A note about our comment section

posted at 2:30 pm on September 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

We love our comment section and our commenters, as they almost always provide an extended level of dialogue, debate, and fun here at Hot Air.  As we have grown in traffic and impact, our comment sections have grown accordingly — and that’s wonderful.  We try to open our registration on a regular basis to catch newer readers and allow them to participate, because that lends a dynamic element to Hot Air and the analysis provided by myself, Allahpundit, and Michelle Malkin.

However, that increased impact brings increased scrutiny, and also some underhanded tactics designed to discredit us.  That doesn’t mean that we haven’t seen problems in our comments section at Hot Air, though.  Others have used disparaging comments towards certain politicians and their families that cross the line.  We have tried to deal with this on a case-by-case basis, but it has taken an increasing amount of our time, and we’re likely to see more attempts to troll comments as a discrediting tactic.  We have been blessed with a great set of regular commenters who see these and notify us when they occur, which allows us to catch most of them.

Given the likelihood of further attempts to attack, we are going to start getting a lot tougher on comments and moderation.  We welcome debate and humor, but if you use racial, ethnic, and/or animal terms to describe politicians and their families (I’m certain I don’t need to explain further), your comments will get deleted and your account closed.  We have plenty to criticize without getting that ugly and handing our opponents ammunition — and besides, in the end, those attacks just aren’t right.  They detract from the overwhelming majority of conscientious commenters in the Hot Air community.

Let’s just keep it on point in the future, please.  Thank you for your support and understanding.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9

Shhhhhh…..Charles is busy having his private pow-wow in the ever so private lizard lounge.

Knucklehead on September 18, 2009 at 10:53 PM

It’s not particularly compelling stuff.

Ronnie on September 18, 2009 at 11:04 PM

I’ve decided to repost so it’s at the top of page nine. Watch the Lizard Lounge Fallout Series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFgKXAphIlc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkQiyySS5wU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDFJ1Y_FMAI

Lance Murdock on September 18, 2009 at 11:07 PM

It’s amazing that a bunch of leftist trolls can hop on a site, post racist remarks, and the result is that those of us who never, ever post racist remarks are chastised. And it necessarily follows that the fact of the chastisement proves, falsely, that we were racists all along. So I guess they kind of win, huh? Good for them. They lead; we follow. Expect more of the same in the future. It’s effective, you know.

Rational Thought on September 18, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Thank you! My thoughts exactly. You don’t respond to underhanded jack*ss tactics by reprimanding your commenters who had nothing to do with it. You publicly call them out on it, then REMOVE any reference to them on your website. Why is HotAir advertising for jack*sses?

Are we not men? (Said by a woman) Good Lord.

My two cents.

kg598301 on September 18, 2009 at 11:09 PM

It’s not particularly compelling stuff.

Ronnie on September 18, 2009 at 11:04 PM

More fart jokes, huh? Sounds like a swell time to me/

Knucklehead on September 18, 2009 at 11:13 PM

Charles,

Since you’re apparently monitoring the blogs right now, I just wanted to point out that you just banned me for commenting on how HotAir was out front in debunking birtherism in an LGF thread about Fox News not being upfront with facts.

Just wanted to make sure you got the irony.

BadgerHawk on September 18, 2009 at 11:13 PM

Charles Johnson is a fascist bigot! He’s the Keith Olbermann of leftist blogs. I got banned because I challenged him with facts. He’s frickin coward!

ZoneDaiatlas on September 18, 2009 at 11:22 PM

So what is this LGF you all refer to? Who is Charles Johnson?

keep the change on September 18, 2009 at 11:34 PM

apparently, getalife is giving CJ his talking points now…

john1schn on September 18, 2009 at 11:37 PM

I’ve never posted at LGF, but I’ve read the blog for several years. What is really dismaying is how fast it is descending into leftist tripe. I’ve actually come to the conclusion that Johnson is trying to kick people off as fast as he can so he can take the final leap to the “other” side. Maybe he thinks he can make more money riding the Obama is awesome express.

