What's with the comments?
I'm trying something for a couple of days that I've been toying with. I'm turning on the registration feature which requires people to register for a screen name before they can comment.
Why? Too many people are leaving comments as "anonymous" and not taking any responsibility for their words. Last night I was deleting comments left and right. Comments were either improper or off topic, and I get tired of being the comment police for the reason that some people wouldn't follow a simple request.
I'm tossed between this feature being "too much on-line government" and it being a welcome respite.
So, what say you non-anonymous commenters? Because the anonymous ones get to weigh in at around 5:15 today, when I turn the feature off.
---------------------------
Noon Update - I turned the feature off early. What do the anonymous among you have to say about all of it?
Why? Too many people are leaving comments as "anonymous" and not taking any responsibility for their words. Last night I was deleting comments left and right. Comments were either improper or off topic, and I get tired of being the comment police for the reason that some people wouldn't follow a simple request.
I'm tossed between this feature being "too much on-line government" and it being a welcome respite.
So, what say you non-anonymous commenters? Because the anonymous ones get to weigh in at around 5:15 today, when I turn the feature off.
---------------------------
Noon Update - I turned the feature off early. What do the anonymous among you have to say about all of it?
Comments
I was suprised that I couldn't just post like usual, but then I followed thru and registered with Google. I didn't have to give my name, am still anonymous, just registered the pseudonym I've always used.
Works for me! But how is this going to cut down on the nasty or off topic posts when we are still really anonymous?
If someone wants to be a jerk, forcing them to register is not going to stop them. Even IP addresses can be spoofed – for a certain more intelligent class of jerk. So tracking these isn’t going to stop a determined @$$. That being said, it will make them do a little extra work before they display their jerkitude. I say go for it. Make them register.
Oh well. The rest of us have been dealing with it, because we don't mind standing behind what we say. It's a small price to pay for accountability.
comments are down, poll participation is down.
it was a good run.
I think PP’s just nervous now because he’s right back where he was when he screwed up the Sutton thing so badly. He wants to be a blogger. But, now that he knows something his readers don’t know, he lacks the nerve to blog what he knows.
As my mother used to say when we’d hold the back door open “In or out you kids! In or out!”
In or out you PP! In or out!
BTW, I am as curious as the next person what the big story is, but I can also understand why PP wouldn't jump the gun on this.
What I'm trying to do is to find a happy balance between expression and civility. I ended it early because.... well.. Because I felt like it. Nothing more sinister than that.
If you haven't noticed, I'm about the only one who allows the anonymous comments. And it can be a pain because I have to police it.
As far as the big thing on the horizon, I'm not releassing details because A) - I'm hearing different things depending on who I talk to, and B)- nobody has been charged with anything yet. and C) - there is no documentation yet.
If you all what to start blogs that will print that kind of stuff, be my guest. I'm not going to. I feel as if I'm going out on a limb by just saying as little as I did, in an effort to give the heads up.
I gave up what little was verified after speaking with several people. If you would do it differently, let me know what your RSS feed is, so I can add you to the blogs on the left for the month you're going to be in operation.
I'm hoping for more longevity than that.
Just like the Dan Sutton thing you screwed up it's apparant you know more than you're telling. Your little act where you show a little leg is useless and sad.
The trouble with your childish admonition to your critics to get their own blogs is that you're the one who purports to be the blogger with the inside stuff. Either be the insider blogger or don't.
I just said that I provided what I thought I could. I've *heard* plenty. What do I *know* as the truth? Very little. I had more on the Sutton thing than I do now. At least then, I had a piece of paper.
In addition, it sounds as if an arrest might be pending. I'm not going to screw that up.
As much as you want the gory little details, the story is not ripe yet. When it is, I guarantee you I'm going to hear all about it.
Until we have more information, you can just sit tight and wait to destroy someone's life. I'd prefer to wait until I have the facts to see if it's deserved.
PS: This is not Ted Klaudt.
Put up or shut up.
This is fun.
That's what I like about this blog, PP. I have a job, let's say that would not afford me the luxury of posting under an assumed name for if that name were to be attached to me I could get in deep do due. Now I know a lot of people and hear a lot of things and this is the perfect forum to share and pick up similar tidbits from people like me.
Put lexrex and nonnie in the corner, maybe they'll make out but I doubt we would ever get anything useful out of either of them other than their opinion. Dirt, PP, I want dirt and the anonymous option will get that and continue to be a source requiring verification...this isn't the NY Times or the Argus Leader for God's sake.
A lot of comments on political officials and their ideas can be freely discussed here w/out the worry of who are we pissing off. A lot of hypocracy can be exposed. If you want this to be blogmore, go ahead, you'll have the same 10 people posting all the time. I won't be one of them.
Anon.
