Comments Reminder

May I respectfully suggest you get a little more aggressive with the "delete" and "ban" buttons? The shrieks of "censorship" are to be expected, the word has about as much currency as "racist" because of its constant use and abuse. This blog is your private property, you're entitled to keep it clean, it would be more "editing" than "censoring". For examples of aggressive censorship one must look to Rabble, and other hard left sites.

No need to get too heavy about it , some posters are going to screw up or get off topic from time to time, but the truly moronic and hard core leftie trolls and the extremely off-topic spam artists should just be bounced, erased, it's really the only response they'll understand.

It'll be less work if you give access to a few of your reliable friends who can help you with prompt eradication of posts by the intellectual degenerates. Why not? What's to worry about? Could the Laytonites hate you and slander you more than they already do? Thanks to our democracy we don't have to kill them, we just kick their butts at the ballot box, but surely they are deserving of the banning and deleting of their posts.

Is there anyway to have an area to post new/news items for viewers?
Thanks Kate

I don't like deleting posts, and I seldom do it, - the exception being persistant trolls who have been banned and come in via other isp's.

But keep in mind that SDA is coming very close to it's 100,000th comment. I don't read them all, and trying to police every person who comes here to stir things up isn't something I get paid for. The best people to police comments sections are the commentors themselves, and I expect the "regulars" to play a major role in that.

I don't mind you reminding others to ignore the trolls, but it really is frustrating to see people who know better get sidetracked by stupidity fests.

I try to put a "readers tips" post up every day or two. That's where you can post links on the topics of your choice.

We all sometimes fall into the trap of feeding the trolls, for it is against most of our instincts to turn the other cheek when being spit on. We may understand the concept that ignoring them is the best way to deal with them, but our human nature resists the pull of that logic. The fact that it can be fun to poke sticks at their ideological balloons can also lead us into temptation.

Of course, on the off chance we do get an intelligent poster of the liberal persuasion(hey, it could happen!), we should also refrain from showering them with abuse or ignoring their points. An intelligent debate is something to be treasured, as both sides should come away with more than they arrived with. The problem then comes when a reasonable disagreement denigrates into stereotypical name calling. If we want to keep this section interesting and not totally one-dimensional, we should all take a good look at our posts before hitting the Post button.

I will try to improve my conduct in that area, and if I fail, may Kate flog me.

heh.

How about a "Hall of Shame" identifying the troll/nonconformist? While a lot of regulars recognize the style of some offenders, a lot of new or casual commenters often get suckered into the quagmire.
Whatever you do, it is your bandwidth so it is fine by me. I also like Reader's Tips where everyone can bring up their "finds".

About a year ago I was roundly slagged when I said ignore these people. Maybe those that keep swallowing the bait will wake up to the fact that there is a hook, left wing stupidity. I enjoy all the comments here, even from the loony’s, I just can't understand why certain ones keep responding to their stupid ideas and logic. Most people here are capable of forming their own opinions of those idiots, they don't need any help.
Keep on those that feed the troll's Kate.

Kate wrote: Nonetheless, the fact that the comments policy here is about as open as any high-traffic site on the blogosphere, does not mean that you are welcome to use that privilage for casual banter, personal insults, profanity, unrelated link dumps, lengthy cut and pastes, or off topic debate.

She is right of course, that is what forums are for. At the risk of "shameless self promotion©" I have a small group that I really don't want to get too big, but you are welcome to check it out if you like. There are some rules of engagement of course, but nothing you can't live with. Just click on my name.

Most times I agree with the statements and opinions of Texas Canuck but I think a Hall of Shame is self-defeating. Most of the idiots would love nothing more than seeing their quote names unquote listed for all to see. In their twisted view they would see it as some sort of badge of honour. Perhaps I am wrong ..... if so, sorry TC.

I like Texas Canuck's idea of the "Hall of Shame" for trolls.

