gszAVV Awesome blog post. Keep writing.

Will put it back soon. 

klMGPj Wow, great blog post. Really Cool.

rb9pT6 Say, you got a nice article post.Really thank you! Really Cool.

pWkSIC Awesome article post. Fantastic.

More enforcement? Ignore unless directed at another commenter? Drop it as a relic of the old days that doesn't apply anymore? Careful use of asterisks? Try to voluntarily refrain unless it seems necessary for emphasis?

I think it helps promote civil discourse but I also think I'm one of the few who really cares anymore. I'm not interested in an ongoing struggle to censor honest expression. On the other hand I don't like the extreme cursing that occurs, for example, at dKos, and would prefer we not go too far down that path.

Whaddya think?

3R49o5 Im obliged for the blog.Really thank you! Awesome.

It's not uncommon on this site that some of the more heated arguments will bypass each other completely because they're attacking two different sides of a problem: how something should work, and how it actually does. In other words, one person will argue about the Ideal situation that we should work towards, and the other will argue about the situation we find ourselves in now. These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but they do make it more difficult to reach common ground - or to end an argument that circles itself for the wrong reasons.

First, I want to parse these two terms a little more precisely, because I think we have an innate cultural dispostion towards the "real" rather than the "ideal": internet blogs frequently refer to themselves as "the reality-based community", accuse idealists of being impractical dreamers, etc. But I have something a bit broader in mind, and perhaps "ideology" is a better word than "ideal", since it's really about a coherent approach to life over a development of approach based on each new ("real") circumstance.

In other words, we're all a certain mix of ideology and realism, and we tend to shift back and forth between them depending on which suits our arguments better.

XUqBO7 Very neat post.Much thanks again.

Lately, there has been much debate about the merits of banning bloggers who constantly engage in inflammatory rhetoric here on MLW, causing much trouble and provoking many flamewars, and the general consensus seems to be that banning isn't necessarily and always the answer. While I understand and respect that position, more and more, I'm of the belief that there are times when banning , at least as a last resort, or severely disciplining a poster(s) who constantly causes trouble of some sort or other, is necessary.

What about a poster(s) who constantly hijacks threads that've started out as normal, rational discussions, who constantly goes off topic (which is no big deal in and of itself, necessarily), and/or constantly turns the hijacked threads into all-out flamewars?

Flaming seems to beget still more flaming, because a person who's constantly being flamed or baited will only take so much before s/he flames back. I have seen instances on other forums where the above phenomenom has occurred, where, even if a thread does remain on topic, posters on both sides of a given issue on a thread end up by slinging the vilest insults back and forth at each other, hence cutting off all chances of rational discussion(s).

What about a poster(s) who constantly engages in inappropriate behaviour on a blog/forum/message board, such as constantly being nasty, insulting and offensive to other bloggers, bantering inappropriately with underage bloggers, and who absolutely and effectively commandeers a blog/message board/forum for their own agenda, thus driving away bloggers who're knowledgeable about and experienced with a given subject? What about a blogger who constantly singles out another blogger(s) to harass, bullyrag and insult them, effectively running him/her off of the blog?

Weird or eccentric behaviour, and "Blue" language on a blog/forum/message board are, in and of themselves, no big deal, and, often enough can and do add flavor to the blog, making it a more interesting place for people to post and have lively discussions, many of which have taken place. Since I'm not exactly a Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms, and am definitely not a stranger to "blue language" and/or eccentric behaviour myself, it can and does present an interesting flavor for me, in limited amounts. Many blogs/message boards/forums, however, do have hard and fast rules against flaming, hijacking threads and even "blue" language, though.

However, I'm also of the belief that when it crosses over into being totally destructive and drives away bloggers that have enjoyed posting on that particular blog/forum (and sharing either their knowledge of the subject at hand, or even just their opinions about it), then it gets out of bounds.....and unacceptable. The reason that I've brought up this question today is that I have seen all of the above-mentioned destructive behaviours and more take place in the not-so-distant past on forums, and I'd hate to see this happen on other forums.

This is a brief summary of recent interesting content from a broad spectrum of political blogs. I hope you'll enjoy reading (and perhaps discussing) these thought-provoking pieces. Feel free to point out other posts you enjoyed. (Each installment in this series originally posted at Swords Crossed .)

Read on for this week's list...

I have now had two people refer to me as being "galling" or having "gall". Who they were is unimportatnt from what I want to discuss. Whether they intended such or not, I take not particular offense. But since it is now a recurring theme, of sorts, I thought it might merit some time to reflect on this point a bit and then solicit the opinions of others.

First let's understand the primary term gall[1,noun] :

Main Entry: 1gall
Pronunciation: 'gol
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gealla; akin to Greek cholE, cholos gall, wrath, Old English geolu yellow -- more at YELLOW

3Tb2NP I really enjoy the blog.Really looking forward to read more.

This is a brief summary of recent interesting content from a broad spectrum of political blogs. I hope you'll enjoy reading (and perhaps discussing) these thought-provoking pieces. Feel free to point out other posts you enjoyed. (Each installment in this series originally posted at Swords Crossed .)

Read on for this week's list...

Proust in his epic, In Search of Lost Time , discusses the idea of identity. One of the themes that becomes apparent while reading Proust is that identity often emerges not from some self-creation, but from what others construct about you. In other words, your identity is not so much about what you think of yourself, but of what others think about you. Your identity is built upon the construction of details, qualities, and characterizations others impose upon you. (Kundera also explores this issue in his novels Identity and Immortality .) This idea is shown more clearly in biographies of historical figures. Biographers must pick and choose events in another’s life they feel are most pertinent and frame the identity of the person around these specific events. Often times there will be contradictory accounts. For example, Napoleon was often condemned shortly after his exile and death by many biographers for ravaging the greater European continent. More recent biographers tend to focus only on his military strategies and view him in a more positive light. Napoleon did not have as much input about his own life compared to what others said about him after his death.

TduBfQ wow, awesome blog.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.

IXa8nk A round of applause for your blog.Really looking forward to read more. Cool.

ACeTe2 Im grateful for the blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Want more.

C4BAFp Thanks again for the blog.Really thank you! Cool.

qxA6Vp I am so grateful for your article post. Cool.