November 26th, 2007

Rules for the comments section

I’m back!

I noticed that in my absence this rather short and recent post engendered quite the heated and verbose discussion in the comments section, proving that the number of comments isn’t proportional to the length of the post.

I consider the comments section here to be an extremely important part of the blog, and I encourage and enjoy a lively back-and-forth exchange there, even if I don’t always get around to reading everything. I don’t even mind a certain amount of verbosity, since it would be fair to accuse me of giving in to that tendency now and then. But a warning: if you are going to quote from an article or other online source, please limit your cut-and-paste quotes to a couple of paragraphs max, and provide the link for the rest (or just provide the link). Anything more is spamming, and could earn you a banning.

Also, when people submit a long comment that is their own work rather than a cut-and-paste job, it’s okay to break it up into a couple of sections and to post them rapidly, because I know there’s a word limit on comments here, although it’s a fairly generous one. But to post a whole bunch of comments in rapid succession can sometimes be spamming, depending on the tone of the message and the number of successive comments involved. There are no hard and fast rules about this, and it’s really up to me to judge when the comments are over the lne.

I have a fairly liberal (pun intended) policy on comments here, but I will use my discretion to ban people who post any comment or comments I consider to be spam, abusive, obscene, or otherwise offensive. This is particularly true if the comment in question lacks other substance.

10 Responses to “Rules for the comments section”

  1. bunkerbuster Says:

    Thanks for setting out those rules. I’ll stick to them.

    However, I want to opine that the cut and paste comments are far superior to the homegrown ones.

    On that thread in particular, virtually every concise, factual, salient point was something pasted in from a more fundamental source.

    Something to consider as well: scrolling moves very quickly and I exercise my wheel liberally. For example, a popular theme on this blog seems to be that liberals are somehow evil, bad people. These comments do have some value as self-parody–especially on a blog who’s raison d’etre is partly disappointment at being labeled a bad person merely for having right-wing views–but generally, I find myself choosing not to read through them.

    Whatever annoyance lengthy low-value posts may cause, it seems a small price to pay for the knowledge that one is engaging in a discussion that is free. Not sort of free, or free for the blogs owner only, a free up to a point, but just free.

  2. Sally Says:

    Not sort of free, or free for the blogs owner only, a free up to a point, but just free.

    As I’ve said, the usual — and phony — complaint from every troll that’s ever thought it was a fun idea to spam a comment thread. And as I’ve also said, if you want a discussion that’s “just free” in whatever terms you decide, why not start your own blog and generate your own audience rather than trying to hijack someone else’s? See if repeating intellectual quotes like “yee-haw”, or cut and paste jobs (however “concise, factual, salient”) really work on their own!

  3. Laura Says:

    Sally, why is a troll someone who disagrees with you? I don’t get it. Is a spammer someone who contradicts your logic?

    Neo, I understand the rules and will abide by them.

    Thanks for the clarification.

  4. Sally Says:

    I don’t get it.

    Don’t think you want to get it, Laura, but that’s not new, is it?

  5. bunkerbuster Says:

    Sally, you’re mistaken about my identity. I’m not the Jim who posts here with a liberal dash of Dr. Strangelove references. But I am flattered by the comparison. I wish I had half his wit.

  6. Talkinkamel Says:

    bunkerbuster, I’m with Sally; if you really think the cut-and-paste discussions are superior to the actual ones, and if you feel you feel this blog is unfair to liberals, or whoever, start your own blog, where you can cut-and-paste, spam, whatever, to your heart’s content, with your own audience. You can have your own “superior” blog, not have to associate with us yahoos here, and not waste Neo’s bandwidth.

    Sally, Laura gets it; she just doesn’t want it. And there’s nothing new about that.

    Neo, I’m glad you had a Happy Thanksgiving!

  7. Laura Says:

    Where I come from, the south, that kind of talk is just plain ugly talk.

  8. bunkerbuster Says:

    Talkinkamel: Perhaps you should try eating a bit of your own cooking before pushing it on others.

    If you don’t like my comments, YOU got to another blog. If you can’t bear to contemplate suggestions like mine, YOU start another blog. Or better yet, just don’t read what I write! When you see my name, scroll right past. It’s a free world. Dontcha love it?

  9. dawne Says:

    I have used my Social Security number while on the Internet so now I am afraid to make any credit card purchases on-line because I think it will make my credit card account vulnerable. Right now I’m thinking about applying for a credit card online but I’m not sure that it is safe. Do you now what kind of security system they use at

    discover card instant approval credit cards

  10. Ymarsakar Says:

    It’s a free world. Dontcha love it?

    Unfortunately for you, I’ve always recommended to Neo to boot your kind into the red sea, tied down with all manner of explosives and dead weight.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge