Why I don't read comments

Maybe. Just maybe by now one of you may have read and understood that the "Ban Guns" post wasn't about banning guns, but was a test to see if you actually read what I wrote.

And that you had some understanding of what I had written if you had read it.

I don't bother reading comments because I can tell that you usually don't bother reading what I wrote, or at least don't understand it.

I know it's not me since I have met people who understand what I am trying to say, yet for some reason you seem incapable of getting it.

In the case of the "Ban Guns" post, I would expect a comment along the lines of:

"Well, that's a dirty trick: we do actually read what you write."

As I had expected, the comments were totally out of touch with what was actually said.

It's hard to claim intelligence if you are incapable of understanding the English language, which most of you seem to be.

It's not that I am a snob or an elitist as much as you are a pack of idiots.

Julian Cope: World Shut Your Mouth

The BBC World Service has a programme called World Have your Say, those who know me know that I would prefer it this way:


Of course, really good, useful comments are always welcome.

But, I'm not holding my breath to see them.

Anyone who lives near Avebury and is “a fierce critic of contemporary Western society (with a noted and public interest in occultism, paganism and Goddess worship)” who went to School in Liverpool can’t be all bad.

Wikipedia:The Last Word

I was curious about this debating style utilised by Greg, and Tennessean, who after they have shown me that their comments aren't worth my time, believe that they have somehow "won" the argument if I don't bother response.

Not that they have gotten--I'M NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM!

Reasons for getting the last word

Getting the last word means that you win the debate. It also shows your moral superiority, and willingness to stand your ground. This should convince your opponent that you are correct, and will certainly impress your fellow Wikipedians.

It is particularly important to get the last word where you are in some doubts as to the merits of your case. The last word will serve as a clinching argument that will make up for any deficiencies in your logic. Achieving the last word now also brings the advantage that you may subsequently point to your success in this debate as the clinching argument in future debates. However, if you did not win the last discussion, we still recommend claiming incessantly that you did.

The Consensus seems to be that it's generally important to the one who is in the wrong to get the last word: That's the only way the can perceive victory.

I'm happy that you believe that you have somehow "won" when in fact you have only firmed up my opinion that reading blog opinions is a waste of my time.

I've said before that personally, I find blog comments to be like my dog and her pee mail. She stops and smells and adds her excrement to the pile. For those of you too dumb to get my meaning, blog comments to me are like taking my dog for a walk and watching her with excrement.

I've also said I don't care if you read my stuff, unlike some of you attention starved and in need of seriously being disabused of your self-opinions.

Short form, I don't really care what you say.  Not to mention, I don't really read blog comments that often.

So--Demanding my attention, or even a response is not really a good use of your time.

But, nevermind--you got in the last word.

I'm glad you feel you show how "won" the argument since I couldn't give a toss.

Commenting Policy

I've put the comment moderation back on because I've decided to clean up the dialogue on the blog a little bit. No more name-calling or personal attacks are allowed. Opinions, theories, unsupported assertions, all manner of nonsense, as well as statistics and surveys are all welcome.

I'll enforce that like I used to, which is to say not strictly, but as a general guideline, and of course I'm the judge.

I thank everyone who participates here and I hope you don't feel too inconvenienced.

Comments

There has been some off-line discussion about comments amongst the bloggers who contribute to this blog. This is my opinion on the matter:

I pretty much make it clear that I am for the most part comment adverse, since I rarely see any comments worth actually reading.

And while you lot believe that free speech means that we need to publish your viewpoint, whether we want to or not--I need to point out that is incorrect.

Freedom of speech and expression is supposed to allow for more ideas to enter the intellectual marketplace, not have people shout them down with inane comments.

We are under no obligation to publish your comments--no matter how witty you may believe them to be.

Furthermore, we don't need to read them.

MikeB and I disagree about comment quality etcetera and JadeGold points out you would complain whether we publish your comments or not.

The main problem is that you believe you are winning if we don't respond for some reason--never mind that your comment may be repetitive and already answered.

Of course, I know that some of you are attention starved and have to make comments here to get a response--you need that response since it affirms your existence, no matter how pathetic your comments and opinions may be.

Maybe the lack of attention will cause you to wither away. That is my hope.

Sorry to spoil your fun, but...

Wow, are the people I'm dealing with here members of the "The Armed Intelligentsia"?