One thing that really aggravates me about him is the way he smears people with being “racist” so easily. Yesterday, a long-time poster (name begins with a “P”) was gently trying to make the point that labeling someone as racist is very serious and should not be done lightly – especially in the blogosphere where googling will associate the term with the person. Johnson and his drones were piling on this person down-dinging every post. Finally, this poster just limped-off shocked and beaten-down. At that point, I developed a visceral dislike of that blog. I hope that poster will never go back there – they are too decent for it.

KickandSwimMom on September 18, 2009 at 11:43 PM

Johnson’s constitutionally incapable of believing that blacks can be as crooked as anyone else. He’s a dozen stone of white guilt hermetically sealed in Spandex.

JEM on September 19, 2009 at 12:01 AM

whiskeytango on September 18, 2009 at 9:33 PM
katy the mean old lady on September 18, 2009 at 9:39 PM

I was just enjoying the spectacle of someone too young and stupid to read the site for a while before piping up getting her ass kicked. And Carter doesn’t deserve any respect because he’s already broken that rule of civility that says that ex-presidents shouldn’t comment on current policy. He’s long overdue to have his wrinkly arse kicked. But wait, civility is only for conservatives…

Fortunata on September 19, 2009 at 12:33 AM

When did things go bad there I have read it at times. Of late not at all just not enough time.

Very odd some of the comments of some just now there.

thanks

badtothebone on September 19, 2009 at 12:53 AM

Chuckles? We know you’re still reading this, why don’t you explain why you continue to let the racist Kilgore Trout not only post at your site, but also have the power to delete comments. You’re a racist Charles Johnson, and you let racists like Kilgore Trout run your site. The entire blogosphere can see that LGF has turned into a bizarre cult with you playing the role of Jim Jones, you’re a laughing stock Chuckles.

clearbluesky on September 19, 2009 at 1:27 AM

Apologetic California on September 18, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Reaching back a bit but I’ve been at work. When I went over what I missed last night and today I couldn’t figure out what the heck happened. Thanks, Apologetic, for the synopsis.

We can still call reds Reds, right?

Limerick on September 19, 2009 at 1:37 AM

if you use…animal terms

You mean we may no longer refer to politicians as jacka**es?!?!?

Tosh!

Then I say to you: vayapaso is a hamster and the Admiral Emeritus smells of elderberries!

eeyore on September 19, 2009 at 1:44 AM

Therein lies the road to certain madness, for when you stare into the eyes of the moonbat, the eyes of the moonbat stare into you.

TMK on September 18, 2009 at 8:48 PM

If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Tav on September 19, 2009 at 1:54 AM

The entire blogosphere can see that LGF has turned into a bizarre cult with you playing the role of Jim Jones, you’re a laughing stock Chuckles.

clearbluesky on September 19, 2009 at 1:27 AM

Charles Johnson’s life is so low that all other lots he envies. Reason and justice both scorn him. Ignore him, look ahead and pass him by.

Tav on September 19, 2009 at 1:58 AM

Ed–it would be a really good idea to give a few concrete examples of what results in a ban and what doesn’t. If you’re going after personal insults (which technically is a no-no by the terms and conditions), then “animals” doesn’t describe what you’re concerned with.

Sorry to be so anal, but I’m afraid even somewhat specific generalities isn’t going to be sufficient for most people here (including me). Anything you can do to further clarify would be appreicated.

Jimbo3 on September 19, 2009 at 2:11 AM

It is really difficult to believe that Charles Johnson did not put this Kilgore Trout racist up to his “N” bomb tirade, or at the very least OK’ed it. From what others have said Kilgore Trout is an LGF associate to Charles Johnson. Charles Johnson would only let a very loyal person be that. He doesn’t even let people continue to comment if they get the least bit off from his views. Now I am imagining that I am a loyal Charles Johnson soldier and assuming that I have even half a brain, would I do anything like that without first checking with Charles Johnson to get his OK? Obviously not.

