'The quality of this site has gone downhill'
February 1st, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesAbout once a week I've devoted a post to a drawing taken from Kara Bishop's www.postcardsfromsplitsville.com. Bishop works with Children of Divorce, a class run by Tucson, Arizona-based Divorce Recovery. The class did an art project that included "sending away" the frustrations of divorce, and we've been posting the children's art. To see what we've posted, click here.
Recently three posters--Norman, Novae, and Ruby, questioned the authenticity of the art work. I allowed some discussion on the issue, but limited it after a few days, and deleted one post by Novae and another by Ruby, though most of the critical posts are still there.
Norman wrote me an email which said he was "sorry I doubted some of the Postcards from Splitsville." Novae and Ruby, however, are both very angry with me, and their letters are below in italics. My response comments are interspersed in standard type.
From Novae:
Glenn, you hypocrite. Talk about censoring...on that last post about postcards from Splitsville, you deleted my posts and RubyThea's, and locked the whole thing from further posting. Where do you get off criticizing feminist blogs for that, when you do the same thing yourself??
You call it "censoring," I call it "moderating," and I think I should be doing more of it, not less. Several of you made comments stating that the Splitsville artwork did not really come from kids, but was instead created by an adult or through "coaching." In other words, you accused Kara of being a fraud.
I allowed this, to a point, but after Kara made her response I saw no purpose in allowing this woman's fine work to be further maligned. Most of the critical comments are still there--see for yourself at http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1513. However, I deleted the last two, and closed the discussion. Call me a "chivalrous male" if you want, but it hardly seemed fair to Kara to continue to allow such baseless aspersions to be cast on her character.
As for feminist blogs, what I object to is their general refusal to allow reasonable dissent. Feminist bloggers have every right to delete comments that are personal attacks, stray from the issues, employ obscenity, endlessly carp over tiny points, or are from people who just absolutely have to have the last word on any subject and will go on and on and on in order to get it. Any blogger, feminist or not, has the right to moderate that sort of thing. That aside, I think you'd be hard pressed to say I don't allow reasonable dissent.
As for "censoring," in the month of January this www.GlennSacks.com received 5,706 comments. Of these, excluding spam and comments which were double-posted, I deleted fewer than 50 comments. Less than 1 in 100. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "This is 'Censorship'? Censorship should be made of sterner stuff."
Ya know, with the censoring on top of the lack of actual issues being discussed on here the past couple months, and then the attempts to make-nice with the feminists by going out of your way to find anything you can agree with them on just so you can put it on here, it's little wonder there's no solidarity in this part of the equal rights community. The quality of this site has gone downhill since about the beginning of November.
I don't go "out of my way" to "make nice with the feminists." I follow a simple rule--when someone is right, I say it, when someone is wrong, I say it.
I have no use for the ludicrous pretense that our side is always good and right and virtuous and their side is always bad and wrong and sleazy. I write about gender issues, and in so doing I read both men's movement material and feminist material. When I see the feminists do something good, I point it out. Were there enough hours in the day, I would do more of this, not less.
I've been reading since the middle of last summer. You used to allow free thought, you used to actually reply to e-mails, and you used to defend a position in the equal rights movement.
There's as much or as little "free thought" here as there ever was--nothing has changed.
Now, you think you're a political commentator, and aside from issues relating to baseball or things that happened decades ago and the occasional heart-wrenching anecdote, there's no content here anymore.
I'm sorry you feel there's "no content here anymore" but I'm not aware of anything that has changed. You say I used to be good but am not anymore, but maybe I always sucked and you just didn't notice it until lately.
Where'd your columns go? Why'd you quit writing the great stuff you used to write?
I've been swamped with other obligations over the past couple months and cut back some on my column writing, but they're coming back. Thanks for the kind words about my previous work.
There is NOTHING I hate as much as censorship. Not even feminists. (though they do censor people fairly often) When you get back to the great work you used to do, you'll get me and my family as readers again, provided you fix the censoring you did to that aforementioned post, or at least agree not to do it again. I know a handful of readers don't really matter to you, but at least I've made my position clear.
PS: I'd have e-mailed this to you so as to keep this blog post on-topic, but the only time you've given any indication of receiving an e-mail from me in the past few months was the *one* time I forgot to include a link...I got two words in response. Thanks a ton.
I receive over 10,000 letters a month. Ten Thousand. I can only reply to a very, very small handful, and the guys who are being hammered in their divorces and need help come first, and I can't even get to all of those. My rule is this--I (almost) always respond to a person's first letter. After that, it's very sketchy. I wish I had time to respond to more letters, but there are a lot of things I wish I had more time for.
Ruby is similarly unhappy. After Novae's comment she wrote:
Here Here! Sorry for going off topic as well, but I have to say something as well. Just because you didn't agree with what we were saying doesn't mean you have the right to remove our posts. I used to think that you were fair and balanced. But then you let that woman put up her lies and then take us off the post when we point this out? Pardon me for thinking that this site was about discussing controversial topics. My bad. You won't be hearing from me again. Furthermore, both Novae and I deserve an apology. If this is how you're going to run the site, you might as well be one of the Feminists, Glenn.
Kara didn't "put up her lies" and I find the vehement anger towards her very surprising. Other than that, I always thought you were a good poster here, Ruby, and it's a shame you've decided to leave. Best of luck to you.
"));
19 queries. 0.482 seconds.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:24 am
Who was it that said "methinks thou doth protest to much".
reading between the lines I would be willing to bet some of these cards hit a nerve. Perhaps because they themselves may be guilty of causing some of the things shown in the postcards?
Glenn its akin to the one man in a bar with stnading room only threatening to leave because he is not getting served fast enough. If they want to leave or threaten to go elsewhere..... let them. they will be hard pressed to find ANY site with as open of a discussion group, the least amount of moderation and the quality of intelligent conversation.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:30 am
Weird.
My kids liked the postcards from Splitsville. My son is not in touch with this feelings to really get it, but my daughter did.
I guess I have made my point before, but I think it great if the feminists and men they have harmed can hack it out on this site. We sure can't do it on feministing.com
Having a post or 2 modified or deleted is small change. Say what you wanna say, mebbie with less personal attack, and you are just fine.
I got a post of mine 'adjusted'. It was no big deal. It didn't even change the meaning, just removed a slightly insulting comment I made that I didn't mean to be insulting with.
And I will say that there is a topic I want posted on that Glenn hasn't gotten around to yet, but it may need some tuning to improve readability. It was a bit research based. But to me, it is huge, because I recognise the significance, because of my control systems background.