Since they are willing to leave ignorant and insulting posts on your blog, those posts have become your property to do with what you please. We would all get a good chuckle if we could see the post (editted for profane language, of course), the ID the troll is using and perhaps the ISP info as well, so other bloggers can immunize themselves from said infectors. You could even have a special section for the cowardly "Anon"s who prefer to insult from the safety of the herd.

I compare it to the "bounce board" you sometimes see at a merchants store displaying bad checks people have written. Generally, those people make ammends to get off the board or just quit coming back.

Could be a very good tool to "weed the garden",so to speak.

I don't think a Hall of shame would work.
Some people are proud to be stupid.

gee lars, you still got yer hand on the levers of power over at canadianpolitics? that'd be the one I posted a little tactic I used once and defended it by correctly saying it was typical of the stuff on the CIA's record of deeds.

and ooooo the vitriol there eh?

"when in rome"

Breaking news on CBC; shootings at a university in Montreal.

The idiotic verbal tennis matches that were becomming all to familiar were beginning to degrade this excellant site. You have intelligent regular and non-regular commentors with lots to say (write) and I enjoy almost everyone. I totally agree that it is up to each of us to monitor ourselves. The bottom line is that nothing upsets a TR#@$ (I'm breaking the rule already) more than simply ignoring their stupid rants.
Well done Kate and thank you.

It's Kate's site, and she can do as she wants with it. But let's all recognize that there are plenty of trolls who aren't lefties - and some of them even get their contributions highlighted in future posts. Let's all try to get along.

(BTW, see mary above for the most ironic comment in this thread.)

I can stand the Chimpy McHaliburton crap. My weakness is the blatant lies. I have a very difficult time letting a popularly perpetuated lie go unaddressed. Like the idiot yesterday that claimed the US has 90,000 murders a year when the real number is around 16,000, or those that claim the US was a primary sponser of Saddam when some basic research would reveal that honor overwhelmingly goes to Russia, France, and China.

Maybe I overestimate the damage of these socialist myths, and I'm sure my efforts to dispel them here are ineffective. But, I know people believe them and repeat them, and it all feeds into this hatred for my nation that leads idiots to such conclusions as Americans deserved 9/11. These lies are used to justify a very dangerous form of hate, so I have a very hard time letting them pass. I will try harder, and request that my fellow posters shout me down if I stray.

Suggestions:

Would it be permissible to make an ontopic post, but add a short factual footnote at bottom like this:

LIE DETECTOR: Jeff at 9:47 "90,000 US annual murders". TRUTH: 16,000. ???

Or have a mythbusters page for popularly accepted troll lies, where the US-Saddam doofus could just be referred to Myth 32. Canadian Observer who was unaware that regime change was a Clinton policy could be referred to Myth 33.

BC'er, valid point. You only have to look at MYTUBE or America's Funniest Videos to see that idiots indeed love to show their stupidity.

I like slashdot's approach, a news forum for programmers and similar nerds. They have a sophisticated moderating system where trolls get moderated down to invisibility by the patrons. Registered patrons also collect "karma", depending on whether they tend to get moderated up or down.
This system is all automatic for the host.

Regrettably, this requires sophisticated software that may be impossible for the standard blog site to acquire.

One thing I would like to see is the ability to reply to a particular posting. Instead of the linear style of displaying posts, where everything is displayed in order of time, replies are posted right underneath the posts that they are replying to, with indentation and so forth to show this. Course that probably means changing your blogging software.

The trouble with trolls is that the concept is difficult to define. A troll on SDA might be considered perceptive and incisive on a Marxist blog, and vice versa. Most people who have posted a lot on blogs have been called trolls at one time or another, simply because someone strongly disagreed with them.

I prefer to be fairly tolerant of suspected trolls so long as they stay polite and on topic. I find that by formulating responses to them, it clarifies my own thinking. If I can't articulate why a suspected troll is so devastatingly wrong, maybe the problem lies with my opinions, not theirs.

