CRYBABIES

"My door is always open-bring me your problems." This is guaranteed to turn on every whiner, lackey and neurotic on the property.” —Robert F. Six

It's rarely ever a good idea to solely devote any kind of a blog entry to a person who has responded to an entry written, where that respondent or his or her comment is the central thesis. What the old adage? "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people..." I  like to follow that concept, but it gets exceedingly hard in the sphere of religion and politics. After all, ideas and events do not simply osmose into the realm of virtual communication, but are brought forth by people.

So we go about the business of writing our rants, posting our blogs in fact, often times intentionally being irksome about it. And we often post sometimes very serious ideas, we are challenged, condemned, called into question and disagreed with. That is the nature of this beast. 

One of the great treasures of the blogosphere is the ability to anonymously post ones comments. Also, one of the worst aspects of the blogosphere is the ability to anonymously post ones comments.  When I write, I use my real name, not some pseudonym. I am a real person with a real address and a real life. I am a "front page" blogger for New Hampshire Insider and another local blog. All my entries are mine. They are written, edited and submitted by me and nobody else. Therefore, I am responsible for the content in my entries and I don't hide in some "E"-corner with an anonymous identity or nickname. In other words, I wrote it and in doing so, I have an obligation to possess the cahones to claim its ownership. 

On the other hand, there are those who shamelessly, fecklessly and without conviction, take advantage of the ability to post limitlessly and endlessly without ever having to account for the character, truthfulness or veracity of own their comments. I possess no such luxury because my name is on this. While the blogger might elect to counter the point or response, it really isn't a fruitful dialog where the anonymous poster is not accountable for lies, distortions and other sundry charlatanries. There is the whole "civility bit." Personally, I don't delete posts for want of civility, name-calling or other gratuitous vitriol. But that "ain't" what we are talking about here.

In my time since being on NH Insider, I have deleted two people. One made a threats and the other insisted on  an endless stream of utter nonsense which was neither unkind nor impolite, it was  just useless nonsense. And frankly, I did not sign on to be the proving ground for anybody's medication adjustments. Its just not my thing.  That never ending, inane, white noise, bandwidth occupying "I did not take my medication today-style," gratuitous post.  And I still delete some of those individuals posts....from time to time....and I will likely continue to do so. See? I have a wife, kids, grandkids and a house... a life! Therefore I have no time to nor patience to suffer fools. So I don't. 

Censorship is what governments do, not bloggers. Censorship is what governments do to squelch ideas concepts and political speech that is a perceived threat to the given entity doing the censorship. How does one "censor" something on its face that most reasonable people grounded in reality find no value in reading. What if it has no has no redeeming value?  Basically, just being a useless pain in the ass pecking at a keyboard does not endow some freedom of speech when occupying the space of others.

Finally, why do we care one lick about some nameless faceless anonymous person, who, anonymous by personal choice, persists ad nauseum with often stupid, childish moronic comments that are so difficult to follow half the time, I'd rather watch paint dry? Why?  The Nashua Telegraph, Concord Monitor, Union Leader and many other interactive media sites moderate comments made yet no complaint is tendered?. More importantly, Boo-Hoo Hampster (Blue Hampshire) is lightening fast about deleting comments they don't like and "mum is the word" on them. I think there is some misguided notion that some out there hiding behind keyboards think they can cow us into keeping their comments up. 

It would appear on the face of it that, given the number useless comments still surviving, the case can hardly be made that we at NH Insider censor people. And freedom of speech isn't so infinite that the limits are non-existent, nor does it  mean I am duly required to host a forum for idiots to vent their spleens of useless B.S.

This is the stuff of crybabies and whiners. Those who need something to needlessly complain and protest. I knew something was going to come of this when Oprah retired. And besides, Can't the adults have a conversation without you children interrupting all the time?

Comments

[Troll]

Rick,
I want to thank you for the opportunity to respond to your post today. Let me see if I can refute some of your comments.

“When I write, I use my real name, not some pseudonym. I am a real person with a real address and a real life.”

