My posts get lots of comments, and I read them all, sometimes more than once (OK, I admit, if a commenter writes a short book, I may stop in the middle). I enjoy the heated discussion that goes on in the comments section, and I expect and appreciate comments from people who disagree with me. That’s part of the process.
But comments that try to hijack the discussion, frankly, piss me off, and I will begin deleting them, not because I disagree with them but because they’re off topic, and their comments either sidetrack or end the discussion.
If I write about candidates in the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction, commenters should write about that race and those candidates, not the TUSD school board race. When I write about the governor’s race, a commenter should talk about the governor’s race, not his opinion of Obama, in two consecutive posts.
People who don’t like the topic of any given post can ignore it. People who desperately want to write about the TUSD race or Obama can start their own blogs and see if they can find an audience, or save their comments until I write about TUSD or Obama. If you go way off topic in a comment on one of my posts, there’s a good chance I’ll delete it so the on-topic discussion can continue unimpeded.
A word to commenters who enjoy a hearty discussion of the issues at hand. When I was posting on Blog for Arizona, we had a number of people known as trolls, who would do everything they could to short-circuit a discussion or move it in another direction. Our advice there, and my advice here is: Please don’t feed the trolls.
This article appears in Sep 18-24, 2014.
My…My…aren’t we sensitive!! “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!!!!
Francis, please, please read what I write, not what you think I write. If you read my post again, you’ll see it’s not about me not being able or willing to “stand the heat.” I’ve taken plenty of heat from you in your comments, but so far as I can remember, they’ve all been on topic, so they would all stay. As will your comment above, which speaks poorly of your reading comprehension skills but is right on topic.
Thanks for posting that Mr Safier. There are many here that need to learn to respect that. Some of the posters believe that it is their “duty” to attack other posters when they have a differing opinion. Hold them to the same standard.
Mr. T, when I wrote about someone commenting about Obama on a post about the governor’s race, it was your comments I was talking about. That’s the kind of comment I’m planning to delete in the future, not because of what you said about Obama but because it was way off topic.
I believe that my post was commenting on electing somebody that lacked experience.
Plus I believe your article was regarding education, which, unfortunately every political entity has waded into.
With lackluster results.
My Momma taught me that if I take everyone else’s marbles, eventually I would have to play by myself. It was great advice.
You ought to see how many marbles I have.
Soooo… How bout that Cardinals game, huh?
OK, Burnie, that one stays. Too damn funny to delete.
You sound like a 3rd grader with that rant. My preschooler would run circles around you. What a tool.
We go you, Mr. Liberal.. “there’s a good chance I’ll delete it” fake azzz.
I’d like to discuss the cost of tea in China. ..
If you have a lot of marbles, how do you know when you have lost some?
So now we show favoritism to the funny guy. That follows the “ugly girl in school rule,” and I thought you were above that.
When you have so many marbles there is no need to worry about losing a few. You can always get more.
Now what was the question?
I really didn’t want to have to explain my problem, but I now have Late Onset Attention Deficit, or LOAD as my doctor refers to it. She says I’ve got it big!
That ought to keep this one here.
Instead of deleting why not block the poster to that topic only, if you can and then make a public admonishment that you have done so. I prefer to see idiots be idiots publicly and if you delete them then we miss out on what only you would get to see.
ANYONE that has a problem with commenting about THE ACTUAL ARTICLE they are posting in has far deeper problems that they need to address before worrying about commenting anywhere.
And the ad-hominem attacks such as amber and Portalandia are engaging in simply prove that they do not have even one COGENT THOUGHT to add to the discourse.
Apparently I “pissed you off” when I compared the Republican candidate for statewide office’s missing in action campaign to the lack of substantive policy statements from the local TUSD candidates for Board of Directors. I see that as germane to your post because I subscribe to Tip O’Neill’s observation that “all politics are local.” Running for elected office relying on on party politics to carry the day is wrong on any level be it national, state or local. That was my point. It’s all about that “informed electorate” thing mixed in with the quaint notions of transparency and accountability.
You responded to my comment with a gratuitous comment of your own somehow linking me to pundits who are obsessed with the Benghazi incident. Like I replied, I didn’t understand your comment and consider the incident under the category of “stuff happens.” Were you, off topic?
You have the right to delete any comments you deem off topic. Perhaps you need to cool down a bit and consider if a reply to something you’ve posted is a smarmy end run or an attempt to clarify and expand the discussion. As a former teacher myself, I welcomed exchanges that broadened the discussion – but then I was teaching Philosophy to undergraduates.