I have less tolerance for ad hominem attacks even when their opinions are perfectly in line with my own. I simply don't see what personal attacks are suppose to accomplish, apart from providing the satisfaction of venting.

Canadian Forces release hard-hitting ads today.

http://tinyurl.com/kmpv5

But the ads have drawn opposition from some groups. The Canadian Islamic Congress requested to view the ads prior to their release, and was granted the opportunity, Richardson said.

The group objected to the use of the word "fight," and scenes from Afghanistan that showed doors being kicked in.

NDP Defence Critic Dawn Black called the ads war-mongering and said they were a heavy-handed approach to drawing new soldiers.

"They do need recruits, but I'm not sure Rambo ads are the way we want to portray military service," Black was reported as saying.

"I think there's a lot more to the Canadian military than fight, fight, fight and war, war, war."

Jack! bin Layton sure has quite a crew there!

Tom Penn, I like your LIE DETECTOR idea as it would be an FYI statement to whom it may concern rather than a response to the troll him/herself. And perhaps the FYI system could be used to flag a troll, so everyone knows not to respond to them AT ALL. Ignoring trolls is the only effective manner to expel them.

For example:
"My thoughts on this topic are ...

FYI: t. schmuck esq. exhibits troll-like symptons. please ignore until coherent (if ever.)"

By the way, rabbit, it is easy to spot trolls. They will always resort to one-liner insults. Sometimes they'll take a shot at some sort of "insightful" post to suck us in, but, in short order, the troll-ness will appear. "Trolls that are polite and stay on topic" and provide meaningful contribution to the thread (I might add) are not trolls, even if they do not share the prevailing point of view.

Isn't Matt trolling at 3:51pm?

Yeah. I do wonder what the hell is going on when I do a post on off topic link dumping, and someone decides to use that thread for an off topic link dump.

I'm _this_ close to closing comments here for a few days just to get the damned point across.

As long as we are on the topic of who gets banned and who is a troll

I was banned some time ago for expressing frustration at being continually caught in the filter system that Kate or someone put in place on this blog.

Much later I appealed my banning on the grounds that I had not really offended anyone in particular and didn't use profanity.

Kate offered to 'give me another chance'. I was not allowed back on and after my third request to Kate I suggested that she was BS ing me.

It turned out that it was her techno-peasantry that was the problem. She apparently had no idea how to reverse a ban.

This exchange apparently, either incensed, angered or perhaps even slightly embarrassed the grand lady of blog. In any case I was summarily dismissed and told to not bother her again.

I see this as an injustice since am still a big fan and supporter of SDA even though I feel I have been treated badly by Kate.

My name is Duke McGoo and I am not a Troll.

This is a borrowed ISP, please don't ban it for allowing me to make the above statement.
Duke

You're an idiot, and a profane one at that. That's why my genuine efforts to restore your posting privilages were put on permanent hold.

Call me intolerant, but getting an email that refers to me as a "c*nt" isn't likely to result in a lot of good will.

Now go away, and stay away. You burned your bridges.

to troll or not to troll, that is the question horatio.....

is it a trollism to enquire if any right winger has *ever* lowered themselves to criticise george dubya even *once* in 6 long years?

Ive ripped into the lieberal party until Ive run out of things to rip.

Ive sworn off supporting the dangerously naive position and policies of the new democrap party.

and high level elected and appinted officials alike.

what on earth makes you right wingers think youre exempt from criticism?

youre a bunch of scientologistic sun myung mooners in disguise.

your simplistic one dimensional single issue view clouds your senses.

Kate !!!!!!!! I run Opera they have somthing called Widgets. Downloaded the page rank widget,your page rank is a 6 out of 10 and get this CBC is a 4 congrats are in order me thinks.

Some here have commented that intellectual debate is in order, desired, etc...

I've never actually seen a commentator on the right, on this blog anyway, admit that could be ANY reason for not supporting the war in Iraq, other than loving the terrorists.

