In Reply: Preaching to The Choir, and a Little Good Neighborliness

In reply to a comment at Zilla of the Resistance: Stand Against Evil - Never Let it Win that has apparently since been deleted. (My response was moderated away when I was banned on 11/27/11 (about a month after this posting), but the comment I was replying to--written by the blog owner herself to another blogger/person commenting on her blog, and parts of which I QUOTED in my response--has been COMPLETELY disappeared... Go figure...)
---

Zilla/MJ said...
"You've done good, Thom! I almost feel sorry for that guy."

Right back atcha, my dear...

"...he should know that he may not comment at my blog unless he registers as a known troll & pays the toll."

The comment is for you, Zilla... Whether or not you post it is your choice, and scarcely matters to me either way...

If I ever have a response to somethin' you write that I want others to read, I'll post it on one of my blogs, because I know that too few of you conservative types can be trusted to go in for honest debate right out there in public... It's all about stifling the voices of others, for you folks...

"I still suggest a Troll Toll though, as it has worked well for me. ;) "

If you call preachin' to the choir workin', I guess... Personally, I wouldn't be all that proud of it, but then I prefer honest discussion and debate.

In the spirit of good neighborliness, lemmie say I'm glad you finally got your root canal, and I hope it relieved the pain for good and all... I have an idea of what you've been going through, as I had to wait about two months for my insurance to kick in so's I could go for a root canal of my own... The appointment's tomorrow. (Had I read yer blog earlier, I might've contributed a few bucks, in knowing sympathy...)
---

Posted 10/26/2011 03:25 AM (and disappointingly, removed from view by the moderator on Sunday, 11/27/11, mid-day, so as not to make her friend Donald Douglas "uncomfortable," as the truth so often does. The truth is optional sometimes, especially where friendship and / or a shared political point of view is concerned...)
---

While I can't link to the comment I was replying to (which I still think is mighty, mighty weird), I CAN link to Zilla (the blog owner's) response to this comment, posted 10/26/2011, 06:32 AM in reply to Guest - 1 Like (Needless to say, I am the Guest. If I'm not mistaken, I am the "1 Like," as well...)

Conservative bloggers make no sense to me... While I've been known to ADD old posts to my blogs after the fact, increasing the record and cross linking posts, conservatives always seem to be limiting comment and hiding content (and particularly dissent) and generally subtracting from their record... It's almost as though they don't believe their words and ideas can withstand scrutiny and dissenting points of view...

Moderation is for monks... ...and cowards.

It's happened again. This time two whole comments offered to Ilana Mercer's Barely A Blog disappeared after being submitted. (At this moment, two others are awaiting her approval. I can only hope they will make it through the process, and as written.)

As I said before, I think that many of the folks who feel the need to vet other's contributions to their blogs, yahoo/google/??? groups, & whatever else, turn out to be cowards. They want to spout their opinions, but prefer not to have to defend them. Those submissions that parrot the owner's views appear, and those that present an opposing view either lose salient points, or vanish into the internet aether, never to be seen. (Experience has taught me to keep copies, especially when dealing with moderated blogs. I'm not a speedy writer--I think I'm too critical of my own words, & thus spend way too much time rejiggering sentences & paragraphs--and to have all that time & toil just disappear because some disagreeable soul doesn't want to be contradicted on his/her blog really pisses me off.)

It's not as though a blog/group owner cannot delete off-topic or commercial posts or those that would likely offend the sensibilities of their readers, after the fact. (Blogs written for young children or God-fearing church folk chock full of "motherfuckin' bad language", ads for tampons, or death metal concert reviews don't fly with much of anyone. By contrast, blogs written for death metal heads have no need of the sermons of God-fearing church folk or the nursery rhymes of children. If there's a blog audience anywhere in need of tampon ads, I am thankfully unfamiliar with it.) My point is, there is little reason to moderate before the fact, as one can do so as problems arise. To treat everyone as though they are going to offend (or be off-topic, or post advertising) until they prove otherwise, doesn't fit in with my ideas of innocence & guilt, and makes me wonder a bit about the moderator. All this said, moderating for advertising, off-topic posting, & bad language is far preferable to moderating for intellectual content, as Ms. Mercer and others do.

I believe there's no reason for me to submit to Ms. Mercer's version of my posts, particularly when I have my own all-too-seldom-used blog. Should she choose to grace us with her presence, her posts will be welcome, and appear as written, even if she chooses to explain in detail just how far up my ass she believes I ought to shove the broomstick. Should she post a coupon good for 50% off her favorite brand of napkins, however, I can't promise I'll allow it to stay on my blog (though it will appear, initially)... A fella's got to have some standards...

So, beginning with my next post, and for as long as it takes, I will offer the saga of my one man odyssey into the classical liberal world of Ilana Mercer, focusing on her daring defense of Bill O'Reilly , and all that followed. Nothing will be held back, and all are welcome to join in and comment.

Ilana Mercer: In Defense of Bill O'Reilly

Barely A Blog � In Defense of Bill O'Reilly

This woman, as well as the majority of her commenting readers, frightens me.

I was content to comment away over at her site, until I discovered she intentionally cut a line from one of my posts. (Have I mentioned how cowardly I find bloggers who moderate the intellectual content of their comments, deleting those ideas they would rather not confront, and manufacturing a false aura of agreement with their ideas? If I hadn't before, I guess I have, now... 8>)

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt for the moment--the line she cut WAS kinda snarky, but a direct rebuttal of an assertion she made--but I also won't be surprised when she does it again, or indeed turns out to be exactly the kinda coward that so many "moderated bloggers" are. Why engage a reader's argument, when you can just make it appear s/he never said it in the first place?

And then there's her defense of Bill O'Reilly's comments about Shawn Hornbeck... I must give her credit for going there (while opposing virtually every argument she makes in his favor)... Precious few legitimate writers are quite so foolhardy... Even if her debate tactics end up exposing her as a coward, it's a very brave thing to publicly defend a man who says Shawn enjoyed being with Deviln. She even goes so far as to expand that theory further than Billo ever took it. While I think she's a "classical liberal" (libertarian) kool-aid drinker, there is no doubt in my mind that she mixed it herself, and approves of every ingredient...