Lead's neurotoxicity is really showing up in the level of their comments.

Not to mention I have to spoon feed these people concepts and they are unable to comprehend them.

The worst part of it is that they could do the research themselves, but for whatever reason are unable to do this.

The repetitive nature of these comments is also pretty tedious to boot.

Personally, I prefer for people to say things that are intelligent and interesting. That isn't what I'm seeing, with a few exceptions, but they are other lefties and the mods.

While we are under no obligation to publish comments, MikeB likes to publish them to get the discussion going. Dog Gone tells me that I am educating you, but I see inner city children who are far better at learning than the gunloonz.

So, have fun, comment away. I may respond if I see something that interests me, but I may also respond via a post and then not address the issue again.

But if this is "The Armed Intelligentsia",I'd hate to meet the truly stupid ones.

Commenting Moderation Back On

Here's an anonymous comment very similar to about a dozen I've deleted in just the last two days. I've responded to this issue in a post last year, you can read it here. Apparently, our obsessed friend thinks he's harming me by asking questions over and over again that he knows I won't answer. The inevitable result of all this, as he probably planned, is that comment moderation is going back on.  I suppose this fine example of the pro-gun camp considers that a victory too. 

So Mikey,

No comment on why you owned guns?

Was it to avoid fights or to use the firearms in fights?

Did you illegally carry them?

Come on, talk to us. Unless you've murdered someone, the statute of limitations is up.

Just why did you go through the trouble of breaking the law to own firearms?

One of the things that I noticed is for a guy who claims to have all the winning answers, backed up by stats, of course, these are pretty shabby victories to spend so much time winning. But win he did. I refused to answer many many questions, I began deleting comments again, and now, the biggest victory of all, I'm putting back the comment moderation function.

Another thing is that, without comparing IP addresses, this guy's style is very familiar. I'm banned from his blog, as I am from many others.  Of course they can explain it till you're blue in the face, but I find it truly amusing that these self-proclaimed supporters of freedom and rights ban people from their blogs and engage in campaigns to get others to do so as well.

If you're interested you can look at the old and new Commenting Policies.  My way of handling it will be more or less the same.  Back then I remember another campaign was waged against me by this same character and a few of his friends.  That was the "child pornography" one, which came in the form of scores of seemingly innocent suggestions that I'm responsible for child porn, if gun owners are responsible for gun crime, which I sometimes argue. After a while it began to seem they were trying to smear my name by associating it over and over again day after day with that most abhorred crime against children.  When that became abundantly clear, I started moderating for the first time.

So, here we go again.  If you think I've mistakenly rejected a comment please resend it or shoot me an e-mail.

Of course you're more than welcome to comment on this post too.

Blog Break - Just a Couple Days

Commenting moderation is off just in case someone wants to say something and doesn't want to wait for my return in order to see it posted.

And, actually I don't think we finished discussing this one. There was a bit of an e-mail kerfuffle. It seems Weer'd felt my post was bordering on slander.

This post borders on slander. I respectfully request you remove it.

I politely said no and asked what exactly was the part which bordered on slander. No response.

And of course there are two timeless posts which can always use further discussion, here and here.

Fair Warning From Breda

On the pro-gun blog called The Breda Fallacy this post was entitled fair warning.

I am now and forevermore going to be deleting comments by mikeb302000 because all he ever does is come here and try to stir up arguments. This is not a person who wants a real debate, or who can be swayed to a more 2A-friendly mindset. He's a troll, despite all attempts to appear otherwise. He knows nothing about guns except he that he hates them, and us. He's also been using my blog to link to his own posts in the comment section, seeking blog hits and attention and I simply won't allow that.Anonymous comments will be closed down until further notice as well.

At the moment there are 10 comments, every single one in agreement. Now, I don't know about you but after hearing repeatedly how the major anti-gun sites don't allow comments, as if it were proof of their inferiority, for a pro-gun blogger to say what Breda said and ALL of the pro-gun commenters express agreement is extremely funny. What do you think? What's your opinion?

By e-mail I sent Breda this response.

Breda,

I swear to god you've got me completely wrong - except for the part about wanting to link back to my blog for the hits. The rest is wrong, really.

I'm getting some enjoyment out of seeing your and your commenters hypocrisy, deleting my comments on your part and approving of it on theirs, after reviling the so-called anti-gun sites for not accepting comments. But, I'm mainly sorry about your decision. It's what I would call ironic hypocrisy.