KentAllard on September 19, 2009 at 2:43 AM

Not only is Charles Johnson a racist towards people of color and a bigot towards Christians, his commentors are now praising the 9-11 mass murderers.

clearbluesky on September 19, 2009 at 2:54 AM

Loud and clear!!

I know in this present political climate,Hot Air is
Enemy No#1 in the BlogSphere,and Leftys would love
to discredit this site!!

canopfor on September 19, 2009 at 4:20 AM

I got banned because I called the site “Liberal Green Footballs”. I was mortified at the time, but I’m grateful now. LGF is so very sad. I mean it’s like a ruin of a once great place. He’s torn it all up, but (thanks in part to CJ) there’s plenty of alternatives that haven’t wussed out of the fight in the Obama era.

uptight on September 19, 2009 at 5:19 AM

Ed, does this include calling out Allahpundit when he wrongly attacks Glenn Beck and calls HIM despicable things or is Allahpundit somehow better than the commenters?

nelsonknows on September 19, 2009 at 5:24 AM

Seriously, Ed, I’d like an answer.

nelsonknows on September 19, 2009 at 5:25 AM

I agree with Ed wholeheartedly. I don’t want the completely inappropriate crap clogging the comments.

In fact, I think the WORST part about HotAir’s site is the hundreds of comments that are hard to follow because they don’t properly reference what they are responding to, or are completely off-topic.

Since the first thing you see in the comments section is the last page of comments, you are usually seeing comments that have strayed furthest from the topic of the post.

Seriously, only post if you have something worthwhile to ask, state, or debate. I’d really like to see the number of comments come down to about 10% as many as there are now, but be higher quality and informative. Improving on the post, not distracting from it or spamming it.

I can only assume that either it’s bad for traffic on a blog to start “banning” people (even if it’s really just revoking commenting privilege for someone who isn’t really adding anything to the conversation) or it’s assumed that the more people post comments, the more likely they are to be regular visitors, but there are millions of us out here that don’t like all the nonsense in the comments. Again, worst part of HotAir.

As it is, I see no point in taking time to write up a thoughtful comment when it will be drowned out by hundreds of stupid ones. I’m not sure why I’m even writing this one. Unlikely anyone will even read it amongst the other 850 comments on this post so far.

Not sure if there is a workable system to improve it. I’d rather the bloggers be working on their posts than managing comments. How about hiring someone to be a “Comments Czar” who deletes all comments that are offensive or range WAY off topic or are unclear what they mean? I think that would dramatically improve the site. Serious commenters would have much better incentive to add worthwhile comments.

Just my 2 cents.

willamettevalley on September 19, 2009 at 6:03 AM

Not to pick on anyone in particular, but here’s an example of what I’m talking about with valueless comments I would like to see much less of: (from near the top of page 9)

It’s not particularly compelling stuff.

Ronnie on September 18, 2009 at 11:04 PM

More fart jokes, huh? Sounds like a swell time to me/

Knucklehead on September 18, 2009 at 11:13 PM

willamettevalley on September 19, 2009 at 6:09 AM

I am sure this action was necessary, I saw the after hours troll attack but I can already see that the latent hall monitors are chomping at the bit. Oh well, I have whined about remarks myself, twice, so I guess I don’t have any room to talk. Could I just encourage some of you folks to lighten up in advance.

Cindy Munford on September 19, 2009 at 6:32 AM

The owners and operators of this site (or any other) should be the ones who decide what they will allow and won’t…not because someone from somewhere else looking for verbal ammo don’t like it.

Also, the truther/Jones thing was posted by the approved writers and not merely by us lowly commenters. And, anyone on the ‘net knows that comments, though they may be indicative of the clientele who visits, may be written by anyone anywhere so have to be taken with a grain of salt.