So, I must be patient. I recommend all readers and posters be patient. Some issues take time to work out.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:48 am
Glenn, we don't always see eye to eye (my "eye for an eye" attitude does not get your "aye"), but I think you are doing a very good job. I hope Ruby and Novae continue to post. Should I rethink how aggressive a posture to adopt on the basis that you've never censored me? I guess I'm just not yet completely over the top! ; )
February 1st, 2008 at 12:54 am
It must be hard for some women to look the truth in the face. They just cannot wrap their minds around the fact that their unilateral, selfish, narcissistic actions have harmed and wounded children and that they are not acting in a 'maternal' 'loving' 'selfless' 'empathetic' manner. I can think of no other reason why a woman would believe that these sorrowful images are disingenuous other than a deep pathological need on their part to suppress their own conscience from acknowledging the error of what they believe, what they have been lead to believe, what they have allowed, what they have approved of or what they have done. This time period and these women, with their destructive actions and ideology will soon be infamous---if you know what I mean.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:58 am
Thomas: "I can think of no other reason why a woman would believe that these sorrowful images are disingenuous other than a deep pathological need on their part to suppress their own conscience from acknowledging the error of what they believe, what they have been lead to believe, what they have allowed, what they have approved of or what they have done."
Nicely said! You are SO right!!
February 1st, 2008 at 1:06 am
I have only one complaint. When are you going to become a lobbyist (for us)?
Best wishes, and once again, thank you!
February 1st, 2008 at 1:10 am
You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and all of the people some of the time,
but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
So absolutely, when feminists get something right, it is incumbent on us to acknowledge that. If modern feminist is failing to progress, it is because of their lack of integrity. Keeping your integrity, speaking with integrity, that's how we change minds. And by acknowledging when they are correct, you also battle the bogus charge that we're the same.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:15 am
I'm not proud of my comments in the "postcards" thread. I'm glad the two dissenters are gone though. Anthing which might even partially undermine a program such as this, could directly affect the life of a kid.
Sorry Kara.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:58 am
I've gotten a couple of emails from Glenn. One basically said "cut it out", the other said (roughly) "good idea". In neither case would more words have added meaning.....get my meaning? Sometimes 2 words is clearer than 20. That, and his sched must be hell....
As for the postcards...I plan on sending the link to my kids. They both have recently made the effort to tell me how they feel about the divorce and my moving away. A good conversation, but there's more there I know they want to tell SOMEone.....this website is a godsend, and should be treated as such.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:24 am
Up until now, I have been treated with curtesy on this site. I have been respected, and have tried to respond in a respectful manner. But, with this mess over these forged postcards, I have not been treated with respect. And so, I have the following things to say to you all.
I understand why you don't want these letters to be faked. I can see how they would be a beacon to many of you. A sign that you should fight for your children, that they really do need you. Well, your kids do need you, of course they do.But you don't need those pretty little lies to know that.
Norman, grow a backbone. I can't see any reason for you to have changed your opinion based solely on Kara's reasurance that all those cards are real.
I'm glad if these postcards help children going through a divorce. That doesn't make them legitimate. But they're fine, if you don't mind being lied to. And, sooner or later, a feminist group is going to be clued into the fact that they're fakes. What do you think is going to do to the men's movement?
By the way, just because I think this woman is lying to you all doesn't make me selfish, abusive, or narcissistic.I believe something you do not, Thomas. That doesn't make me a bad mother.
And, in case your wondering why I think they're fake, look at the handwriting. Pretty similar, isn't it?
Finally, I have little to say to Glenn, mainly because he had little to say to me. More of that 'chivalry' he's so fond of. And, stop defending Kara! She's a big girl, and can look after herself.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:33 am
RubyThea, this question stems from a genuine desire to understand why you say the postcards are false with such passion. Do you have any evidence, aside from the hand writing being similar, that the cards are bogus?
February 1st, 2008 at 4:41 am
First:
I am angry at you, Glenn, because you censored my opinions, after all this time criticizing the feminists for doing the same thing. Those postcards were poignant, and meaningful, but I do not believe entirely truthful. They were not as advertised, but the meaning was not lost on me. Truthful or not, they evoked emotions as well as anything I've seen from kids in the middle of divorce. I think that if adults, who experienced divorce as children, could express what they felt in postcards, these'd be exactly what we'd get. My anger has *nothing* to do with the postcards. Those, I was simply voicing an opinion over, and I intended to leave it at that.
Second:
I am a father, and I have joint custody of my three-year-old daughter. Her mother and I have fought over custody before, but now that mom's-evil-boyfriend is gone, we get along fine. My parents divorced when I was 11, and the whole thing went well for me and my brother, if not for my parents. My involvement in the equal rights stuff came when I went into family law as a paralegal. I was lucky in my custody situation. Most other men are not. Just so you all have some context.
Did any of you defend the feminists when they censored people on their sites? I'm sure they were just 'moderating' too. They were moderating dissenting opinions for whatever reason. I'm sure some of you are going to be happy that a reader will be gone from here, 'cause that reader had some criticism for one subject. You truly are no better than those on the 'other side'. My dissent was considered unreasonable, huh? Maybe that should be left for readers to decide, instead of you doing the thinking for them? Seems they mostly agree with you...all by themselves, too. How 'bout that? A group of people think I'm wrong. I'm OK with that. Just so long as I'm allowed to say what I think. The fact that I can't does a disservice to the equal rights movement in general.
"Chivalrous male" Yeah, good idea. I'll go ahead and call you that. It's an insult, because it suggests that you think Kara can't speak for herself or defend herself. Which, by the way, she had no obligation to do. I made one comment and left it at that. If Kara wanted to respond, she could have. Maybe she felt that way too. Who knows? You stepped in to take care of things though, so she didn't have to. If she's offended, she's allowed to be. If I'm wrong, she should be mad at me. Let her address it, OK? If she doesn't want to, then no one here has to listen to a word I say. (In fact, I rarely recommend that people listen to me for too long. Otherwise, I'd have a blog of my own.) Kara, for what it's worth...I'm not sorry for speaking my mind. I still appreciate the work you do, regardless of the source.
Maybe you used to be good, but aren't anymore? Nah. You're just getting distracted, I think. You've had one column since the beginning of November. Which puts you one ahead of me, sure. You were doing, what, three per month? I'm just cranky and I feel like pointing this out. I know you've been busy, but political commentary (while more fair than most) isn't really what I thought you were about. I'll grant that in being mad about censoring, I stuck some other complaints in there too. I do this sometimes. I shouldn't. My apologies. I'm really just mad because this was the first site I found that mentioned the unequal treatment of men, after I realized for myself that it was happening. I thought you'd be the last person on earth to censor me. It stung a bit, yeah. If you're so swamped, why don't you set up some basic forums at invisionfree.com? I used to run forums there, it's easy, cost me nothing. I dunno if it can handle the volume your site would generate, but it's worth a look. We can all help people who need it as well as you can. (BTW, why did you only respond to the e-mail without a link in it? If you didn't respond to that, I'd have assumed you were just another overwhelmed blogger.) Also, I know you give credit where credit is due, but hunting for times the (bad)feminists are right is a bit much...when they're right, they should be able to make it clear to everyone by themselves. If the feminists-being-right comes up during a discussion about something else, by all means give them credit, but I don't like verifying their own news for them. Not that it should be avoided, but let them do their own work, that's all.