Touche’ Rick, touche’. Well said ‘ole chap!
I agree that many comments are not worth reading. That said, I greatly appreciate the thoughtful comments that are on topic and add to the dialogue. I don’t blame you for getting annoyed at the former, and perhaps I am wrong, but perhaps its best to ignore them and focus on the latter.
Who, besides a troll, would ever choose an online name like “Rat T?”
David Rattatoulle said the riorican.
Well put, David. Too often I am following an interesting discussion on education when the thread is interrupted by someone who hasn’t (or cannot) read the article but sees an opportunity to grind the same tired old axe.
Good luck. We’re all counting on you.
Thanks for the comments, folks. Given the topic of the post, they’re all relevant.
Just for the record, I don’t plan to do any wholesale deleting of comments. I didn’t on Blog for Arizona, and I doubt if I will here. The reason I wrote this post is I want people to understand where I’m coming from so if I do delete some people’s posts, they don’t say, “Hey man, you never told us that!”
And one word of congratulations to all the commenters on this post. No one said I would be violating anyone’s first amendment rights if I remove people’s comments. I expected someone to bring up that red herring, and none of you did. That’s a good thing.
Well, David, if you feel censorship is the way to go who are we to argue?
David, you are absolutely on target here. I enjoy your column and, as I have previously expressed, your insight into education issues is why I read the Range. I also enjoy others comments and, like you, wonder if they are using the opportunity to comment to range far and wide on topics on their personal agendas. (I wonder if they call this publication the “Range” because people “range” wherever they want). Best to you, David and keep it up!
I didn’t get anyone complaining that I’m planning to trample on their First Amendment rights, which is a good thing. But I think we have a winner, a consolation award, if you will. Harold accuses me of “censorship.”
Harold, you are allowed to comment on this blog at the pleasure of the Weekly. Some blogs have a gatekeeper who decides which comments should appear and which should never see the light of day. The Weekly doesn’t have one. What I plan to do is the mildest possible form of gatekeeping, to keep the comments reasonably on topic.
If for some reason, I got an email from Dan Gibson telling me my services are no longer required on The Range, I hope I wouldn’t accuse him of censorship for denying me the privilege of blogging here. (And by the way, Harold, since your comment is on topic, I defend to my death your right to be wrong and plan to leave it up in perpetuity.)
Michael, thanks for the comment. I willingly tolerate the “slings and arrows” of outrageous comments I get on my posts, but it’s nice to get a little positive reinforcement as well.
David — I enjoy your blog posts and generally find them worth reading, but If you start deleting Rick Spanier’s comments and others like them, a large part of the benefit I and other readers derive from following your blog and its comment stream will disappear.
My suggestion is that you understand that your blog is an ongoing conversation. As in a conversation, participants can refer back to previous topics covered as the implications of new posts become clear. There is no healthy conversation in an ongoing relationship in which referring back to previous topics is off limits. I do not believe it of you, but if your message really is, “You cannot refer back to previous topics — when I change the subject, the subject remains changed!” you risk destroying the relationships you are forming with intelligent readers willing to follow your commentary.
(Please note that all of the above relates directly to the topic of this blog. According to your stated policies of what is valid commentary and what is “off” topic, it should not be deleted.)
I appreciate the concern that I’m going to go delete-happy, but based on my history on Blog for Arizona, I don’t think it’s going to happen. Over the course of many years, I deleted very few comments. Maybe 10? Probably less. The guy who ran the blog banned some people from commenting because their writing was hateful and disturbing, but no comments I’ve received here approach that level. (As an example, I don’t think anyone on Blog for Arizona ever deleted a post from Falcon9/Thucydides, aka John Huppenthal, and it was years before we knew it was Hupp writing the comments. Hupp also commented here under his aliases, and I never considered deleting those either because, even though I almost always disagreed, the comments were on topic.)
The reason I wrote this post right now is it’s election season. People want to get in their digs against their love-to-hate candidates at every possible occasion, so they use any excuse to move the discussion in those directions. When I write about a specific race, that’s where I hope the discussion will remain. If you look at the discussion thread after my picks for the TUSD board, you’ll see lots of people disagree with me, and I never considered deleting a single post, because they’re on topic. But if someone wants to go after Obama or Barber or McSally or — you name it — that post isn’t the place to do it. Discussions tend to either stop dead or get sidetracked to Obama or Barber or McSally at that point. That’s what bothers me, because I want the discussion on the topic to continue until it runs out of gas on its own, not because someone has hijacked it and taken it in another direction.