic undertone which is uncalled for and should be called out. Kat, Ivy, and Ginger have all been insulted. And each time it was a cheap shot.

Misogynistic me eye! Didn’t you see my tongue firmly planted in cheek? Allegorical, #9 says, an