The few times I've posted here have been a bit critical of small things, but nothing you, or friends, or family, or my worst enemies have ever done has been as offensive to me as censoring. As for the rest of you (again), think about this...most of you have made assumptions about me, and talk about me about the way you'd expect to be talked about on a feminist website. Proud of yourselves, are you? Glad to see you're showing the feminists (and curious neutral parties) that you're *really* more open-minded than the 'other side'.
Here's the best part. Since I demanded that I be uncensored....I actually was uncensored. So a lot of this is no longer relevant. I overreacted in voicing a complaint about censoring and attaching complaints about site content. I still won't retract my comments, but the things I said about site content were tactless, and putting down Glenn's work in that context was inappropriate. Tactless isn't wrong, though, and I won't apologize for my thoughts, or condone a group that won't tolerate ideas they don't like.
Enjoy.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:18 am
RubyThea said...
By the way, just because I think this woman is lying to you all doesn't make me selfish, abusive, or narcissistic.I believe something you do not, Thomas. That doesn't make me a bad mother.
Of course it doesn't. It just makes you wrong in this instance. Because...
And, in case your wondering why I think they're fake, look at the handwriting. Pretty similar, isn't it?
No, it's not. How are your eyes these days? I know mine have deteriorated in recent times and I now need - gasp - reading glasses. But I would suggest you go and have another look. Maybe with your glasses on.
Please consider that you have actually made an accusation of fraud and dishonesty against a third party. Can you not understand that for Glenn this could be problematic? There's a fair difference between censoring comments or ideas in an online debate and dealing with an accusation that may have legal implications.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:14 am
Is there a better site than this? If you disagree with something that is fine but it's not an all or nothing. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. This is an excellent site and if there is a better one I'd like to hear about it?
February 1st, 2008 at 8:02 am
I follow a simple rule--when someone is right, I say it, when someone is wrong, I say it.
Glenn, this is why I read your site so much. You are a very fair commentator, and I am 100% behind you with this.
George
February 1st, 2008 at 8:32 am
Count me in on supporting you as well Glenn, some people get so involved in the day to day things (or articles) that they sometimes forget the overall theme of your site and what you stand for.
Balanced opinions and occasionally other things. Hey sometimes we need a distraction from the crud we as men have to endure.
Either way keep it up, I've been a frequent reader for I don't know how many years but years none the less. There is a reason I keep coming back and it's because you're different than the rest of the crud out there.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:44 am
Glenn,
Although I do not always agree with you.. and sometimes.. yes, I even get angry with some of the "lookie here a feminist said a nicey nice!" articles.. I respect you and your work.
TMOTS
February 1st, 2008 at 8:47 am
Why would get angry for him posting feminist things on his site?
He used to be a feminist and to top it off, there is NOTHING wrong with showing a balance. It's called being political and you have to be political to get anywhere today.
It's also called another thing, showing that there is a Balance in his opinion and less of a bias. It makes people who are more "moderate" want to come and read. So even those "moderate" people don't think his site is so negative and anti-female.
Instead we have people who comment (not saying you are) who are anti-female based on every single one of their posts. They instead can't seem to see that hey guess what.. Not all women are like this but I agree with your post. .
The same feminists you guys are "attacking" are doing the same thing you guys are doing.. Blame the other sex for every single one of your problems.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:09 am
Well RubyThea, you must have forgot what it like to be a younger kid. First off the handwriting is not that similar, and secondly, little kids can't write well so of course it will look similar. A thirty year old has had thirty years to learn how to write neatly and with their own style, a kid is just learning and so the handwriting will look similar.
Novae, is mad that there weren't enough BAD things happening to fathers this last couple of months. I would be happy if the amount of crap happening to fathers went down a little over time, but I guess he's like the feminists, isn't happy without something to complain about. And some of our MRA's are also feminists. We want equality for all, not just our own select group.
For both of you. You make a legal accusation of fraud without real evidence, that is called slander or libel. Glenn is well within his legal writes of "censoring" you. Actually track down a postcard and have a handwriting expert tell you that it is fake, then you can complain all you want. Until then he is not censoring you, and therefore a non-issue.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:01 am
@Jerry: "So absolutely, when feminists get something right, it is incumbent on us to acknowledge that."
Feminists getting something right? Hmmm. Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:58 am
Glenn, you did the right thing. All that conspiracy theory nonsense was thread-jacking the subject. After Kara's response it should have subsided but it just seemed to go on and on and on. That's one thread I won't miss. I've been to a couple of men's blogs that seem to have an unwritten rule that it's mandatory to stay off subject, spout as much obscenity as possible make sure that your posts are devoid of grammar and make light of everything. For instance the subject could be DV and the first response would be about an anorexic fashionista from Switzerland. The second response would be about Polish polar bears and so on. If you don't moderate people they sure as hell won't moderate themselves. I visit dozens of blogs and IMHO this is the best and most effective of them all. I would like to see it remain that way. Last word: I believe the postcards are real.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:24 am
Feminist blogs delete the most minute comments that dare to question their insane religion. As proof of their imaturity they convulse into apoplectic seizures when you do the same to them.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:25 am
I looked at the 'postcards' site when Glenn first put one up. Although I appreciated, even cheered at some of the feelings being expressed, something about it bothered me.
Perhaps it is that I would never send the link to my kids - it has been a hard enough slog for them to get through this as it is. - They don't need to be reminded how their mother has worked to impoverish me or alienate them. They don't need to be reminded of everything that she has done, or the pain that our split has caused. They need to spend time with me, making our lives as best as we can, and for a few hours, a few days at a time, being a loving family.
With that said, going back now, after this little dust-up in and about comments, and looking at the posts with fresh eyes, I must admit, the production values on these postcard/posts are amazing. If I was in advertising, I would consider hiring these 'children'. Whoever put these things together is quite talented. And yes, that means I am doubting them.
If a real child is reading this, and one of these is your real postcard, I apologize, but then, think of it as a compliment. Your work looks professional. This is not a bad thing.