I thought you were a tough girl or at least that you try to encourage that perception. My challenging you on your sloppy muzzle control, if you noticed, was met with a number of agreeing comments by pro-gun guys. When you posted that video I was one of the first or perhaps the first to comment and I think it was rather respectful. My other comments on your site were not all that frequent or all that "troll-like" to warrant your decision, in my opinion. I certainly don't think you're afraid to debate with me or that you realize I'm right and you're wrong and that's why you're doing this. So what could it be?

Anyway, it's your blog, you do what you like. I hope you don't mind too much if I link to you from time to time, starting with this one entitled "Fair Warning." And of course, you're more than welcome to comment on my site. I probably won't find it necessary to delete yours unless you call me names or something, but I don't think that's your style.

All the best,


Sincerely,


Mikeb

I wanted to say something else about this oft-repeated accusation that I don't change my mind no matter how convincing the arguments against me.

It is true on the major issues of gun control and gun violence I haven't, but there are some examples of things I have changed on. One is the 90% of guns confiscated in Mexico, another is the AWB, there are others.

But the bigger point is I haven't changed my mind because I don't find the arguments convincing. I could accuse the pro-gun writers of this as well. After all I've said, you guys still don't get it. What's the matter with you? You must be mentally ill or lying. There's no other explanation, so I guess I'll have to break off discussions.

I don't do that because I enjoy the discussions. That's the bottom line, isn't it?

Please feel free to leave a comment.

Blog Break - 3 Days

Comment moderation is off so anyone wanting to comment won't have to wait for its release on Monday. My New Commenting Policy is on the sidebar and linked here, if anyone wants to read it. Also, kaveman has helped me synthesize it here.

Have a good weekend.

New Commenting Policy

I feel compelled to change my long-standing commenting policy, which you can read here. The reason for the change is the fact that a couple commenters seem to have lost the ability to argue and disagree respectfully. I've asked for it and not gotten it. So now it'll be enforced through comment moderation.

I think the problem stems from my idea that all gun owners share in the responsibility for gun violence. I admit this is a debatable premise, and that's exactly what we've been doing until recently when it turned particularly vicious and personal. I realize a legal gun owner might take my idea very personally, and even be offended by it, but when I'm repeatedly called "liar" and "bastard," and when the inference is made that I'm involved in child pornography, I say it's gone too far.

If you feel so strongly about my premise and are convinced that by proposing it I deserve to be called a "liar" and a "bastard" and if you really think that by engaging the pro-gun community in an argument like this I deserve to be slandered as a child pornographer, I would simply remind you that this is my blog. Here, I can do what I want, you cannot.

One interesting aspect is that the offending parties were never called to task by any of the other commenters. What is that all about? Do you gun guys support each other, right or wrong? Is that it? I don't have much respect for that. But, I'll tell you what I do respect. I respect someone who argues their point passionately, even heatedly. I can even accept some name-calling; we've had plenty of that around here. But, when it comes to personal attacks and slander, all of which is off topic, I won't have it. And if anyone cares to notice, I hold myself to the same standards.

Please feel free to comment. I'd love to hear what you have to say about this.

UPDATE June 28, 2009

Personal attacks will be rejected at my discretion.

Commenting Policy - Blog Regulations

My Commenting Policy is basically anything goes. My Blog Rules are none whatsoever.

In the five months or so that I've been doing this, I've not found it necessary to delete anything or restrict anyone in any way. I personally like profanity and welcome criticism and disagreement. I've described the attributes necessary to comment here as "having a thick skin and a quick wit." Those who can't take the heat just go away after one or two attempts.

Recently I've been criticized a couple times for "not checking my sources." Well, I am guilty of that and I have no intention of changing it. Beyond providing a link to the place where I get something, I don't really want to investigate any deeper. I'm not trying to pass myself off as the BBC or the CNN. In fact, my only criterion for including something in a post is if I like it, period. This has ranged from the purely satirical Sarah Palin and Amy Winehouse are Twins, to the polemical The Great Gun Survey Results and Conclusions, to the roundly criticized The Old Double Standard.

Usually, I pose what I think are provocative questions at the end of a post. Often I state my own opinion. I consider it entertainment not journalism.