A Comment on Censorship
In the past, I’ve kidded a bit about “blogger wars,” usually focusing on Ridor and his antagonist du jour. While there has been additional sniping in other quarters between bloggers, for the most part, we respect each other and interact with each other to some extent. I respect the majority of my fellow bloggers, and openly admire some of them. The discourse we’ve had in public forums has, I think, raised everyone’s consciousness to some extent.
However, I was recently involved in a conflict myself, just last week, and not for the first time. A number of you know or have heard of Brian Riley, a hearing man who was a Gallaudet grad student in the 1980’s. He was involved in the recent unpleasantness at Gallaudet last year, and runs a blog called “Gallaudet Protest Legal Issues.” He’s also garnered quite a reputation over at GallyNet-L, to the point that he’s apparently alienated a number of its readership.
My original entanglement with him involved Riley’s obfuscation of his identity to [former] Board of Trustees Member Bill Graham, and Riley’s subsequent defense of this deception. I’m not going to re-hash that now; you can find the whole story here. Since then, I put the incident largely out of mind, until Riley posted an entry at his blog claiming that I. King Jordan “invited himself” to deliver a talk at the upcoming Deaf history conference at Gallaudet next month [Full disclosure here: I’ll be live-blogging the conference] .
First, I’d like to make it clear I have no love for Jordan at the moment; while I’ve met him several times, and he’s quite charismatic (I think just about everyone, save perhaps Riley, can agree with that!), his actions and statements during the past year left a lot to be desired, to say the very least. His Op-Ed in the Washington Post in January of this year left a bad taste in my mouth, as it did for a lot of people. I too agree with many people that Jordan owes the campus community an explanation for his part in whatever actions he and his administration took that led to the recent Middle States Association report earlier this year; regardless of what he did or didn’t do, ultimately, as head of the university at the time, he must shoulder some of the blame.
That said, Jordan is no longer affiliated with Gallaudet beyond his role as President Emeritus. His presentation at the conference will be a historical retrospective on the DPN Protest in 1988, which I find ironically appropriate. Regardless of what you or I think of Jordan, he played a central role during that protest, and subsequently led Gallaudet for the next 19 years. He is, like it or not, a part of Deaf history.
Before I continue, I want to make it clear I have nothing against Riley as a person; we have never physically met in person (and probably never will). He could, for all I know, be a charming and delightful person. He could also be a very unpleasant individual. I DO have a problem with his online persona though, and I think I make my displeasure and rationales for that known on the two blog posts I previously cited, in addition to what I’m saying here now. Riley’s seeming vendetta against Jordan disturbs me, and his use of the royal “we,” along with hints and his own statements (since conveniently “disappeared”) that he is not alone in determining the content on and control of his blog, suggests there’s more to Riley’s crusade than meets the eye.
I’ve helped organize a conference in the past, and I’ve known quite a few people who have organized or been part of organizing committees for conferences, including the upcoming conference. Speakers, presenters, and panelists do not get to “invite themselves.” It just doesn’t happen. So I decided to comment on Riley’s post, and ask him for proof. You can see the majority of our exchange there.
This is a rather long introduction to the point I really want to make here, and I apologize for that. I merely want those of you who are unfamiliar with what happened to have some sort of understanding of what transpired up to this point.
Most of my responses and remarks are in the comments section of that particular post. However, Riley initially refused to post two of my replies, while continuing to respond to me as if my comment was visible to the general public. After a private e-mail exchange, he finally posted *one* of the comments. I found out during the course of the evening that at least three other people (three of whom e-mailed me separately, once they realized what was happening) had their comments suppressed as well. Since then, of the four of us, only one comment was released: one of mine (but not the other).
What bothered me (aside from Riley’s general evasiveness and unwillingness to directly debate or discuss a point, as illustrated in the recent exchange between Riley and Mike McConnell on DeafDC) was not only Riley’s classic “I think what I think because I’m right, what do I need proof for” behavior, but his bias in suppressing comments at will.