I don't believe a debate, a real difference of opinions is very appreciated around here. At most, there is room for some mild disagrement about tactics and strategy. Any large differences, are unlikely to result in anything interesting around here. I know, I've tried many a time. At best, were one or two commentators who seemed to be able to understand the 'others' point of view before trying to destroy it.

I think a total ban on people who disagree would therefore be appropriate. I think everyone would be much happier.

Ted L, perhaps, just maybe, if those who disagree with something like the war on terror, Iraq, etc, did not preface their position with "Bush is a ****, Harper is his lackey" and other inflamatory crap then a good debate can take place.

Since SDA may be considered a blog that tends to have a more conservative audience, don't be surprised if most comments support that type of stand. Some liberals have great debates here but then again they refrain from ad homen attacks and use real facts. your last sentence speaks volumes as to your willingness to debate.

A hall of shame is a bad idea. The only way to deal with *persistently* nasty trolls is to ban them and ban them hard. People who just disagree all of the time should be encouraged to continue because it would stimulate some of the brain dead who frequent here to turn on their thinking caps for some overtime. Watching their hamster wheel grind as it turns is funny, but the smoke from their siezed bearing can get to be too much for me after a while.

Tex: If you care to know about my willingness to debate, just search the SDA comments over the past year. If you would prefer to assume then no further action required.

Your notion that people here don't engage with those who use ad-hominem attacks is laughable.

Texas Canuck: What, you think I'm funny? huh? Like a clown? How am I funny? How the f*&k am I funny?

Not because 'lefties' don't use 'em, but because the left and right don't agree on what constitutes an ad-hominem attack.

Bush is called chimpy = adhominem.

Layton is called Taliban Jack = accurate description based on the facts (A$$hole).

A righty is accused of not thinking = ad-hominem.

A leftie is accused of loving/supporting/69ing terrorists = accurate description based upon their own traitorous writings.

I find the concept of an 'ad-hominem' to be almost useless when it comes to debates between the far-left (of which I am a part), and those on the far right (of which a great many SDA readrs are a part).

SDA CROWD: "BOOO!! Ted, we're mainstream!!! Boo-erns. Communist!! Get with capitalism!"

On an unrelated note, would you happen to be the same Texas Canuck who used to write for the Manitoban?

Good point, TC. My impersonation of Ted: "chimpy...chimpy...chimpy...". Instant TROLL ALERT. No serious minded individual is going to even read what is written in between. ESPECIALLY on a day when we're supposed to be commemorating thousands of innocent dead. Beyond mindless trolling, that just denotes a basic lack of human decency.

"No serious minded individual is going to even read what is written in between."

And yet people here read every comment made by their fellows with the words "taliban jack" in it. So, either you've made my point above (that we don't agree on what constitutes an ad-hominem attack), or else there are no serious minded people here...

I'm fine with either conclusion, you decide.

Ted, there are plenty of places where you can refer to Bush as "chimpy" and get a "hell yeah" in response. Why don't you go there? Better yet while you're hanging with your far-left friends, try referring to Jack Layton as "Taliban Jack", you'll probably still get a "hell yeah".

My point is, if you're here, and your REAL OBJECT IS TO ENGAGE IN SERIOUS DEBATE ON TOPIC, you should consider canning the "chimpy".

Ted:
It's true nobody has a monopoly on personal attacks. I am mostly able to never "label" political leaders. I feel for the most part that although they may be to some point misguided, they have a genuine desire to serve and have invested much of their life(perhaps unwisely) on this endeavour.

I prefer polite debate. I feel the reason why more established blogs, like kate's either feel like a "free for all" or an echo chamber is because of the shear traffic they receive. It's pretty hard to have a life, a blog and a business. I've registered for a blog in order to comment but never used it. I know the work involved. The answer is as Kate suggests to not actively get engaged in personal attacks, and stick to the facts.

Kate's doing her best, and we should appreciate the ability to share ideas hear.