And, with even people in Congress insulting us, calling us “teabaggers” and the like, I don’t get the need for a pretense of civility on our part. Who exactly are we trying to impress with being “nice” and above the fray?

Still the Golden Rule of the Internet is that he who controls the database and the ban button makes the rules…so there it is.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 19, 2009 at 6:35 AM

What is with all the ‘Charles hatred’ posts? Did you all NOT read the topic? The management has asked everyone to be civil, and a bunch of people come here specifically to be as rude as possible? Folks, if you don’t like a blog then don’t read it. Simple as that. Everyone is welcome to their own opinions, including those you may not agree with. Instead of complaining about how bad Charles is just stop reading him. Besides, this is HOT AIR, not Little Green Footballs.

wolfva on September 19, 2009 at 6:50 AM

wolfva on September 19, 2009 at 6:50 AM

The midnight troller is a LGF commenter. He came here and said vile things and has accomplished his goal to make everyone paranoid about their comments being lumped in with his. The reason I like this site so much is that people were allowed to be wrong and stupid and strident and banning has been kept to a minimum. I hope it stays that way but I am expecting it to be stilted and unnatural for awhile.

Cindy Munford on September 19, 2009 at 7:16 AM

willamettevalley on September 19, 2009 at 6:03 AM

I agree. Im not online much at night and then I log on to catch up to posts in the morning. Too many times Ive seen a post that is up to hundreds of comments only to go reading them and I find pages of debate over LGF/Charles Johnson. I frankly dont care about his site..if hes losing his mind then dont read his page. Certainly dont debate it on a thread about Acorn, SEIU, etc.

On another note tho….too many trolls here who are uncivil and insulting. THEY are the ones who need banned.

becki51758 on September 19, 2009 at 7:36 AM

the insults here to trolls & Dems (especially Her Majesty, The First Lady, Michelle, My Belle) have been hilarious over the years.

we are a smart, witty & snarky bunch. I would hate for all that brilliant humor to leave this site.

and if you want to ban me for this, then i respect your right to do so: there are a helluva lot of *ssholes in Congress.

kelley in virginia on September 19, 2009 at 7:36 AM

Once upon a time, LGF was a nice place to make internet friends. Alas, all good things come to an end, and some sooner than later. Initially, no one was forced to pay Charles homage. Besides the original groups of people who left comments, the other thing about LGF that I admired was Charles’ search engine on his website. Unfortunately, the more of himself that Charles projected into LGF as years progressed, the worse influence he played online. We didn’t wait around, but removed ourselves from LGF before he became intoxicated with the ban. It is a sad but true commentary that he had many friends, but chose to use his friendship to harm those who were his closest associates as well as hurt those who merely were passing through making observations. But then, he’s always been a hippy, now just an old abusive hippy.

Hey, Ed. You’re not alone.
Scott Strzelczyk @ American Thinker asks, “Who Taught You to Lie, Call People Names, and Accuse People of Racism?

Where did the Democratic Congress, the Obama administration, and the main stream media learn to act so rudely, obnoxiously, and disingenuously; to call people names, treat others without any common courtesy or manners, and above all else to be deceptive and lie to citizens of the United States?

Politicians and main stream media types learned this behavior at some point in their lives. Did it start at home in early childhood? Did their mothers teach them to blame others for their mistakes, to call people names if they disagree with you, and to cover their backsides at all costs using any number of lies and false accusations? What explains a systemic failure of this magnitude in so many politicians and main stream media types? I presume they all were raised by mothers who taught them basic lessons in civility. Were they raised to act as they do today or did they choose this behavior?

Let’s briefly review some basic lessons mothers teach their children.