Eventually, I decided we were at an impasse, and I let it go. But the issue of comment suppression gnawed at me, for a few reasons: 1) Riley’s tendency to clamor for the “truth” and “openness” about Jordan, Jordan’s administration, and the problems Gallaudet has had; 2) the notion that blogs are open forums, miniature Greek democracies, if you will, where everyone and anyone can come and have their say; and 3) how to determine when a comment should be deleted or not.
But I digress… as the title indicates, the issue I really want to discuss here concerns comments. When should we allow comments? Should all comments be permitted, regardless of content? When is it appropriate to censor or suppress comments? It’s something that’s been on my mind lately for another reason as well: an online friend of mine who also has a blog has recently removed comments that they found counterproductive to the post and the blog as a whole. While it was an agonizing decision to make in some respects, once the decision was made, that was it. This individual isn’t in the habit of deleting comments, but I know this blogger’s not alone. For all the swagger about openness and a free forum, several of the more well-known bloggers have edited or removed comments left on their blogs. Quite a few have moderation filters set (including Riley). I have yet to encounter problems (other than spam, which bedevils us all!), and have only removed two legitimate comments thus far– both were at the original authors’ request. I’m not sure why that is– maybe I’ve just been lucky so far…
To me, simple disagreement is not sufficient grounds for denial. Riley’s apparent predisposition towards comments on that basis strikes me as inconsistent with his message of “truth” and “openness.” Now, Riley aside, I’m wondering just what kind of limits we in the blogosphere, whether deaf or not, should place on our blogs. As Ridor likes to proclaim from time to time, “It’s my domain.” McConnell states that anyone who doesn’t follow his “rules” will be censored or banned. Others have posted similar strictures. Lest you think I’m complaining about this, I’m not– each person has control over their own blog, and that’s how it should be. Ultimately, it’s Riley’s right to decide what he does with his blog; I don’t have a say in that, nor does anyone else. But I do wonder what it means in terms of a truly free discourse when comments are suppressed for reasons beyond bad language or gross indecency/inappropriateness (for example, if anyone posted a death threat or a similar hostile remark here, I’d yank it– there’s no question about that). Where do we draw the line? Should we draw such a line? Can such boundaries become slippery slopes? Should people say whatever they want, and contribute to the overall discourse, or if it happens, be allowed to make fools of themselves? What if one tailors comments on a post to skew or overtly influence the conversation at hand or to avoid embarrassing questions or challenges? Is that acceptable? Why or why not?
What do you think? I haven’t finalized my answers to these questions yet, and I’d be curious as to what your thoughts are on the matter.
You brought up a very interesting discussion about how much power the blogger may have to moderate the comments left by commenters.
When the blogger wants to make a statement, to be heard… and the commenter wants to ‘hijack’ the topic for their personal gain. That behavior will bother me tremendously.
If a blogger said something that not truthful, and a commenter tried to clarify but was suppressed. Then, it is a responsibility for the commenter to post the blog for a rebuttal and show the errors of the blogger.
That is exactly what you did, David. I’m glad you took this opportunity to make yourself heard.
Thank you for sharing this with all of us, and then it is up to us to be judge about this situation.
Amy Cohen Efron
I do not run a blog of my own, but I have years of experience running an unmoderated mailing list, and I wonder if there might not be some parallels. My experience is that the community is capable of policing itself to a remarkable degree. I occasionally send out a gentle reminder about the netiquette or write a post that brings the discussion back on track when I feel that it threatens to get out of hand. The participants normally take the hint, and no further action is required in the majority of cases.
What is important is that the moderator is fair to all sides, as well as consistent. Also, if you let things get out of hand once, then it becomes just so much more likely that the same thing will happen again, because people tend to associate a certain tone with each blog or forum. Set a tone where people respect each other, and you usually will be fine.
A caveat: On a mailing list you can resolve disagreements and hurt feelings via private emails, so people don’t risk losing face in public. That is not an option for most blogs.
Good Post,
I was kinda apprehensive about getting into the Blog/Vlog world because some people just like to bash other people.
When I come upon to those kind of people, I always remind myself saying,
It takes all kinds of people to make the world round, learn to live with them.