MBTYIYS:
M
February 1st, 2008 at 11:27 am
It's Glenn's site, and his moderation is his prerogative. The amount of dissent is simply one measure of how open or how closed a community he wants to support. With that said, I think the blogs could benefit with some more organization... as an example, the yahoo finance blogs, which have differently themed threads, which can each have multiple aspects. Some articles, or postings, often have multiple issues, but after the first comments which tackle diverse aspects, some worthy discussion points get lost because of volume that focuses on a different aspect of the same issue. That may sound confusing, but I mean that an article may touch on both parenting techniques and Child Protective Services, and, because one topic gets a temporary surge of volume, the other one is effectively drowned. Allowing multiple threads on each post might help the overall topic, but it requires some blog re-design, which might be expensive and certainly time-consuming. That's my thought on the blogging.
I've been moderated out on occasion, and it didn't feel good, and since then I've tried to keep better focus on the type of comments that fit the debate. Being here at all is a vote of confidence, but I also read less and post less than before, and felt less connected than before, because some of my viewpoint was askew to the supported topics. That's just how it is.
And for the postcards? I think the basic problem is projection, seeing our own ideas in a child's handwriting to make ourselves feel better about them. But I expressed that before after seeing them for a few times so I won't belabor it here.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I think Glenn is doing a great job, on the course that he's chosen. Hold her steady!!
Men/fathers who are interested in advancing the cause should take this opportunity to send a Linc of glennsacks.org to other men/fathers.
Tell them you came across an interesting site, that you don't hear much about in the main stream media!!
February 1st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Glenn, have you ever banned anyone from this site? Just curious, I think that’s true censorship. I think moderating is good if you follow established guidelines.
I’ve been “moderated” several times on your blog, some for reasons you were willing to share with me via email, and some you weren’t.
One of the deletions I was only aware of while searching the archives on a rainy day and once it was a joke intended for Batman and Wonder Women that you thought was “making fun of them”, (although that was not my intent) I later agreed with your decision to “pull” that part of the comment.
About the only time I was truly “censored” on your site, was on the first “Good Samaritan” blog you posted about the illegal immigrant helping the child stranded in the desert. I posted the following article and it was removed twice, but was allowed to remain on the third try. (I haven’t checked lately, but last I looked, it was still there.)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103
I think deleting that link from the topic of illegal immigration is “censorship” and I think any “reasonable person” would agree.
In response to some of the comments posted above, my personal opinion of Glenn’s work is that he neither represents the feminist perspective or the men’s rights perspective. I think he has found a niche in playing one against the other in hopes of making sense of what's in many cases, two sides of the same coin. I think it’s his “calling”.
I guess the bottom line is if you don’t like it, or think you can do better, what’s stopping you. I know what’s stopping me. What’s stopping you? Glenn’s blog is not a democracy, it’s his blog, and he can do as he pleases. Sooner or later the “censorship” will kill the website, not the moderation done reputably.
Kevin Merck
February 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
The only time I recall having Glenn change something I wrote was when he modestly removed something complimentary --- something nice I wrote about him --- in the first writing of mine that he posted as a blog entry. He told me in advance that he would do it and got my permission. I gather that we do not always agree, but he is very respectful and he has never removed anything I wrote that disagreed with him --- quite the contrary. Remember when I suggested that Gina Elise (veterans pin-up calendar woman) might have motives that she wasn't mentioning to us? Glenn obviously disagreed with my take but he actually highlighted my comments. [I do not want to put words into his mouth, but my assumption at the time was that he did not censor me there because I only suggested it as a possibility and listed the potential evidence. I didn't go around saying that I KNEW for sure what her motives were. That would have been dishonest and damaging, and he would have been right to take it down.]
From my perspective, I see Gleen treat everyone respectfully. He welcomes dissent with grace and humility. I wish there were more public figures like him. This would be a totally different world.
This is the only blog I have ever really become involved with on the internet, and having looked at some it is the only one I plan to frequent in the future. In case everyone hasn't noticed, Glenn is advocating a very unpopular position right now. In a world that really is biased against men in alarming ways, he is standing up for them loud and clear despite the criticism he gets. I almost cannot believe the number of intellectual tightropes I have seen him walk in the last few months, and he does it with complete honesty. I think his approach is really the only way to go about it, I think perhaps he is starting to make headway, and I support him completely.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Well said, Betsy.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
From Michael H: "Well said, Betsy."
Except for the part where I call him "Gleen." :) As Bernie says, "I hat typos." Anyway, thanks, Michael.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Kevin wrote: "About the only time I was truly “censored” on your site, was on the first “Good Samaritan” blog you posted about the illegal immigrant helping the child stranded in the desert. I posted the following article and it was removed twice, but was allowed to remain on the third try. (I haven’t checked lately, but last I looked, it was still there.)" http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103
The post Kevin refers to is about a Mexican immigrant father who was crossing into the U.S. illegally. The father allowed himself to be caught by the Border Patrol so he could save the life of a young American boy who was wandering in the desert after his mother was killed in a car crash. I don't recall exactly what transpired, but I would guess that I didn't want Kevin's story about murderous illegal aliens posted on that blog post--I wanted to keep the focus on this father's noble act, not the immigration debate. As Kevin notes, his post is still there. The original blog post can be found at http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1473.
As for banning people, there are only two people I've ever banned. The first is a men's activist who insists on loading up his posts with obscenities. The second is a feminist who insisted on posting misleading and hostile statements about a prominent men's activist (not me), despite my clear instructions not to. She kept violating my rules, but like a sucker I kept giving her chance after chance after chance, until I finally got tired of it and banned her.--GS
February 1st, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Hmm, I've had a few rants on here about many aspects of the female gender's behaviour that disgust me. I don't know if I was ever censored. I rarely ever go back and check old blog entries. I don't always agree with Glenn either, but I admire his passion and dedication to this grossly unpopular cause that is the men's right movement.
We're living in a time of social anarchy. Feminists call the shots and whatever they say goes with little or no questions asked. I know of so many people who will simply dislike a guy like Glenn because he dares to champion men's issues. As we all know, to these people, any complaint from men about women is misogyny.
I think he should be commended for his efforts. He's doing, and accomplishing, a lot more than most of us who post here ever could.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Hi Betsy, I had gleened that that was a tipo. :-)
February 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
(Glenn) -- "Feminist bloggers have every right to delete comments that are personal attacks, stray from the issues, employ obscenity, endlessly carp over tiny points, or are from people who just absolutely have to have the last word on any subject and will go on and on and on in order to get it."
Glenn, the only reason to visit feminist blog sites is to ENJOY how their posters personally attack, stray from issues, are routinely obscene, carp over tiny molecular issues, and always demand the final say!