1. Treat other people the way you want to be treated.
2. Tell the truth.
3. Don’t call people names.
4. Be respectful and considerate to others.
5. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

To be fair, if referencing a person’s behavior by age-old expressions from an animal’s typical behavioral pattern (mule headed) gets one banned, you’re going overboard, as if to balance the extremist proportion that Charles Johnson went on his side of the swinging pendulum. (…like Osama bin Laden’s “axes”, heh.)

maverick muse on September 19, 2009 at 7:55 AM

the insults here to trolls & Dems (especially Her Majesty, The First Lady, Michelle, My Belle) have been hilarious over the years.

we are a smart, witty & snarky bunch. I would hate for all that brilliant humor to leave this site.

and if you want to ban me for this, then i respect your right to do so: there are a helluva lot of *ssholes in Congress.

kelley in virginia on September 19, 2009 at 7:36 AM

535 by last count….

sven10077 on September 19, 2009 at 8:02 AM

Sorry to be so anal, but I’m afraid even somewhat specific generalities isn’t going to be sufficient for most people here (including me). Anything you can do to further clarify would be appreicated.

Jimbo3 on September 19, 2009 at 2:11 AM

You’re well within the limits of civility. I think you’ll be ok.

BadgerHawk on September 19, 2009 at 8:24 AM

You’re well within the limits of civility. I think you’ll be ok.

BadgerHawk on September 19, 2009 at 8:24 AM

Quite, we shall all become an army of Jimbos….

or at our worst “Frum”.

sven10077 on September 19, 2009 at 8:27 AM

Ed–it would be a really good idea to give a few concrete examples of what results in a ban and what doesn’t. If you’re going after personal insults (which technically is a no-no by the terms and conditions), then “animals” doesn’t describe what you’re concerned with.

Sorry to be so anal, but I’m afraid even somewhat specific generalities isn’t going to be sufficient for most people here (including me). Anything you can do to further clarify would be appreicated.

Jimbo3 on September 19, 2009 at 2:11 AM

I too would like some concrete examples. Obviously foul language is out of the question and I truly believe the Obama kids should be off limits. But, should I assume we are no longer allowed to refer to Barry’s ears in a derogatory way? Can we still call FLOTUS the word that sounds like Cookie but starts with a “W”? Can we make fun of the way she dresses and the price of her clothes?

I don’t mean to be dense, but I really do need specifics. Some comments I’ve seen in the past may have been tasteless, but they have also been hilarious. I would miss them. I would also be very sad if I were banned…so, I will duct tape my fingers as I wait for a reply.

Barb Dwyer on September 19, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Count me in, Ed. Will email any comments I think would reasonably put HA’s reputation at risk. Good to know you welcome this kind of tip. HA is my Cheers, and I’d like it to stay a great place to be.

petefrt on September 19, 2009 at 8:57 AM

I think I will be too, BadgerHawk. I just think that some very specific examples would help. I can’t figure out what “animal terms” is supposed to cover other than what Obama called Kanye or a female dog. And I would have thought those were the least of the insults around here.

Jimbo3 on September 19, 2009 at 9:03 AM

Jimbo3 on September 19, 2009 at 9:03 AM

Yep, reading between the lines we can probably figure it out, but yes, ‘animal terms’ could use some clarification.

Otherwise it seems to boil down to something like this: Don’t feed Media Matters. If we see Media Matters food lying around, email Ed.

petefrt on September 19, 2009 at 9:16 AM

The problem with specific “thou shalt not say __” is that every nitwit out there will immediately get busy looking for the loophole. Why is it so hard to completely omit appearance-based personal attacks?

Michelle Obama has provided us with a wealth of reasons to criticize her without once mentioning how she looks. She’s corrupt, she’s a liar, she’s an idiot. Criticize her beliefs, criticize her behavior, criticize her hypocrisy. Same for Pundit Spice… see, I can easily mock Megan McCain for being vacuous and that holds no matter what size her jeans are this week. It’s really not that hard, folks.