Why am I taking my chances? Guess my heart tells me to do it….. for how I have been through in life and don’t think the next deaf child should go through the same thing.
John F. Egbert
Hey, I’m not going to lie, but I did read the exchanges as they happened and I was surprised at how personal they’ve become. Personally, I don’t think it’s worth the hassle of being “right” on someone else’s blog. I know you want to be heard one way or another, and to do this, you can save time by consolidating your thoughts into a blog piece of your own. The only comments I leave on other people’s blogs are the ones that don’t ignite, but I still have the opportunity to disagree if I have to.
Hey David, hope you’ll have a smashin’ time at Deaf History conference next week.
I’ll tune in to see what you have to live-blog.
And like you, I was amused when Riley referred himself as “we”. But I can assure you that when he said “we”, he was NOT addressing someone outside of himself, it is to himself and his personalities within.
God, I know I will get emails and IMs from him any minute after I posted this. That is his nature. His unhealthy obsession with Jordan is getting nowhere and … childish, to say the least.
R-
Very good post, David.
It’s quite challenging since the “internet is FREE” for anyone to use and express.
How far can one go?
I think we can help control the environment without censoring one if we provide healthy environment. Just like we try to do in real world in different settings.
When I visit a blog, I feel like I’m visiting her/his home and I will respect accordingly.
If one tells you to help yourself with his fridge and make yourself at home.
Would you? Depends if s/he really means it and how that person reflects him/herself. If you really know that person, you would…otherwise, you test by looking around the surroundings.
Is the house super-clean? If so, you would know that you should put things back the exact way they were when you took them out…
Can you sit however you want to on a couch? You watch the host first or other people.
All in all, it boils down to respect.
I think. Maybe I don’t know what the heck I’m talking about.
But when I have my site up, I want it to be like when people enter my house - they are to make themselves feel at home but respect each other. And my “home”.
If one is causing a displeasure behavior that makes everyone angry or hurt, then I’d ask that person to please leave the house.
Interesting post. I witnessed the exchange between McConnell and BR on DeafDC.. and I told BR to pipe down at one point. Heh. Normally, I don’t do that, especially since DeafDC isn’t even my blog. But I did that because while people can and *should* express their opinions… They don’t have the right to hold a conversation hostage and barrage you with their comments until you submit and agree with them.
I have to agree with IamMine… It boils down to respect. If a person is not engaging in a respectful dialogue, then I will not hesitate to delete that comment on my blog. They can disagree with each other. Disagreements are good - that is how we learn. But again, it just comes down to respect, really. I think we know when someone’s being disrespectful or not.
~ A Deaf Pundit
Good post, Mr. Sandman. I was one of the people who had her comments deleted by Riley. I said something along the lines of “Wondering why you’re choosing to use the royal ‘we’ here?” and asked for evidence (I *think*) but my post was respectful and polite, just asking for clarification and a stronger basis for his allegation that Jordan invited himself to this conference. I had posted it from my pager, which didn’t allow me to choose the option that would’ve let me put my name down, so I signed “Jenny” at the bottom to communicate who was writing the post. It wasn’t posted, but others that were neutral or biased toward Riley’s perspective were posted quickly. I penned another comment pointing this out and saying I didn’t think my comment was disrespectful or argumentative. He refused to post it but posted *his* own comment on the site, saying he was not the only one running the site - he had people behind the scene telling him what to write, and “they” had decided no anonymous posts. Well, my post wasn’t anonymous - my name was clearly present. I said I appreciated his response, but my post wasn’t anonymous and explained why I’d had to sign it that way. Zero posts, zero response.
All in all, I’m very turned off by how Riley is moderating his blog. This is NOT a personal attack on the man. My comment here focuses on the MODERATING CHOICES that are being made at that blog, nothing else. I don’t think simple disagreement is sufficient basis for censorship, period. Blatant disrespect and/or personal attacks, buh-bye. Otherwise, post it and allow people to make determinations for themselves.
I’d like to suggest that if people who have blog sites set up disagree with any of Riley’s posts in the future, they compose a response ON THEIR BLOGS rather than posting comments. I suggest this because that blog site clearly has a policy of censorship based on perspective.