There are many beneficial results from reading feminist blogs - just a couple:
(1) You realize you are sane.
(2) You come to understand that insane women exist.
(3) You learn how to identify the insane women by their common attitudes and language.
It's like getting a free women's studies degree on the 'net!
Basically, comic relief, only more valuable than the actual women's studies degree.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Davina: "We're living in a time of social anarchy."
To me, this is not social anarchy.
To me, this is just the beginnings of the replacement of the two-parent family, first by one-parent families, and then by the government. I agree with John Waters when he writes, "they'll go after the mothers next."
This evolution toward an insect-like society may not happen for centuries, and it may not happen until some technological advance is achieved. However, it may not happen altogether, if we demand parental rights.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I too have been a victim of a "snipped" comment .
It was questioned, with an opportunity to defend it, via personal E-mail.
I could not defend it as pertinent and could only own up to it's attempt as snark toward other posters
positions.
It didn't do much for my ego to confess to this.
The reasonable bits remained, and I've come to put more consideration in what I opine, here and elsewhere.
I have no (valid) complaint concerning Glenn's moderation of MY posts.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Jerry "wrote" -
"You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and all of the people some of the time,
but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."
It is usually considered polite to attribute quotes like the one you used --
Bob Dylan wrote/sung that.
See "No Direction Home" DVD for the original performance.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Roy, I assume you're kidding (?) :). Uh, I think it was Honest Abe Lincoln before Bob Dylan:
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27074.html
February 1st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I read Glen Sack's website everyday, and I almost never comment. But, I read this and have a comment or 2. I happen to have a neice and nephew that live in Tucson and have gone to the class listed above. Although my neice and nephew's pic's were never selected for Glen's website, I can assure you that they are legit.
To: Rubythea and Novae- How dare you accuse and impune the work of Kara Bishop without any basis whatsoever. I am glad that your posts were removed. Furthermore, How dare you impune the work of Glen Sacks!! I am sooo glad there is a forum for Mens Rights for us to turn to here.
Glen's comments in general are fair and unbiased, if you cannot see that, I am sure that there are lots of feminazi websites you can go on and agree with all the propoganda that they so continually spread...I do not think all women are horrible, only my ex-wife and her mother, who continue to ruin my life every chance they get. I still hold doors open for women, pay for my date's meals, and show women that chivalry is not dead, despite how I have been treated a few times by women. I also acknowledge that there are bad men out there that will do horrible things to women.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
My apologies for the nasty words at the end of my last comment- My anger got the best of me, I should have used other words than the ones I used to get my point accross about the way I feel...
February 1st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Holy Smokes Betsy!
Is that true?
Where can I download that Abe Lincoln mpeg?
Acutal text of the speech with a link please....
I promise to buy you dinner if you're correct!
February 1st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Forget about the dinner.
You already provided the quote link.
But my defense is.... no way that our contemporary "Jerry" was quoting Lincoln.
It was Dylan, Newport ' 67.
And also, Dylan had a certain inflection that was not at all like Lincoln.
And, it is possible that an ancient Greek philosopher said that first, and Lincoln was merely quoting him.
How far do you want to take this for a dinner that I'm assuming Glenn will pick up? ;-)
February 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Were I a good moderator I would delete some of these off-topic posts about Bob Dylan but since I'm a big Dylan fan, what the hell...as big of a fan as I am, however, Abe Lincoln was widely known for the "fool all of the people" statement about a 100 years before Dylan came onto the scene. Then again, did Abe Lincoln ever say anything as good as this?
'Twas in another lifetime, one of toil and blood
When blackness was a virtue and the road was full of mud
I came in from the wilderness, a creature void of form.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."
Or as good as this?
"There's a lone soldier on the cross, smoke pourin' out of a boxcar door,
You didn't know it, you didn't think it could be done, in the final end he won the wars
After losin' every battle."
February 1st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Allan said:
"I still hold doors open for women, pay for my date's meals, and show women that chivalry is not dead,"
I like your post allan, but I will respectfully disagree on this point. I think chivalry should be dead. It is a form of subservience, with implicit tones of male disposability. I believe that chivalry is one of the reasons men put women before their fellow man..........such as how a judge will award custody to the mother instead of the father. Chivalry is a sexist institution that puts "ladies first." The Titanic disaster will forever be the metaphor for the correlation between chivalry and male disposability.
Of course, my attitudes on chivalry will probably guarantee be being a perpetual bachelor for the rest of my life! So be it. It is a small price to pay for liberation.
I believe in a new chivalry...............where men and women alike treat each other with kindness, respect, and virtue. Men and women can treat each other as equals.
I believe that gender-feminists try to utlizize chivalry to retain old privileges, while also gaining new privileges. Gender feminists want the good parts of both the male and female gender roles, and give men sloppy seconds. That is not equality. That is cherry picking. A true and honorable feminist will reject chivalry, because it is preferential treatment for women.
With that said, I agree with Allan that glenn sacks is a beacon in the night for all of the crap men have to put up with.
Masculist XY
February 1st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
From Masulist XY: "Of course, my attitudes on chivalry will probably guarantee be being a perpetual bachelor for the rest of my life! So be it. It is a small price to pay for liberation.
I believe in a new chivalry...............where men and women alike treat each other with kindness, respect, and virtue. Men and women can treat each other as equals."
This will not guarantee that you are a bachelor! As I say over and over again, there are lots of reasonable women out there. Just don't let bitternese cause you to turn a blind eye to them when they do show up. Many of us are happy to pay our half of the check. When our hands are full, we appreciate having doors opened for us, but we are also very happy to hold doors for others. I have tons of female friends who are just like this. You just have to look in the right places for them.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Michael--point conceded.--GS
February 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
OK, OK, OK, I must admit that I have had a couple of posts that did not make it either. One was to lighten the already increasingly angry mood (I am sure that many of you have not noticed that I insert so jocularity into some of my replies . . . lol)
What it was I think the firs al-jazeera post. Sorry Glenn for doing this again but I told him to change his picture for the post. It was a joke and off topic so not harm no foul. The other I an not figure out but considering the number of posts I made it could have been a computer glitch or an edit either way I have not been "censored" enough to worry about it.
It is my considered opinion that Glenn has allowed wide latitude to posters, and no I do not and will never brown nose to gain favor if Glenn and I do not agree I am not afraid to let him know it.
b
February 1st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
In the words of our 16th President:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois" (September 18, 1858), pp. 145-146.
---Those were Lincoln’s words in 1858 and by 1862 he had this to say …
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
He delivered the Gettysburg address a little more than one year later on November 19, 1863.