Laura on September 19, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Having read all 850+ comments it’s interesting to see how this has evolved.

a) Based on an attack from “another” site commenter/moderator who posted offensive racist comments, HA site owners chastized regular HA posters for unspecific offensive behavior.

b) Regular HA posters kvetched because they thought it unfair that they were being held accountable for unacceptable behavior done by a troll from “another” site.

c) Extensive discussion of how owner of “other ” site is a POS and how he hasn’t disavowed connection to said troll.

d) Follow on discussion of the hypocricsy of owner of “other” site and his comments about how regular HA commenters are saying mean and hateful things about him

e) Appearance of “concern” commenters who are now happy and hope that all the regular HA commenters will stop posting inane/silly comments about MO’s angry face or Meggie’s fat posterior and read the concern posters’ well thought-out “serious spew”. Of course the usual “take the high road” tsk,tsks were thrown in.

Did I miss any significant parts – just wanted to synopsize for those late readers who don’t have the time for the whole thread.

katiejane on September 19, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Media Matters and LGF see racism in everything. The only way you can please them is to not say/post anything.

Blake on September 19, 2009 at 10:03 AM

I was reading this the other day. some of it’s very funny:

http://lgfbannedandblocked.blogspot.com/

Blake on September 19, 2009 at 10:30 AM

I think that Mrs. Obama read Ed’s request and then purposely wore those belts and spoke those lies just to taunt us.

redwhiteblue on September 19, 2009 at 10:40 AM

I think that Mrs. Obama read Ed’s request and then purposely wore those belts and spoke those lies just to taunt us.

redwhiteblue on September 19, 2009 at 10:40 AM

I think you’re right. And, I’m sorry but FLOTUS begs to be changed to FLATUS which leads to all sorts of possibilities. LOL

Blake on September 19, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Media Matters and LGF see racism in everything. The only way you can please them is to not say/post anything.

Blake on September 19, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Failure to post is an obvious sign of your unspoken racism.

TMK on September 19, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Am I still allowed to refer to our Dear Leader as “Precedent Uhhhhbama”? I’m just askin’

darwin-t on September 19, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Did I miss any significant parts – just wanted to synopsize for those late readers who don’t have the time for the whole thread.

katiejane on September 19, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Apparently, along with the “concern troll” the “baiting troll” still has free reign.

Filthy disgusting language like the following with race baiting is still allowed:

Slovenly teabaggers who shop at walmart and whose homes have wheels are talkin’ fashion! Should be good. Maybe y’all should stick to racin’ though?

simplesimon on September 19, 2009 at 9:00 AM

batterup on September 19, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Am I still allowed to refer to our Dear Leader as “Precedent Uhhhhbama”? I’m just askin’

darwin-t on September 19, 2009 at 11:01 AM

No. You’re making fun of his speech impediment. Raaacciiisst!

Blake on September 19, 2009 at 11:11 AM

I’d like to know why I was banned for my comment about welfare recipients receiving free MN transit, therefore being able to easily attend Obama’s Target Center speech.

Jeff from WI’s remarks are MUCH more offensive, and he still posts freely.

What’s up with that?

13Girl on September 19, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Hey! My account isn’t closed after all!

It was the other day, however, without explanation.

13Girl on September 19, 2009 at 11:21 AM

13Girl on September 19, 2009 at 11:19 AM

What are you talking about? You were banned from lgf?

Blake on September 19, 2009 at 11:34 AM

13Girl on September 19, 2009 at 11:21 AM

They had some technical difficulties last week.

Have you been “banned”? Probably not

zmdavid on September 19, 2009 at 11:34 AM

I am glad to see this. I have seen some pretty vile posts on here and I would hope we are above that. Leave the vile stuff to Kos.

arizonateacher on September 19, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Did I miss any significant parts – just wanted to synopsize for those late readers who don’t have the time for the whole thread.

katiejane on September 19, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Nope, that sums it up pretty well.

kg598301 on September 19, 2009 at 12:02 PM

LGF and his trolls really don’t go after Ace and his morons. Why? Because they would tell them all to eff off and then they would have a contest to see who could come up with the most offensive insults for Chuck and Co.

Blake on September 19, 2009 at 12:04 PM

I don’t think that banning provocateurs requires a post. It should be common knowledge and common practice.