I am also a real person with a real address. My having a real life is debatable but I would argue that what you consider a real life would be a huge waste of time to me. I guess it’s all in your perspective.

Can you explain to me how knowing a person’s name has any effect on the veracity of their statements? I can see that you and some of your followers make a big deal about anonymity. Many times there is a reason to keep one’s name out of print. Not everyone is fortunate enough to work for themselves and thus will be accountable to people they work for. Sometimes the people they work for are narrow minded zealots who cannot stand that others may have opinions that differ from theirs. Especially in an at-will employment situation, this can be tricky. The need of anonymity does not automatically invalidate a person’s opinions. Well, unless you are one of the aforementioned zealots.

“On the other hand, there are those who shamelessly, fecklessly and without conviction, take advantage of the ability to post limitlessly and endlessly without ever having to account for the character, truthfulness or veracity of own their comments”

This is the second time you have called me a liar. However, you have failed to provide any evidence of these imagined fallacies. Please show me EXACTLY where I have lied in my posts. I am fairly sure what you call lies and distortions are in fact just different opinions.

But that’s not really the issue here, is it? There are many people who post here with a pseudonym and they are never brought to task for doing so. It is only the anonymous posters WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU who are lying bastards with no moral turpitude. As long as we are calling out people for lies, j’accuse. If you are going to delete my posts merely because you disagree with them then at least have the balls to say that. Otherwise you are merely blowing wind and guilty of the same crap that you charge me with.

“Censorship is what governments do, not bloggers. Censorship is what governments do to squelch ideas concepts and political speech that is a perceived threat to the given entity doing the censorship.

I have heard this argument here before and it is still a lie. The definition of censor is:
CENSOR
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also: to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

Notice, there is no mention of government. Anyone can censor and to claim it is not censorship is, again, dishonest.

“How does one "censor" something on its face that most reasonable people grounded in reality find no value in reading. What if it has no has no redeeming value?”

What kind of egomaniac has the hubris to think he has the right to decide for everybody else what has value and what does not, especially in a public forum. I bet that Mao said the same thing you are saying during the great leap forward. Just the fact that you can say this with a straight face scares me.

“Finally, why do we care one lick about some nameless faceless anonymous person, who, anonymous by personal choice, persists ad nauseum with often stupid, childish moronic comments that are so difficult to follow half the time, I'd rather watch paint dry?”

“In the pretext of this freedom you cry is being denied you, how responsible is it for you to continue doing so when nobody calls such charlatanry into question?”

And you call my posts difficult to follow? I’m not trying to be a jerk here but I honestly have NO idea what point you are trying to make here. But I still believe you have the right to ramble on incoherently and I think it should be the right of everyone else to decide which is shit and which is shinola.

“The Nashua Telegraph, Concord Monitor, Union Leader and many other interactive media sites moderate comments made yet no complaint is tendered?. More importantly, Boo-Hoo Hampster (Blue Hampshire) is lightening fast about deleting comments they don't like and "mum is the word" on them.”

“ABOUT US
NHInsider.com launched on January 7th, 2005 to provide those interested in New Hampshire politics with an extensive and all inclusive news source.
The founder of the site, Stephen DeMaura, a NH resident, as well as others involved in its beginning felt that there was a lack of coverage, commentary and discussion regarding NH politics and policy.”

It seems like this site was founded SPECIFICALLY because all the other news sources were insufficient. To then turn around and say “they do it too” when are accused of censorship makes you seem weak just like the rest of them. I thought you wanted to be the solution to the lame stream media, not be a part of it.

“It would appear on the face of it that, given the number useless comments still surviving, the case can hardly be made that we at NH Insider censor people.”

If you delete someone’s post with out their permission then you are censoring. Rationalize it all you want but it’s still censorship.

“This is the stuff of crybabies and whiners. Those who need something to needlessly complain and protest. I knew something was going to come of this when Oprah retired. And besides, Can't the adults have a conversation without you children interrupting all the time?”