Thanks for airing this issue, Mr. Sandman. It needed to be aired.
Very true, Iammine. I prefer to have my blog unmoderated, but unfortunately during the heydays of the protest, some commenters would try to hijack my blog or try to oppress others, so I had to exercise the moderation option.
After the protest, I’ve unmoderated my blog, but at times, it was necessary to moderate, especially if I cover ’sensitive’ topics related to the protest. Most of the time, the commenters were respectful, even though they expressed disagreement. I welcome people expressing different opinions, as long as they are conducted respectfully.
I agree with the others - a good post, David.
I won’t lie…I have removed comments over at Deaf Pagan Crossroads, and it was a very difficult decision to do so. To this day, I must confess that I wonder if I should have simply left the comment up and let the chips fall where they may, but I still hold by the decision to remove it.
I did solicit the input of some other well-known bloggers in the Deaf Blogosphere to get their advice, but it basically boiled down to doing what I felt was best, and I felt that in the best interests of the purpose of my blog, to remove it. In addition, I was asked by one of the individuals who originally responded to the offending comment to remove hers, so that occurred as well.
My reasoning goes along with what Amy was saying - the comment in question was little more than a “hijacking” attempt for personal purposes, which I suspected would only create chaos…something that I seek to avoid at the Crossroads.
Part of the purpose of Deaf Pagan Crossroads is to be a “sanctuary” of sorts…a place where people can come “in love and trust, harming none and respecting all” (as stated on my home page). To me, my blog is sacred space…and anyone who attempts to disrupt that sanctity is going to be dealt with accordingly. This may not necessarily mean their comments get removed, but they will receive word from me in regards to its contents.
To just remove a comment because you disagree with it? No…I wouldn’t necessarily do that - one person left a commentary saying “stupid post and stupid blog” and I left it up. S/he is free to express such an opinion. There were comments regarding “Through Deaf Eyes” that I don’t necessarily agree with either…but again, I left them and thus respected the rights of the individuals to express their thoughts.
But I cannot and will not engage in those “blogger wars” - at least not at the Crossroads. That defeats the whole purpose of why I created that blog in the first place.
To me, it all boils down to personal responsibility - not only to yourselves, but to each other. We have a responsibility to treat others with the same respect that we would expect for ourselves. You can’t demand that others respect your words if you aren’t willing to treat theirs with respect as well. That responsibility extends not only to posts written on your own blogs, but also to comments written on someone else’s.
Jenny: We don’t we just ignore Brian Riley? I don’t see a need for even posting viewpoints in opposition on other blogs. It is clear that he is just out to stir up trouble where he can and does not care about the deaf and Gallaudet. Don’t feed the trolls.
For a moment, I thought it was some April Fools’ joke being pulled on us.
Well, written, Mr. Sandman. There are many commnents here that I agree with, such as Virginia Beach’s thoughts about social responsibility, and IamMine’s analogy to being a courteous guest in one’s home when commenting on someone’s blog. That’s something I *strive* towards in my posts and comments. As a blogger, I’ve been in a position where I’ve had to decide whether to delete a comment or not. If the commenter simply disagreed with my post, deleting it never crossed my mind, because a valid opinion is a valid opinion and shouldn’t be deleted. Once I had to delete a comment that personally attacked a group, and it saddened me, because if the commenter had worded his/her thoughts differently, I wouldn’t have had to play “comment police.” It’s something I don’t want to do. My blog has comment approval on as a precaution, but in general I don’t “filter” comments. It’s a free country and we are all entitled to our varying opinions. That’s one thing I love about DeafBlogLand - we can listen to each other and gain appreciation for differing perspectives, even if we continue to disagree.
Good stuff, Sandy.
Until spam started getting through the filters at blog.deafread.com, I did the same thing in re: letting all comments go through, even when Mr. Riley did the same things he accuses Sandman of doing: “hijacking” threads.
Unlike Sandman, I’m not quite as charitable toward Mr. Riley for reasons I’d love to expand on but won’t. Suffice it to say, Mr. Riley has exhibited behavior on and off line that all civilized persons would consider to be reprehensive.