PS-Lee S. is an ass and will NEVER be governor, you know who is going to jail, Joel D is a joke, Judy Payne resigned from DOT 5 days after the indictment for non "family reasons", T. Johnson is worse off than people know and its being hidden, Rounds will not run against Herseth, Dusty J. does have a bright future if he'd take a deep breath every now and then, SANDY JERSTAD AND TOM KATUS ARE GOING TO A LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE...
"Like it or leave it."
Ther you go! That's the spirit that made this country great PP! Because God forbid a dissenting voice be heard.
As to your rumor-mongering in this case to which you allude below and the Dan Sutton deal, you should leave news gathering and reporting to the big boys. Your rumor-mongering srves no purpose but to encourage more rumors.
If you didn't notice, unlike this country, this blog is a private enterprise. So I'm allowed to have any attitude I want.
If someone came into your home, flipped you attitude, and told you how much you sucked, I don't recall a law saying you have to smile sweetly.
So you don't like the fact I'm going to provide only as much as I wish to? Tough sh*t. It's my party. If you don't like it, I don't care.
You're welcome to go somewhere else. And I'd invite you to.
No dissent here!!
Yea PP!!
By the way, your analogy about that guy's home is stupid. You opened this up for comments. Good comments areas have lively discussions that involve all points of view. Bad comments sections run by rumor-mongering gossips strive for uniformity and big cheering sections. Ugh.
Thanks buddy.
Normally, I wouldn't have touched it.
Anonymous posting is here to stay. Bet on it.
Back off, I agree with PP he has no proof in hand and he is doing it the right thing. Yep, he gave us a possible tid bit and that is great if what could be coming down the pike is not then people hasn't said anything against anybody that could get him in trouble. I would say that he is handling this the correct way.
If he chooses to make his blog non anonymous posting that is his choice and his right. Like he and others have said just start your own and work to get the same readership he has.
if you see blunders so be it i did not proof so live with it.
"Argumentum ad hominem" is ignoring the question raised and attacking the personality of a person. It may be that putting an actual identity to a truly stupid and irresponsible comment may be a derogation of the personality, but in such case it would be a matter of whom fallacious fact and reasoning can be attributed to.
If anyone actually reads the theory of rhetoric as it goes back to Aristotle, one finds that identification is an essential part of productive discussion, and to paraphrase Aristotle, the first mode of persuasion is based upon the character and credibility of the persuader.
When PP casts doubt on the credibility of anonymous comments, he is reflecting 2,000 years of writing and thinking about what comprises valuable writing and thinking.
If I ignore David’s “argument” entirely and note that David is an idiot, I haven’t committed the ad hominem fallacy, I’ve simply attacked David (or, more likely, stated a fact). However, if I attempt to argue that David is just advocating against anonymity because David has chosen to identify himself and wants to limit the field of commenters to persons such as himself I’ve committed the ad hominem fallacy. I’ve inserted a characteristic of my opponent into my rebuttal in place of an actual attack on his argument. An actual rebuttal would be to note that David’s premise is false and his argument fails accordingly.
Identification has no role in reason. The argument 4 is great than 2, 2 is greater than 1, therefore 4 is greater than 1 is true regardless who says it or writes it. Likewise with blog comments – they are true or false based entirely on their merits and in no way on the identity or any other characteristic of their author.
3:37’s conclusion stands – Statements are true or false based on their merits, not on their author.
Here is a fairly good discussion of the fallacy that takes into account its historical definition:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
Thank you for such an explicit example of an ad hominem attack. And the dangers of presumptuous and pretentious ignorance.
We can only hope and pray that you aren't teaching anyone.
Oh, and cluck, cluck, cluck, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous.
(Thus ends my personal attack in this comment on poor Newquist – argument follows.)
12:02’s personal attack wasn’t part of his argument. He clearly separated his personal note from his argument. His argument was based in the objective fact that you miss-defined the ad hominem fallacy. Your premise was false and so your conclusion was without merit.
Thus, his argument was not at all an example of the ad hominem fallacy. That you further muck up the definition of the fallacy only strengthens 12:02’s argument.
Cluck, cluck indeed.
According to the link you posted, the circumstances of a commenter (for instance whether a commenter is named or anonymous) has no bearing on the truth or fallacy of their argument. To argue otherwise would be to commit the fallacy "argumentum ad hominem circumstantial".
On the other hand your link notes that testimony might be reasonably challenged based on the circumstances of the person testifying. But that’s different from judging an argument.
Guess you were confused.
Newquist is not original in his explanations. He is using the standard explanations from every textbook on rhetoric. And his link does not support the gibberish of his detractor.
I wonder if anyone else actually checked it out. I wonder if the anonymous one is someone who flunked a course from Newquist.
Despite poor Newquist’s nutty interpretation and jackson’s kiss up demonstration of the fallacy – “I wonder if the anonymous one is someone who flunked a course from Newquist.” This is pretty easy to see – 2 + 2 always equals 4 regardless if the equation is done by someone with or without an identity. Suggesting that arguments made by anonymous posters are less credible than those made by named posters is a textbook illustration of the ad hominem fallacy.