You can make any argument for, or against, these statements by Lincoln you want, but it will never change the fact that these words came from his mouth. Isn’t it important for us to know about these overtly racist remarks regardless of anyone’s opinion of them? I think so, and that is what free speech is all about. Let’s hear the good, with the bad, and the ugly, so long as it’s not rife with obscenities.
Everyone makes statements they later regret. As human beings we are always learning and changing for the better, or progressively deteriorating. I don’t think there is much middle ground.
Kevin Merck
February 1st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
The Other Mike D Says:
February 1st, 2008 at 12:24 am
= = =
I disagree just because you are the only game in town does not make it right to shun anyone. Might is not right. Consider NOW and what it has done. Just because we are right IMO does not give us the right to bully or ignore people out of here . . .
b
February 1st, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Glenn Sacks Says:
February 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Were I a good moderator I would delete some of these off-topic posts about Bib Dylan but since I'm a big Dylan fan, what the hell...as big of a fan as I am, however, Abe Lincoln was widely known for the "fool all of the people" statement about a 100 years before Dylan came onto the scene. Then again, did Abe Lincoln ever say anything as good as this?
= = =
There is a story that while he was a young lawyer making a name for himself he was interviewing a witness for the other side
The mans name was Jonathan Cass
The witness said John was fine
Lincoln OK, but has any one ever called you Jack as some do with the name John?
He said yes.
Lincoln "Would you mind if I cal you Jack?
"No sir I don't."
Lincoln "OK then Mr. Jack Cass, . . ."
I think he must have been the originator of the funny name page joke like in "Porky’s"
b
February 1st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Masculist XY- Not that you have opened my eyes or anything, but you and Betsy Barton make a lot of sense. This was not the first time I have heard things like this. I have a very supportive and loving family and circle of friends that have tried to get me to look at other angles of Chivalry as well. Maybe I need to re-evaluate my "overly chivalrous nature"...
Thanks for the comments...
February 1st, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I'm taking my daughters south to Williamsburg, and on the way we'll make a short stop in Washington D.C.
The Lincoln Memorial is my favorite place in Washington D.C.
The Vietnam Memorial comes in second.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Korean
b
I think that most women like the Washington (-;
February 1st, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Glenn, I want Roy banned from this site .... Just yesterday, he swooned over my southern accent. And now look at him ..... offering to take Betsy out to dinner.
And BERNIE is egging him on
MEN~~!! lol
February 1st, 2008 at 10:15 pm
"As for banning people, there are only two people I've ever banned. The first is a men's activist who insists on loading up his posts with obscenities. The second is a feminist who insisted on posting misleading and hostile statements about a prominent men's activist (not me), despite me clear instructions not to. She kept violating my rules, but like a sucker I kept giving her chance after chance after chance, until I finally got tired of it and banned her.--GS"
And THAT, folks, is the kind of old-school monosource-media information-gatekeeper censorship that DOES need to be objected to and criticized here.
Glenn, the rest of us need to know who these people are, or at the very least, what their posting IDs were. Because not only do you deprive us, including the moderators and owners of sites elsewhere, of valuable and important information when you keep that a secret, you deprive these people of the negative social feedback they so clearly need to help them wise up. You're not helping them; you're not doing them a favor -- in fact, it's very much the opposite: by not naming them, you're continuing to enable their poor behavior and outlook.
And what's more, you're making it that much harder on the rest of us to separate the sense from the nonsense, and increasing our costs and expenses in dealing with these people.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:17 pm
'Twas in another lifetime, one of toil and blood...
Dylan's "Sheltered From the Storm."
Glenn, honestly I did not know know Bob was stealing material from Abe Lincoln. I am in debt to Betsy for that tidbit.
I've seen Bob in concert twice recently and that man is beyond belief...
Every lyric is either a lie, or a truth. He is one cheeky bastard.
My daughters love him, and he's old enough to be their grandfather.
Your site is flexible and wise enough to include some occasional asides about music and culture.
Wanna discuss the effects of reggae music on Barak Obama's education? ;-)
February 1st, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Georgia -- "Glenn, I want Roy banned from this site .... Just yesterday, he swooned over my southern accent. And now look at him ..... offering to take Betsy out to dinner."
Did I say we couldn't all enjoy a nice dinner?
Providing that Glenn pays for it?
That would be a really fun event!
Except maybe not for Glenn.... ;-(
And, I did not swoon. I merely observed the accent... and appreciated it.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Georgia Girl Says:
February 1st, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Glenn, I want Roy banned from this site .... Just yesterday, he swooned over my southern accent. And now look at him ..... offering to take Betsy out to dinner.
And BERNIE is egging him on
MEN~~!! lol
= = =
>:->
February 1st, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Roy and GG: Get a room!
Sex laughs at the gender war.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Acksiom:
One of the possible reasons is that one of the two has been allowed back under a different name, with a promise to behave and likely close monitoring by Glenn....if memory serves.
On to the chivalry thing....
I'm of the mind that chivalry is essentially courting behaviour, meaning you are showing her that you can and are willing to provide nice things for her. You're the bird with the shiny bits in his mouth looking for a mate to share them with....and that's about the level of respect women will generally hold you in if you START OFF with this attitude. How many women posters here have had some guy show up at her house with flowers and chocolates, maybe a rented limo, then the fancy restaurant, etc....positively gushing the "look at all the stuff I did for you!!!" vibe? How many of you looked at it and thought "Jeezus buddy, I was thinking a drink or two, some conversation...you know, to get to know who you are and if I like you"? This of course refers to first dates....
Those women readers that thought "Hell no, I clapped my hands with glee! I love dates like this!", well, you're typically the kind that talks about having "boy-toys" now aintcha?
Now, as a guy you might find this difficult to believe, but doing all this crap is pretty damn manipulative...seeing as how we all know for most of us the end result is (hopefully) a little slap n tickle. Lots of women see this type of thing as pressuring her into sex - you know, seeing as how you went to all that trouble she'd feel terrible. And some of them truly WOULD feel terrible turning you down...but buddy, trust me on this, if this is your approach you WILL get turned down. She will either sleep with you, or not, but the money spent or the "nice gestures" and such will ONLY affect it if the girl you're with is the worst choice possible.
Chivalry is an extension of this attitude, or maybe this attitude is a subset of chivalry, but in any case this attitude has GOT TO GO for a couple of reasons. First, if we can stamp it out, then these dumbass laws would stop getting through. Second, if men sat back and judged whether or not the woman is good enough for HIM, rather than freaking out if he's good enough for HER, not only would the quality of his relationships improve, but women might actually start giving a sh*t what men think of them again.....and that's a big part of the problem in my view. Incidentally, all the evidence indicates that men that do this get more ass....just sayin'.
