Some Comments about Comments

From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia), and allegations that are unsupported by facts.

If we notice violations of this comment policy, we will take down such comments. If readers spot such violations, they can bring them to our attention at consortnew@aol.com. Repeat offenders will be placed on a watch list requiring case-by-case approval of their comments.

Obviously, our preference is for commenters to show self-restraint and to make their observations in a respectful and thoughtful way. We have plenty of work to do without having to police the comment section.

Also, because of annoying SPAM, we have installed a SPAM filter that uses algorithms to detect SPAM. The filter does a good job at this, but sometimes catches legitimate comments by accident. During the day, we try to recover these comments, but please do not be upset if one of your comments suffers this fate.

One last point: Some unintended security requirements were imposed on the comment section that made it hard for some readers to submit their comments. We have tried to eliminate that extra level of security on comments with hopes that this problem will disappear.

Robert Parry is a longtime investigative reporter who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for the Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. He founded Consortiumnews.com in 1995 to create an outlet for well-reported journalism that was being squeezed out of an increasingly trivialized U.S. news media.

12 comments for “Some Comments about Comments

  1. Dr. Frans B. Roos, Ph.D.
    February 24, 2015 at 22:25

    JWalters and Rob Roy
    Both of you said it very well.
    Keep up the good work.

  2. JWalters
    February 23, 2015 at 19:27

    I’m fully support Consortium News maintaining civilized standards of discussion. A focus on facts and a willingness to listen to others are essential for progress toward both truth and justice. The urge to vent frustrations is understandable, but it is not an effective method of convincing the uninformed and undecided, and generally wrecks rational discussion and progress. An alternate approach is to vent frustrations off-line, and then use the energy of that anger to craft a post that will be highly effective in its facts, logic, and clarity. In addition, there is the possibility of enemies of CN intentionally posting irrational garbage in order to sabotage the site’s reputation.

    • Rob Roy
      February 23, 2015 at 21:41

      From the first time I made an online comment, I decided never to reply to snark, swearing or name-calling, nor ever resort to that same kind of language. It automatically makes those types of comment questionable at best and dismissed out of hand at the least. In other words, such language sounds unintelligent and not worth taking seriously. That is not to say that people can’t be justifiably angry about certain issues, but that sentiment can be expressed intelligently and thus be more persuasive than it would be otherwise.

    • paul wichmann
      February 25, 2015 at 08:03

      “An alternate approach is to vent frustrations off-line.”

      JWalters,
      I’m 58, and I have grief ears to tail. The primary source is one which comes up in the news and, in more depth, here as well. I live in the wilderness and burn wood, and I have indeed been venting, splitting wood with my ax, occasionally to exhaustion. In November I found I have an inguinal hernia; 20 days ago, I had a bone spur removed from the base knuckle of the right index finger – the site is still pink, sore and swollen. Perhaps these developments had been coming, but I’m certain my ventilation of hate, anger and frustration accelerated the problems.
      I’m not saying your advice is bad, but I would point out that these things can be taken too far. And as I reflect, said ventilation never got me more than a half-day’s relief – a lousy deal.

  3. Jay
    February 23, 2015 at 12:32

    CN can always force commenters to create a user name and password, like so many other websites that have comments.

    Doesn’t have to be a real name, this is Fbook.

  4. Zachary Smith
    February 22, 2015 at 23:50

    At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid abusive language toward other commenters or our writers…

    The very first thing which popped into my head was an old joke which goes like this:

    defendant: “Judge, I hit him when he called me a dirty Pollak son-of-a-bitch.”

    judge: “Why, I wouldn’t hit a man for calling me something I knew I really wasn’t.”

    defendant: “But Judge, what if he called you the kind of son-of-a-bitch you really are?”

    In my opinion, people who defend evil – things like torture, slavery, or stealing from helpless people to make rich people even richer; they’re likely to get some remarks which could hurt their feelings.

    Plainspoken/straightforward speech directed to those types …. well, what else did they expect?

    Some sort of definition or clarification of “abusive” would be helpful if comments are going to be deleted.

    By the way, getting rid of the passwords was a definite plus. Unfortunately, the helpful little coding section beneath the comment box disappeared at the same time.

    • February 23, 2015 at 02:08

      In my opinion, people who defend evil – things like torture, slavery, or stealing from helpless people to make rich people even richer; they’re likely to get some remarks which could hurt their feelings.

      I would say the same about people who take the position that those who, for whatever reason, do not come to “accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior” in this present lifetime are going to be condemned to hell for all eternity (because of what is said in this one particular book, the Bible, sometimes said to be the “Word of God”). Or that those who, like myself, used to be Christians but no longer are, are going to hell. Or that GLBT people are going to go to hell.

    • February 23, 2015 at 15:51

      And the same about people who want to say what is right for all of society and impose their rules on all of society based on their religious beliefs and on what the Bible says.

      I say what I say because I have seen people who believe as described take great umbrage to remarks indicating strong questioning of and objection to their beliefs. They have whined about intolerance of their beliefs or of their particular point of view, or about “liberal venom”.

  5. David G
    February 22, 2015 at 22:10

    If this appears, then that means I was able to comment, marking the end of the era of fruitlessly re-entered passwords. Here’s hoping.

    • Pat
      February 23, 2015 at 00:02

      So it WASN’T just me. ;-)

    • Jay
      February 23, 2015 at 12:38

      I particularly enjoyed, not, the word press error saying I used forbidden terms–I’m guessing like various 4 letter words.

    • John the Ba'thist
      February 23, 2015 at 21:23

      I’ve been having the same trouble…all that post-hoc prescience down the drain.

      Here goes nuttin’.

Comments are closed.