To get back to the topic: my answer is the same as the old joke: “depends”. If you’ve solicited feedback from your readers, then the door should be wide open. If you’ve posted something that’s obviously controversial, then likewise, the door should be open for discussions.
However, if you’re posting a spot of (verified, thank you very much) news like “Dr. Smith has cancer, only expected to live 3 very painful months”: Then I would fully expect and support strict moderation of comments.
I know some bloggers have shut off comments altogether because they’ve become so “big” that moderating comments themselves were a full-time job. Heather Armstrong over at http://www.dooce.com comes to mind.
I think its important to note there is no happy medium: It’s eventually the blogger’s decision and people will see through flimsy excuses, queenly behavior, or immaturity.
I have been on the ‘nets for a very looooong time :-). The issues raised here by Sandman are really about the same in any forum that can be moderated (mailing list, newsgroup, etc).
I find there are two aspects to this. First, IAmMine has hit it on the head with the respect angle. If all parties are truly interested in the topic at hand, then it shows, even with disagreements and such.
However, when things get out of hand, and the moderator (if there is one — there are forums that are not moderated at all) then exercises control, what happens after that is entirely dependent on how the people involved see it. If the moderation is done with respect toward the topic at hand and not toward the people, it sets a much different tone than if it’s perceived as arbitrary.
And in the final analysis, people vote with their feet. If they don’t like the atmosphere of a place, they will leave — or join in an overall corrective moderation by group consensus (this happens more in a mailing list; a blog really has a one point person).
Over the years I’ve participated in and run many of these things, and I’ve come to the conclusion that at times one absolutely must moderate commentary from time to time, beyond the obvious trolling. First there are some more subtle trolling in which the simple aim is more to break up the actual discussion in a not so disruptive way. An excellent example of this is some sort of point that is raised every time it could possibly be, such that conversation remains “stuck” at a certain point, or that others (including the blog owner) have to keep returning to point zero to “explain” things. That kind of spinning the wheels can be very problematic.
Really, much of this has to go on a case by case statement. I myself can have different policies depending on what sort of forum I’m running: one mailing list I keep very much hands off unless someone is clearly way out of bounds whereupon I then step in. On my personal blog, I’m quite happy to delete pointless commentary or things that are blatantly disrespectful to my opinions or what others have already opined: for example if I post about how I think ASL is a necessary component of a deaf child’s education and someone comes in roaring about how deaf extremists are out to destroy everything, that comment probably will be quietly discarded. It really is very contextual, which is why there’s no easy single answer.
Sorry for being so long winded; feel free to edit
Hello All:
While I’ve never been in the position of having to make a decision on whether or not to delete a post, I do have to agree with neilmcd (#14 above). There’s most likely no happy medium. If I were running my own blog I would want to do everything possible to respect Free Speech, including comments that challenged or disagreed with my own personal opinion. “Respect” is an equally slippery slope. Until recently we’ve had a lot of apathy in the Deaf Community, and nobody was really commenting that much at all (comparatively speaking). That changed after the UFG protest. Sometimes you do have to be controversial and provocative to wake people up. But I would try to draw the line at personal attacks. Mind you–not political challenges… just highly personal attacks.
My two cents.
Hello, everyone.
wow. Some very, VERY good thoughts here. I had some definitive thoughts on the topic prior to my post, but since then, I’ve reconsidered some issues, thanks to some of your comments and also due to some behind-the-scenes interactions.
browneyedgirl65– I won’t edit anything you say. *grin* As you already know, that’s part of my whole point– is there anything that should be edited, suppressed, redacted? If so, when is it appropriate?
Chris and Todos– I don’t view my exchanges with Mr. Riley as “personal attacks”– I’m not in the habit of attacking people on an ad hominem basis (and if you can demonstrate I’m doing so, please let me know!)- I’ve already chastised Ridor a couple times for personal attacks, and I don’t really approve of such behavior. My purpose in bringing up Mr. Riley is twofold: to use the exchange I had with him as an example for the questions I have and had, and also, admittedly, to point out that his behavior in suppressing legitimate comments is something I find reprehensible.