A while back I decided to forego any kind of relations with women - many here might be familiar with issues faced by those emotionally mauled and all that..... This meant no flirting, no looks, no phone numbers, nothing (I admit I have fallen off the wagon once or twice with the flirting..my bad). I have discovered this drives women absolutely NUTS. Led to a few minor discoveries for me, and may prove to be valuable information for some of you.
Getting back to the original topic:
I don't know about you, but all political, all the time gets pretty tired pretty quick. Just ask my friends when I'm having "one of my days". :)
February 1st, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Maybe GG and Betsy are progressive in their view toward sex? Maybe Roy just assumed so? :)
February 1st, 2008 at 11:49 pm
You know what, I'm actually thinking this thread should go as far off topic as possible JUST to spite this assclown.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 am
Dan M.: I agree, chivalry has got to go. Women will have to find a way to be likeable again ... on their own. We'll see, I guess ... .
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 am
Dan M. -- "Maybe GG and Betsy are progressive in their view toward sex? Maybe Roy just assumed so? :)"
I would never assume anything about these women.
Actually, since their identities are merely text-on-a-screen ...
I would never assume they are actually actual women.
Welcome to cyberville!
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 am
This thread has gotten ridiculous.
Da Da Daa Da ...Wait..a signpost..up ahead ..it says "Stop Commenting Now!" Doo doo doo do..
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 am
Well, even to be ridiculous has value, right?
It leads to an appreciation for irony and even more serious things?
yadda yadda yadda...
???
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 am
"One of the possible reasons is that one of the two has been allowed back under a different name, with a promise to behave and likely close monitoring by Glenn....if memory serves."
--shrug--
So? I'm not seeing how this addresses my points. They're still being protected from the consequences of their previous behavior, and we're still being denied information that is useful and beneficial to us.
Why should we remain uninformed of who these people are? How is Glenn allowing one of them back under a different name supposed to justify that?
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 am
Acksiom Says "Why should we remain uninformed of who these people are? How is Glenn allowing one of them back under a different name supposed to justify that?"
Neither of them has been allowed back under a different name. As for publicly informing people who they are, I have no desire to humiliate them publicly and see no point in doing so.--GS
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:24 am
Since nobody's asking you to publicly humiliate them, why is that supposed to be relevant?
I've given you two entirely good reasons already for informing us as to who they are. If you've failed to perceive them, here they are again:
Glenn, the rest of us need to know who these people are, or at the very least, what their posting IDs were. Because not only do you deprive us, including the moderators and owners of sites elsewhere, of valuable and important information when you keep that a secret, you deprive these people of the negative social feedback they so clearly need to help them wise up. You're not helping them; you're not doing them a favor -- in fact, it's very much the opposite: by not naming them, you're continuing to enable their poor behavior and outlook.
And what's more, you're making it that much harder on the rest of us to separate the sense from the nonsense, and increasing our costs and expenses in dealing with these people.
Furthermore, you've demonstrated with this very topic that you're willing to identify other posters' bad behavior by their identities here. How is that not also public humiliation?
Why are you privileging them over the rest of us?
I want myself, and others, particularly site owners and moderators. to be better able to better recognize these people in the future so that we don't have to waste OUR valuable time and energy figuring out who they are and how to handle them. Why should we have to do that? Why are you choosing to prioritize and protecting these people over the rest of us?
It doesn't add up. You're already identifying other people's objectionable behavior by their identity here, so 'public humiliation' is an blatantly inconsistent justification. Nor does your supposed unwillingness to do so in their cases explain why that should be prioritized over the best interests of the rest of us.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 am
Acksiom, I don't get the fervor here. What's the big deal? It's not like either of the two is about to stalk you or something, even though I have no idea who either would be (apparently) I personally fail to see how it's your business even with the reasons you've stated. Glenn has no obligation to inform anyone as to who he bans, any more than any other blog. The point here is that even blowhards like me are given pretty much carte blanche to make an ass of ourselves. And we do....
It's not about helping out other bloggers, spreading the word among the new intelligentsia who to ignore and the like if you will....at least I HOPE it's not. Free exchange of ideas seems to be the defining characteristic of this blog, but like any other person in a "responsible position" Glenn can't allow that type of behaviour any more than you could. As an aside, it's possible that these selfsame people post elsewhere and appear normal. There's freaks on both sides of the stream.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:22 am
Roy says, "I would never assume anything about these women. Actually, since their identities are merely text-on-a-screen ... I would never assume they are actually actual women".
You never know for sure. Seems to me, however, that lying (post after post) would take an enormous about of energy. Telling the truth is far less stressful. Do you want my SS#, address, and credit card#~~? :)
Topic -- "The Quality of this site has gone downhill" I haven't been around long enough to know.
Wondering if Glenn has ever considered asking K.C. Johnson to write a column here. Johnson is a heavyweight with an interesting slant on a variety of issues concerning men.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 am
"Acksiom, I don't get the fervor here."
Dan, please don't resort to ad hominem through false characterizations of emotionalism. You know perfectly well that's a standard femelitist tactic. There's no fervor here, just plain old objectivity.
"What's the big deal?"
I have no idea; perhaps you should point out this 'big deal' to which you are referring.
Alternaitvely, you could just stop falsely characterizing my behavior.
"It's not like either of the two is about to stalk you or something,"
And whom, exactly -- besides you -- is suggesting that it would be?
It is like either of them is likely to show up at other similar sites. What part of that did you not understand the first or second times?
"I personally fail to see how it's your business even with the reasons you've stated."
And you are personally responsible for that failure of perception on your part.
"Glenn has no obligation to inform anyone as to who he bans, any more than any other blog."
And whom, exactly -- besides you -- is suggesting that he does?
I certainly haven't. I've provided two good reasons why he should. Neither you nor he has provided any kind of objective grounds for invalidating those reasons. Furthermore, your responses have been singuarly femelitist -- his blatantly inconsistent, yours blatantly misrepresentative.
"The point here is that even blowhards like me are given pretty much carte blanche to make an ass of ourselves. And we do...."
Dan, if anything, that only serves to supports my argument. If people are being given such freedom to make asses of themselves, then why should they not only be protected from the consequences of it, but at the cost of the best interests of the rest of us as well?
"It's not about helping out other bloggers, spreading the word among the new intelligentsia who to ignore and the like if you will....at least I HOPE it's not."
And whom, exactly -- besides you -- is suggesting that it should be?
"Free exchange of ideas seems to be the defining characteristic of this blog, but like any other person in a 'responsible position' Glenn can't allow that type of behaviour any more than you could."
And whom, exactly -- besides you -- is suggesting that he should be?
"As an aside, it's possible that these selfsame people post elsewhere and appear normal. There's freaks on both sides of the stream."