Unfortunately nothing will change by just talking about it ... and the posts to to this topic kinda proves it.

I'm not big on the idea of a Hall of Shame for the reasons already outlined above.

My suggestion is put the posted by at the top of the post. I don't know much it will help (or if it's possible) but I think it's easier to ignore something that hasn't been read.

So should I not call him chimpy because people here don't like it, not because it is disrespectful or some form of ad-hominem?

I don't think people here would go for that line of argument. May as well pull out the King George bible:

T.Penn, Book IV, verse 21: And thou shalt not call Bush Chimpy, or Chimpy McBush. Nor shall thou call him Mc.Chimpster, or President Chimp. Neither chimps, dumb-dumb, or chimpinator. Dickhead is right out.

No, I think people here would rather say that I shouldn't call him Chimpy because it's either disrespectful or an ad-hominem. Of course, if you want to say that then you've got to also explain why "taliban jack" is neither dis-respectful or an ad-hominem.

Since I don't see a difference, I conclude that we must not agree on what it means to be an ad-hominem attack. And since we can't agree on what an ad-hominem attack is, then it's pretty much useless as some form of regulatory device in arguments between the far-left (moi) and the far right (excuse me, the mainstream).

Ural: Unfortunately nothing will change by just talking about it

This might change Ural. I will swear to never call Bush Chimpy (on this blog) ever again, if 5 regular posters here (Texas Canuck, Kate, Katherin Shaidle, Maz2, etc...) promise to condemn anyone who uses the term "Taliban Jack"

OR

Can convince me that there is a difference between the use of "Taliban Jack" and "Chimpy".

So, something might change, though it will certainly be a very small change and perhaps meaningless in light of 100,000 comments. But still, it's something.

Ted: I think you made a point here, but I also noticed you haven't been banned. Credit where credit is due.

Come on Ted.

Would thank you Kate for letting me air my views, be so bad hmmm?

Fergy: I'm not sure I'd want to say "thank you for letting me air my views", but only because I tend to have such dissenting views from her typical reader.

Like most readers here though, I do share a respect for what Kate has done in garnering the readership she has and in creating this little Katedom. I also find her almost always polite, which is also a remarkable feat that I respect, give how vastly different our views are.

I believe when I first posted here, the first few times anyway, I was much more rude and harsh. But then Kate met that rudeness with politeness. So I respect her for being the bigger person as well.

I got to sign off for the night, so I'll conclude by saying I find taliban jack amusing. I find Chimpy amusing. Pretty much any insult is fine with me so long as it doesn't cloud your thinking. Thus, though I call him Chimpy I wouln't assume he's dumb. And though you might call him Taliban Jack I hope you don't assume he actually wants the terrorists to win, when the truth is probably just that he's just too daft to realize that's what will happen if people were to actually listen to him.

No, Ted doesn't have a point. I'm not going to go to a Communist Canadian website looking for an "honest debate" (as he PRETENDS he is)referring to Layton as "Taliban Jack".

Ted pretends that if he can say "f**k" in front of his friends, he can say it in front of his grandma or his boss.

If Ted doesn't have sense enough to know that on a conservative blog, IF his object is to have an HONEST DEBATE, he should can the "chimpy", just like he would hopefully can the "f**k" in front of his sweet grannie.

Otherwise, we can only conclude that he does not seek honest debate and would rather be kicked out of the house.

Mr. Nancy illustrates the fundamental difference of reasoning in the two extremes with his very own examples of ad hominem attacks.

Chimpy: a derogatory nickname for George Bush with no real basis other than to imply that ones looks and or intelligence is that of a lower order primate. Using this name is the equivalent of a grade school insult.

Taliban Jack: a meaningful nickname with a base in Jack Layton's policies and statements. It has meaning in that Jack has the same goal for Canada's military as the Taliban does.

This poor choice of examples by Nancy is not proof of any sides superiority in debate, but it is telling that he considers them an equal insult.