I have some further thoughts on all this, which I’ll share soon. Thanks again for leaving comments– it gives me a lot to ponder!
Hi Mr. Sandman:
No, no, I don’t mean you personally. I didn’t yet click on the link to view teh exchange between you and Mr. Riley. I just mean in general, hypothetically… IF I were running my own blog, that’s what I’d do.
Sorry if I didn’t communicate that clearly. Excellent article above…
-Chris
I was thinking about what you were saying…some of the bloggers/vloggers put down criteria of what they want from their commenters. For instance, Mike McConnell warns that he will not accept any ad hominem (sp?) comments, insulting or calling names, etc. NavyBeagle’s website says no “anonymous” comments and he had to explain again how many wonderful comments he got from anonymous comments but he had to stick by what he set down as a rule for putting comments. They set some clear expectations for how people communicate with each other on their websites.
So with Brian Riley, the expectations is not clear on what kind of comments he will accept on his website? He just deletes them because he doesn’t like them? Ok, why doesn’t he like them? What is his criteria for what is acceptable for putting on his website?
Just a thought here.
It seems to me that a Blog is a very personal space, to voice the opinions of the owner, and to solicit comments (if the owner desires feedback). Thus, it seems to me that anyone can say anything, and can permit or delete any feedback received. It also seems to me that if a person runs a controversial or disgusting Blog (is there a Blog called DeafSkinHeads.com??), they should expect to receive a lot of negative responses to their opinions. In that situation, they may elect to only post comments that are supportive of their degenerate positions. They might also expect to have very few returning visitors.
Having said that, I would hope that in the Deaf Blogosphere, we don’t have too many total idiots or whacko positions on the web. But the freedom of speech prevails, and I would strongly object to anyone being able to censor unpopular opinons. If unpopular opinions were successfully censored by the British in 1776, this Nation would never have emerged (I am aware that the British TRIED to censor “independent publications” but they failed).
One thing that really impresses me about some Deaf Bloggers is a willingness to admit when we make a mistake. I admire Ridor for his openness to accepting critique, and even acknowledging he made a comment that was in error. Others have made similar statements. That shows a level of maturity and personal strength which is a clear indication of a person’s self-confidence and self-esteem. When someone REFUSES to admit they made a mistake (IKJ, JKF, Riley, ??) it seems a mark of arrogance and immaturity.
Except for Mr Sandman and Ridor, I don’t know too many perfect people in the world… Its a great personal pleasure to read your commentaries, and make me seriously THINK about issues, rather than simply accepting platitudes of self-absorbed Bloggers in Deafutopia…
LUVYA!!
D.
Your comment “McConnell states that anyone who doesn’t follow his “rules†will be censored or banned.”
what I have posted at the top of my Haloscan comment page is this
“Observe the rules. No personal attack or foul language allowed on premise.”
I have only banned two people in more than two years after I have repeatedly requested them not to do the ad homenim or personal attacks against commenters. As for “censoring”, which is extremely rare, and is done if there were inappropriate words used or have crossed the line in terms of making the comments too personal.
And you’re right. There is nothing wrong in trying to establish a protocol to encourage debate and minimize any personal attacks or use of foul language or words presented in the comment section. I have, just like many other bloggers, have genuine interest in having an intellectually honest debate or discussion. As long as no attacking is involved or foul language, then posted comments will remain. Although I have no genuine interest in conspiracy theory muck that is designed to defame and libel. That is not what you call as having an intellectually honest debate with wild-eyed claims.
I meant to write the topic of censorship on the Deaf Blog/Vlogsphere few months ago.
At least, you beat me on this one. My non-threatening/non-agrumentative comments on several deaf blogs/vlogs have been deleted without giving any good reasons.
Some deaf bloggers/vloggers seems have their own agenda of conveying the message.
Deaf bloggers/vloggers like Carl Schroeder and Jamie Berke deleted my comments.