“…the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. - Saul Alinsky”

I am surprised to see that you are such an adherent to the rules of Alinsky. From reading your posts over the last few months, I thought you were not a big fan of Saul. Surely, you would not be such a hypocrite to mock others for following his rules and then do the very same thing, would you? Of course not, you are a much better man than all those damn liberals.

[Rick Olson]

You think this whole entry is about "You?" While it may indirectly reference you but frankly you are not that important...I find you to be merely annoying. Even I understand that I am not important in the larger scheme of things. I don't seek such self-importance nor try to shove that down throats of others are you are attempting to do here. Nearly every counterpoint you give lacks any relative context.

for example, you defend being anonymous. You never once address the full context of what I have said about being anonymous. In essence, you "cherry pick" . You ask, "Can you explain to me how knowing a person’s name has any effect on the veracity of their statements?" Seriously? Did you really ask that? My blog entries are biased. Most are visceral reactions to current events where I put finger to key and the words, phrases and assertions I make are through the lens in which I view the world. Nothing more. I don't hide or run away from that, nor do I apologize for that. Many agree....many disagree....and many more agree to disagree. 99% who respond to my blogs make their points and move on. You don't.

You are dishonest. Consistently, when you post a response, your response posits some cherry-picked fact you can mold to fit your particular assertion du jour. Moreover, your language used in the response operates from the pre-supposition that your statement is the universally accepted starting point or frame of reference. Such use of our modern language is not only dishonest, but hegelian and bankrupt. It renders the truth, truthless. A favorite example of this is the Bible. The Bible says, "Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver and went out and hanged himself. And thereafter in the Bible, Jesus says, "go thou and do likewise..." and, "what ye must do, doest quickly..." So here is an example of the Bible telling us to go hang ourselves, when in reality, it instructs in no such manner. Its just wholly out of context.

Like your definition of censorship. You do not even cite the source of your definition, nor examples of its real world use. You totally dodge my examples. I cannot begin to tell you how many times my comments have been deleted from various sources. But again you lie because you use "anonymous posters in the plural sense. And I have only deleted "you."

I am challenged to get my head around this whole concept where you go to the mats to defend your integrity. I don't see where it really matters...Nothing for you is at stake. You've laid NOTHING on the line because you are anonymous. You are just a nameless, faceless person with the pseudonym "troll."

"If you delete someone’s post with out their permission then you are censoring. Rationalize it all you want but it’s still censorship." This assertion by you is a prime example. First, the blogs here are the work of their respective authors. Not of a government, not of an NGO (in the universally accepted definition) and not of a major media news source. They are reactions, opinions and thoughts...not news. If I am having a conversation with another and you rudely interrupt, I can tell you to butt out. Simply because I post something, does not give you some kind of absolute right to attach something to it.

So lets be clear here. I have the discretion to delete your posts. I have done so...I have told you in the past that I would do so...gave you a warning....and you ignored it. Instead you have shifted the conversation to having a right to your posts on this site. Thats like me calling Barack Obama the worst president in US History and complaining censorship when BooHoo Hampster deletes it.

Your responses are long..disjointed....and often times incoherent. Reading your posts extracts a lot of energy and I find myself glossing over after the third of fourth sentence.

The blog "Crybabies" is my personal viewpoint of people who post stupid stuff, I use your LTE as an example because, well...its just out there...Somehow, you have taken to think you are so so important that the rant was ALL about you...well it isn't. What we have here is the context of timing to address a viewpoint I have.so thanks for that.

Having actually endured reading and re-reading you response, I have concluded as follows:

This response is little more than a personal attack on me because I hurt your feelings and wont let you post comments in my blogs periodically. You twist my examples used into some "THEY DO IT TOO" argument...when my point was that they do it to me and I simply go away. I don't protest complain or whine about it, like you do....I accept the hard cold reality that they don't like my vitriol, don't want it and squelch it.

Lastly, I will likely be criticized for responding to you. I've been advised to simply to ignore you all together. Probably prudent advice. I have given you importance you have neither earned nor deserve. There are countless others who come and attack me for what I have written...counter with their own assertions and just totally disagreed with me. And many have come using Pseudonyms...Somehow their comments still live....But this isn't about them...its about you...