Cletus:

I'm sorry but in polite debate that is just a reach. Just so you know I find the Right Honourable Jack Layton whom I've met and been interupted by, a passionate but socially dominate and misguided, out of touch, politician.

I bet I could debate with Nancy and politely discuss the points with him. There are many leftists I can not do that with. Sadly there are many on the right as well that use labels.

I'm sorry I'm just the pot calling the kettle black.

Caveat, I haven't checked out his website yet.

...i wonder how many motor mouths in here have sent or donated money to Kate in order to help to keep this blog going...

Fergy, are we to all pretend we are in an elevator with total strangers? No one knows where they are, or with whom they are talking? That's just BS.

Kate has an address, like his granny has an address. Ted KNOWS where he is when he comes here. Ted's object is to dictate the tone and nature of conversation in this house. But, this is not his house, and that is not his place as a guest in this house.

I will repeat my previously stated point, I will not go into a Communists house and refer to Marx as "chimpy" and expect an honest debate. Neither does Ted. He IS a troll. Worse than that, he is a troll that wants to tell us what we can talk about and how we can talk about it. Typical socialist thought thug.

Tom:

You make a good point.

I've since been to his website. I see the points you are making. However Kate chooses to let him speak here. He by his own admission has modified his behaviour. If you want a vibrant and interesting thread then you don't quell people like this, you merely disagree with them.

When you look at this diverse country succesful debate will not win the far left or right. Most Canadians are in the middle. Those are the ones we need to talk and reason with. If a far lefty can respectfully dialogue here then change can happen.

If you think he is a troll then you need a new definition for say T*-guy.

BTW, my personal preference is for free and open debate in the comments, with Kate using her discretion at her leisure to determine and ban "trolls". Off-topic links and extended "copy/paste" should be e-mailed to Kate for inclusion or exclusion, her choice.

I don't like the restriction of having to let off-topic lies go unanswered, but I respect the fact that I am sitting on Kate's front porch and not my own. I will do my best to abide by house rules. If I find I cannot, I can leave or get kicked out. It's all fair enough. The blogspehere is a big world.

Tom et al:

good night!

tomorrow is another gift.

Tom: If my grandma swore (and in fact, my late grandmother cursed up a storm) then yes I would. You folks, or folks in here calling Martin-Dithers, and Layton-Taliban Jack, is what I consider cursing, and so I join in and use my own euphemisms.

As Fergy no doubt has seen, I'm hardly so toned down or polite on my own blog, because it's mine, and I can be as rude and outrageous there as I like. When I'm here though, I tend to adopt the level of rhetoric that I find. If it's high-minded and extrememly clean I try to emulate that.

Cletus believes that you can call someone a horrible name if you think its justified. Alright, then I'll call Bush "the cowardly lion", for despite all his roaring he's never actually seen combat. Or something else. I dunno. Maybe I'll still call him Chimpy because he kinda looks like a chimp.

In fact, I think the best reason is because it's kind of a funny nickname. And I think Taliban Jack is a funny nickname too. And I think that so long as I don't actually believe he's a chimp, or stupid. I might even start calling Layton Taliban Jack myself, because it's pretty funny and we all know why he got the nickname.

But if all you're going to do is say you shouldn't call him chimpy here because it offends me (or us), well, then you'll have to convince Kate to ban me. I've yet to see one person here (with the exception of perhaps, perhaps, maybe fergy) say,

"oh yeah, yuo know what, us calling Layton Taliban Jack is kind of like Ted callig Bush Chimpy. Or Rove darth vador. Or Cheney Dr. Evil. Or Martin Mr. Dithers."

Alright. I've done what I can do here. I'll still read your responses in case someone decides to say "yes, I see your point" or "no, the difference is", but I think i've made my point as clearly as I can to you and myself.

That's one of the things I really like about this place. I'm forced to really think about what I think you know? As opposed to just doing it cuz I find it funny, or it just generally fits in with my beliefs.

Best,