One example on Carl Schroeder’s vlog/blogs - I found the People Sign Language for the gender equality signs to be really an interesting concept for equalizing our some illogical and impractical ASL signs like woman and men. I found the European/Gestuo signs for those same signs (woman/man) making the sense out of physical characteristics. My comments and the topic of People Sign Language on Carl Schroeder had been totally deleted altogether. I was really surprised at Carl Schroeder as a philospher himself censoring others’ thoughts (comments).
Same thing with Jamie Berke’s “About: Deafness” blog. She deleted my comment along with the topic, too - Deaf Books to Read. I wrote the non-threatening and non-agrumentative comment like “F O R B I D D E N Signs:Campaign Against Sign Language” which we had the following conversations during the ASL Dinner in Shirleytown. Too bad, Jamie Berke and his beau couldn’t join us in the conversation about this nonfiction book”.
I found the growing censorship on the Deaf Blog/Vlogshere to be real troubling.
I never delete comments on my blog. I noticed that someone hijacked my blog to make people leaving comments with real difficulty.
I have to re-configure my current blog, RLMDEAF with no cumberspoe effort to leave the comment and not have to register with the Goggle Mail, etc.
I will not tolerate any kind of censorship, but will have to delete any comments to be totally untruthful or intentionally smear someone with falsehood or death threat against someone.
That is really the pragmatic approach to the ideal of freedom of speech and expression on the Deaf Blog/Vlogsphere
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
rlmdeaf@hotmail.com
RLMDEAF blog
Mr. Sandman in your Sandbox, ha - I’m gonna come in and play with you. So let’s play fair, ok? You may not like what I have to say.
I’m not talking about Riley, because I don’t know him nor do I care, so please don’t consider throwing sand at me when I don’t point the finger at him. Swear pinky finger you’ll still be my friend?
I would talk to anyone the way I talk to my own mom, except for pedophiles. I do not go out of my way to be raunchy or loud because there is enough noise in this world.
Let me look at your responses over there…
oh yes, here are a few…
“Next time get your story straight before you blather about it,” “Whether you like it or not….,” “I’d like to see you say something positive for a change…,” “It’d be nice if you acknowledged that…,” “I noticed you still aren’t willing to say anything…,” “But perhaps you aren’t capable of …,” These were all taken from one posted response, and I didn’t go to the others…
I didn’t know how to listen to what you had to say in that kind of tone. I know blogs are a forum to debate the issue, but to go deeper and attack the personal characteristics of the other person actually provides an opposite effect. You are actually insignating that he does something, but really he doesn’t have to. And you go further to attack him. He can do anything he wants, and he actually achieved attention from you (now, I’m not going to say whether you like it or not..but it appeared in my head!).
Just one person who commented here is lying about welcoming respectful comments. I’ve respectfully commented on this person’s blogs many times. My comments never had any personal bashing or insults to the person, they just disagreed with the message of this person’s blog. I’ve used a variety of names, and my comments that disagreed with the blogger were never posted. To everybody else, I’ve also posted comments on your sites, in the same respectful tone, and have never not been posted. Yes, that includes YOU, Ridor!
Hi again… it’s been busy for me the last few days. Forgive me for being out of action lately!
Jessica, I have no idea what Brian Riley’s expectations as far as the comments on his site– he doesn’t seem to have a firm policy, and seems to delete in a manner that tailors the debate in his favor (which is one of the reasons I wrote this post in the first place).
I_C_Voices, thanks for the love.
But as you can see from McConnell’s comment, I’m far from perfect. I do err occasionally. While I have problems with some of Ridor’s behavior, I do agree that he has shown the ability to change– he ended the bitch sessions, for example. I’m hoping he’ll continue to move in a positive direction. His last few blog posts have been neutral or fairly good, actually.
McConnell, thanks for the correction. You and Ridor, while you have deleted and edited comments in the past, have generally noted your policies, if not specifically. Riley has deleted without any guidelines, period.
Todos, I don’t think it was a particularly personal attack, and as you know by now, I’ve filled you in on the background. Believe me, if I misbehave, there’ll be others ready to slap me around. *grin*
Can’t Say– hm, I think I know who you’re referring to, but I’ll stay mum for the moment.
Mr.Sandman,
And you didn’t edit mine?