Wingnut on September 19, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Should never have let the left-wing nutjobs in here, Ed. They cannot have reasonable, rational debate, its an exercise in futility.

beachgirlusa on September 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM

willamettevalley on September 19, 2009 at 6:03 AM

but there are millions of us out here that don’t like all the nonsense in the comments. Again, worst part of HotAir.

I wholeheartedly agree. This is one of the reasons I rarely read the comments, let alone put in a comment. Too many trying to outsnark and see who has the 1+ insult. Used to be that one could disagree on a particular subject and the debate would be reasonable and civil (without all of the ‘go to KOS, RINO, Liberal Troll,’ etc). The last few open registrations have let in the nuts from the trees and many original posters have left (or they too do not contribute to the comments anymore). The way AnnieinCa was and has been treated is despicable (as with others of whom dare to disagree). One can consider themselves a Conservative without falling in with the dittoheads and new Becker recruits. (This I find especially funny as when I mentioned about watching Beck when he was on HLN 2 years ago he was dismissed because he was on that ‘I would never watch that network’. As soon as he came to FOX, he was HA’s new hero. Kinda hypocritical). I would love to see HA come back to the site it once was where people used their intelligence rather than their ignorance.

pcbedamned on September 19, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Many here are missing what’s in plain sight. Yes, Johnson is “crazy” but Johnson also needs money. He’s got to rebrand in order to have a shot at that. It’s an M&A play. The place where the fountain of funding is for blogs that are but a few items a day and a mouldering pile of comments is found on the left.

To make himself attractive to the angel investors of the left he’s got to shed all that right association (“Delink me please Michelle and Ed!”) and become the poor little sheep who had gone astray.

He’s delusional about this but he needs money bad and this is a possible play. After all, at this point, LGFs all he’s got so he’s got to milk the tipjar for all its worth and hope for a new fountain of funding like he had in so many ways from Pajamas Media.

Crazy? Yes, but with a method to his madness.

vanderleun on September 19, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Did I miss any significant parts – just wanted to synopsize for those late readers who don’t have the time for the whole thread.

katiejane on September 19, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Just Hillary’s pant suit…..but Meg’s jeans makes up for that one! :)

Vntnrse on September 19, 2009 at 6:13 PM

pcbedamned on September 19, 2009 at 3:14 PM

AnninCa is a pain in the butt and a troll. But, as you say you rarely read comments. If you did, you would know this. Since you don’t, stuff it.

Blake on September 19, 2009 at 6:35 PM

Blake on September 19, 2009 at 6:35 PM

Case in point. It was precisely at the point back in the summer when everyone decided to gang up on AnninCa and anyone else who has the audacity to have a different viewpoint that I stopped making this a must read blog.

Carry on kiddies…I already have teenagers that try this kind of crap and I don’t allow them to carry on. Somewhere out in internetland there must be some adults to converse with.

pcbedamned on September 19, 2009 at 7:00 PM

If so, it explains a lot.

splink on September 19, 2009 at 8:03 AM

Actually, it explains everything.

The problem is that so many, for various reasons, do not really want to see.

platypus on September 19, 2009 at 8:08 PM

Just checking. Thought I got banned.

Durham68 on September 19, 2009 at 9:05 PM

Did I miss any significant parts – just wanted to synopsize for those late readers who don’t have the time for the whole thread.

katiejane on September 19, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Are you a regular? If so, go to your point (b).

There are those of us who weren’t kvetching at all. We’re just aghast that someone would pull the stuff Kilgore Trout did on this site. I saw the PDFs and he and a fellow named Billary something-or-other were polluting the thread on Michelle Obama with racist commentary, and doing it at a time when both Ed and Allah were abed.

I’m a conservative but I have significantly differing viewpoints from the majority of posters here on both the immigration issue and the Israeli/Palestine issue, and have been called both a liberal and an anti-Semite because of those views. The problem here is that when the “pile-on” occurs, it’s with lots of personal type comments, rather than the policy comments which should drive any debate/discussion.