And again, Dan, if anything, that only serves to support my argument; why should they be protected from the consequences of their actions at the cost of the best interests of the rest of us?
Why are you making such a big deal about this, Dan? What's with all this fervor for concealment on your part?
There, you see how much of an irritating load of BS that is? So knock it off. I know you're better than that.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 am
Here's a couple of men's issues examples to map across with, if you're still not getting it.
Do you think false accusers' past records should be prohibited from trials?
Or, more closely analogous, do you think the identities of false accusers should be kept out of the public record?
Does that make it clearer?
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:41 am
Acksiom Says "[Glenn], you've demonstrated with this very topic that you're willing to identify other posters' bad behavior by their identities here. How is that not also public humiliation?"
Huh? Novae and Ruby wrote hostile comments, I reproduced them here--giving them their full say, which most other bloggers would not have done--and then made a reasonable response to them. How on earth is that "public humiliation"?
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 am
How should I know, Glenn? I'm not the one trying to use "public humiliation" as an excuse for not identifying banned posters, let alone inconsistently so by reproducing the hostile comments of other posters and identifying them by name.
The question is, if reproducing those people's hostile comments isn't "public humiliation", then how is identifying banned posters supposed to be such? And it's for you to answer, not me; because I'm not the one being inconsistent about it. You are.
To expand on my previous attempt to enlighten you, tell me: do you also now believe that "public humiliation" justifies keeping the public ignorant of the identities of false accusers? Because the principle is the same.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 am
Acksiom..
"do you also now believe that "public humiliation" justifies keeping the public ignorant of the identities of false accusers? Because the principle is the same."
MCA.. The principle is not the same. If you read up on why neo gender feminists hide false accussers names, it's because they argue in some indirect nonlinear fashion that it protects the accusser from scorn, and somehow if published would deter other victims of rape from coming forward!!..
silly argument based on wanting the real goal of creating mass rape hysteria to get more victim funds flowing in!! Who cares if men get beaten and killed and lynched over a false accussation!!
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Acksiom, As more and more men are being released from false rape accussations, those that have generated the culture of rape hysteria, and the lynchings of innocent men may get a chance to face these men!!
Certain police jurisdictions have higher percentages of false rape accussations than others, and those with higher percetages can be directly attributed to the amount of Rape agit-prop in the form of (posters, radio announcements, public speak outs ect.) in that jurisdiction!!
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
"If you read up on why neo gender feminists hide false accussers names, it's because they argue in some indirect nonlinear fashion that it protects the accusser from scorn. . . ."
I.e., public humiliation. The principle is the same. You just demonstrated it yourself with your own words.
I think you mistake me as believing the principle is valid. I don't; I believe the information should be public -- Glenn is the one who appears to believe the opposite. So you should be directing your criticism of that attitude at him, although personally I would wait a bit to see if he clarifies matters first.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Maybe, Glen, you should have a comment policy posted somewhere around the comment box, to avoid this stuff in the future. Also, keep it brass tacks.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Acksiom, non sequitor, you are comparing apples to oranges!!
Not publishing false rape accussers names, is not similar to publishing slanderous misinformation!!
False rape accussers are guilty of a crime, that is being hidden from the light of justice,
Slandering an Academic, for language that has been manipulated, is wronging an innocent,
The principal is not the same, and if you cannot grasp the logic here, then an argument with an unarmed person is silly!!
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
"How is that not also public humiliation?"
What, precisely can be construed as PUBLIC when you are merely reading text-on-a-screen?
This is what fascinates me about the social space on the 'net.
You ARE NOT having an actual personal encounter with a face-to-face human being.
You are t-y-p-i-n-g.....
How then, can you be "publicly" humiliated?
Nobody knows or even truly cares who you are.
If your text evaporates, they will seek other correspondents.
Except.
They do care.
And you do too.
So - welcome to Glenn's little experiment!
I'm sure he's losing sleep about this, and trying to figure out why he did not just become a famous musician..... ;-)
February 5th, 2008 at 2:56 am
MCA, if there's a non sequitur here, it's on your end, not mine. To what slanderous misinformation!!" about what "Academic" are you referring? What "language that has been manipulated" and "wronging an innocent" are you talking about?
As for Glenn: gee, thanks for making me have to recreate my post If you were going to go to all the trouble of removing a comment from the thread, closing it, and then opening it up again, why didn't you answer my serious questions?
You should realize I'm not going to let this go, because from where I sit, you're not only baloneying us, but apparently trying to stonewall us as well. I made a strong case, including a powerful analogy to men's issues, and you're ever-so-conveniently ignoring it. So, again:
Glenn, the rest of us need to know who these people are, or at the very least, what their posting IDs were. Because not only do you deprive us, including the moderators and owners of sites elsewhere, of valuable and important information when you keep that a secret, you deprive these people of the negative social feedback they so clearly need to help them wise up. You're not helping them; you're not doing them a favor -- in fact, it's very much the opposite: by not naming them, you're continuing to enable their poor behavior and outlook.
And what's more, you're making it that much harder on the rest of us to separate the sense from the nonsense, and increasing our costs and expenses in dealing with these people.
As for your response, again: how should I know (how on earth your reproducing Novae and Ruby's hostile comments here--giving them their full say, which most other bloggers would not have done--and then making a reasonable response to them, is "public humiliation"), Glenn?
I'm not the one trying to use "public humiliation" as an excuse for not identifying banned posters, let alone inconsistently so by reproducing the hostile comments of other posters and identifying them by name.
The question is, if reproducing those people's hostile comments isn't "public humiliation", then how is identifying banned posters supposed to be such? And it's for you to answer, not me; because I'm not the one being inconsistent about it. You are.
And to again expand on my previous attempt to enlighten you, tell me: do you also now believe that "public humiliation" justifies keeping the public ignorant of the identities of false accusers? Because the principle is the same.
You need to deal with this directly, Glenn. It's not going to just quietly fade away. This is one of the strong points of this new media, fellla: when a blogger or pundit or journalist or the like gets caught in an error, the blogosphere -- including their regular commenters -- holds them accountable for it.
Now, you're being held accountable for one of yours.
So are you capable of admitting to your mistakes, or aren't you?
February 5th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Ackisom--I already answered your question--see http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1755#comment-139518 . As for your statement "You should realize I'm not going to let this go" you are going to let it go, because you're done.
If you'd like to comment on something else on this post or another one, you're free to do so, but, as I explain in my blog moderating rules, going on and on and on because you absolutely have to have the last word on a question which has already been answered is not permitted.--GS
February 5th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Acksiom, let it go. It's Glenn's house. And you're cluttering up MY inbox.