A Comment Prompts a Blogpost.
Daily Ructions has enjoyed a soft launch longer than a Cher a farewell tour. Events in this crowded year of politics have provided a growing audience since January. You’re likely to see some new features in the weeks ahead. A blogroll, for example, is overdue.
One of the surprises of late has been the vigorous collection of commenters that’s gathered. It’s attracting attention, and I appreciate that. (Pointed but polite works best, but others may take a different view.) Yesterday, a reader posted a comment that was so clever and entertaining that it deserves a mention in a post as the Foley story continues to unfurl.
CT Bill, thanks for this: “I’m curious: When Mr. Foley was running things in Iraq, did he treat car-bombings as ‘minor traffic offenses’? (I said I was just curious, that’s all… )”
Thanks for continuing to read, link, comment, and slip me tips.
There are ructions in our future.
11 comments
Kevin,
One of the most enjoyable features of your blog is the unmoderated commenting. It’s a lot more fun, and addictive, to argue with other commenters when you don’t have to wait a few days for the blog owner to release your comment.
Hopefully EdM’s occasional personal attacks on other commenters won’t force you to change this policy any time soon.
I agree that unmoderated comments work best, moderation disrupts the flow of conversation. I think moderating comments is the reason CT Political Reporter hasn’t quite taken the place of CT Local Politics, which was much more freewheeling.
Yeah right fuzzy….. I only “attack” people when they “attack” so how about you STFU?
Ed plays a better heel than anything a McMahon could concoct.
The weaker some candidates become the more their supporters attack. It’s called desperation.
Congratulations to Kevin. Its a fine blog and enjoyable.
One comment did prompt me to write. I find the idea of anonymous commenting to be, well, un-American. I believe that, just like in the town meeting if you believe in something strongly enough you should be willing to stand up and state your name and say your piece. And, be willing to accept the criticism or praise. All these random comments by folks with creative screen names simply don’t matter. It may be fun, why I do not know, but your contributions—many times worthy comments—will never really add to the public discourse.
Although a minority, the anonymous invectives or criticisms under cover of darkness seem more like reports by the Stasi in East Germany than the open a free society we strive for in a democracy.
Man up and tell us who you are. You will feel better and who knows, you just might have the next good idea? Lord knows your ideas cant be worse than much of our current leadership.
“The weaker some candidates become the more their supporters attack. It’s called desperation.”
Exactly what you’ve been doing all along Ken as we all watch Fedele and Grebal crash and burn. Foley’s going to win the primary not matter what you say and how much you lie.
Ben,
Samuel Clemens, Publius and Richard Saunders might disagree with you as to your views of the un-Americaness of pseudonyms (respectively, the pseudonyms of Mark Twain, the authors of the federalist papers and Benjamin Franklin).
What is so un-American about anonymity? If anything, it provides the writer with a greater degree of freedom than they would have if their identity were known. Unfortunately, some of us have politically sensitive jobs and could face serious repercussions for some of the things we say. Without a pseudonym, I for one would be much more constrained. This is an enjoyable outlet for me.
I would also disagree with you that most commenters aren’t anonymous. I think the opposite is in fact true. And does it detract from the substance of our arguments that you do not know who we are? Is the case that I frequently make against the Citizen’s Election Program any less persuasive because you don’t know who I am? Are my frequent reminders about Janet Peckinpaugh’s affiliation with Lend America any less true? Are the failures of the Rell administration any less damning? The answer is no.
Fuzzy:
I guess we simply agree to disagree.
I certainly would agree with your concerns and Im sure we are in the same pew when it comes to CEP and the “Peckinpaw”.
Although your comments do not fit this criteria but good old “Mark Twin” said, as Im sure you know, “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”
I think a small but vocal minority on the net should listen to old “Twain”.
Thomas Paine published Common Sense anonymously.
The issue of comments and identity was taken up by the BBD radio program about the internet, Outriders, earlier this month. It’s available as a podcast. The relevant point for this discussion is that even if someone provided a name, there’s no way to know if it’s authentic. It’s like the New Yorker cartoon of the dog using a computer–he can be anything he wants.