It’s gotten to the point where I’ll occasionally avoid commenting on a given thread because I know that my comments will not be responded to with counter-arguments, but instead will result in a personal pile-on. I’m surprised at the amount of abuse AnninCA is able to take. I don’t agree with her on most things, and I counter-comment to her frequently, but she’s got the pile-ons hitting her too.

If we were to ban all the lefties who’ve signed on, where would the fun be? We’d be like most of the leftie sites, where having a conservative viewpoint gets you banned, and so it’s the choir singing to itself. Don’t want to go there, except in the case of KT — when you troll with the words he used, bon voyage.

I have leftie friends at work and I love debating them. When I am defeated (which does happen), I examine why, and it hones both my knowledge and debating skills.

If I were to put it into a nutshell, I’d say the following: I miss Captains Quarters, where the majority of commenters were decent even in their antagonism. But HotAir is now where Morrissey is, and since I consider him a reasoned and analytical person, I’m here too.

unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 1:16 AM

Case in point. It was precisely at the point back in the summer when everyone decided to gang up on AnninCa and anyone else who has the audacity to have a different viewpoint that I stopped making this a must read blog.

Carry on kiddies…I already have teenagers that try this kind of crap and I don’t allow them to carry on. Somewhere out in internetland there must be some adults to converse with.

pcbedamned on September 19, 2009 at 7:00 PM

This is one of the few blogs where both righties and lefties are free to comment. You are welcome to go over to the Daily Kos and get your quota of leftie comments without a single rightie to ruin your day. Of course, this is a rightie blog, so rightie outnumber lefties about 20-1, so we are going to see quite a bit of response to any leftie statement.

I agree with you about AnninCA; she’s often hit with personal attacks when she posts a policy position, but a lot of the pile-on (I’ve done it) is policy response.

I wish they had a system here where you could compress the comments of people you’d rather not read to just a single line like the one at the bottom of this comment. Then you can add people you’d rather not see to a block-list and only have to read them if it looked like they intersect something you are interested in.

unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM

unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM
You are welcome to go over to the Daily Kos and get your quota of leftie comments without a single rightie to ruin your day.

It is this type of comment that again is case in point of what I posted originally. If you had read that post (@3:14pm), what you had posted to katiejane would apply more to what I had said, rather than automatically assuming that I was a ‘leftie’ who would be better served at Kos. My main problem with HA is that the type of commenters that are posting now are not of the same calibre of those posting prior to the election. Prior to the election you could have a reasonable and intelligent debate. Now it is who can outsnark who with too many personal insults thrown in. It’s like High School around here anymore; been there, done that.
I too am a Conservative, but my social issues lie more with the Libertarian viewpoint, with a lot of empathy thrown in. As well, I tend to see both sides of an argument, and I also know that the truth usually is somewhere in the middle (I guess that comes from dealing with my 2 teens – he said, she said, as well as having a best friend who is a moonbat, crazy, bleeding heart liberal – and 40 year friendships do not last if personal insults fly).
I miss the old vibe of HA, and patiently await sanity and intelligence to return.

pcbedamned on September 20, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Prissiness is the first step to political suicide.

You cannot tapdance with someone trying to cut your balls off.

Or:

Can I say wombat on a pro-choice thread?

profitsbeard on September 20, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Hm. Ed, two points:

First, the ban on all animal metaphors, similes and analogies is taken too far. What if someone calls a politician a “bulldog” in good faith because they’re particularly steadfast, or perhaps hard-headed? No one would think that person is out of line, yet technically it merits banning by your own stated speech code.

Second, LGF should be de-listed from the HotAir mercantile exchange ASAP.

I won’t get into the problems with the successive open registrations of late cause it’s just going to make me mad.

RD on September 21, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Jimbo3 didn’t make the cut.

LOL

tom daschle concerned on May 29, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9