Anonymous wrote:Surprisingly enough editing and censorship are not the same thing.

I would like to thank Jeff for the moderating he does, I posted a thread once that was very personal. All the responses were negative in nature, but some were still extremely helpful. The ones that weren't were just hateful and mean and thankfully were removed by the next morning. I never complained, they were just gone. I can't tell you how much better it felt to know that someone was on my side and keeping things from getting out of control.

Jeff isn't stopping you from having an opinion or a place to vent, he is just keeping the self-important bullying in check cause it is his job. And he even made a place here for you to complain about how he does his job, seriously get over yourselves people, I really isn't free speech issue. When you post something that isn't constructive or necessary it hurts the whole system and when it gets edited out you shouldn't jump down the moderators throat about censorship. Just start your own thread where you can be abusive if that is what gets you off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprisingly enough editing and censorship are not the same thing.

I would like to thank Jeff for the moderating he does, I posted a thread once that was very personal. All the responses were negative in nature, but some were still extremely helpful. The ones that weren't were just hateful and mean and thankfully were removed by the next morning. I never complained, they were just gone. I can't tell you how much better it felt to know that someone was on my side and keeping things from getting out of control.

Jeff isn't stopping you from having an opinion or a place to vent, he is just keeping the self-important bullying in check cause it is his job. And he even made a place here for you to complain about how he does his job, seriously get over yourselves people, I really isn't free speech issue. When you post something that isn't constructive or necessary it hurts the whole system and when it gets edited out you shouldn't jump down the moderators throat about censorship. Just start your own thread where you can be abusive if that is what gets you off.

Now wait a second, Jeff said he deleted only one post and now even OP is acknowledging that multiple responses were deleted.

Personally, I seem to recall multiple postings being deleted, every one of them challenging the OP's premise. BUt it is very clear child-stealing OP is determined to have THE VERY LAST WORD HERE. So, whatever.

She was wrong, end of story, as was Jeff. The responses were neither hateful, mean, nor abusive. Even Jeff didn't say that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprisingly enough editing and censorship are not the same thing.

I would like to thank Jeff for the moderating he does, I posted a thread once that was very personal. All the responses were negative in nature, but some were still extremely helpful. The ones that weren't were just hateful and mean and thankfully were removed by the next morning. I never complained, they were just gone. I can't tell you how much better it felt to know that someone was on my side and keeping things from getting out of control.

Jeff isn't stopping you from having an opinion or a place to vent, he is just keeping the self-important bullying in check cause it is his job. And he even made a place here for you to complain about how he does his job, seriously get over yourselves people, I really isn't free speech issue. When you post something that isn't constructive or necessary it hurts the whole system and when it gets edited out you shouldn't jump down the moderators throat about censorship. Just start your own thread where you can be abusive if that is what gets you off.

Now wait a second, Jeff said he deleted only one post and now even OP is acknowledging that multiple responses were deleted.

Personally, I seem to recall multiple postings being deleted, every one of them challenging the OP's premise. BUt it is very clear child-stealing OP is determined to have THE VERY LAST WORD HERE. So, whatever.

She was wrong, end of story, as was Jeff. The responses were neither hateful, mean, nor abusive. Even Jeff didn't say that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, I can't keep track. Are the "voices in your head" and "share a brain" the same poster? Funny stuff.

Nope. See, not so easy to keep track of, huh?

Why so smug? All I said was that they were funny.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the grandpa in the movie Moonstruck-y'know, the one with all the dogs. I'M CONFUSED. What is OK, what is not? What constitutes redress or dismissal based on an OP's request? When is it OK to list a person's full name in a post? I thought never until the Brendan Sheerin thread. When are we supposed to ignore a troll, address a troll or not believe a troll? When is snark OK? (apparently on the Political Forum when it supports the liberal left of which I am a member) but not on GP if offends a well-meaning mommy? Editing and censorship seem to be very closely linked on this site based on no particular predictable formula. Jeff, just give us a model and stick to it,it would end a lot of confusion on here. BTW, do you and Maria ever disagree about what should be deleted and what should stay as is?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the grandpa in the movie Moonstruck-y'know, the one with all the dogs. I'M CONFUSED. What is OK, what is not? What constitutes redress or dismissal based on an OP's request? When is it OK to list a person's full name in a post? I thought never until the Brendan Sheerin thread. When are we supposed to ignore a troll, address a troll or not believe a troll? When is snark OK? (apparently on the Political Forum when it supports the liberal left of which I am a member) but not on GP if offends a well-meaning mommy? Editing and censorship seem to be very closely linked on this site based on no particular predictable formula. Jeff, just give us a model and stick to it,it would end a lot of confusion on here. BTW, do you and Maria ever disagree about what should be deleted and what should stay as is?

I'm sorry that this site is not run to the perfect standard that you desire. I am not going to give you a model. The minute I did that a bunch of you would devote every free minute you had to finding loopholes, inconsistencies, or shortcomings in it. I have better things to do with my life then spend it debating such minutia. As for your claim of "censorship", can you provide an example of a single viewpoint that I have prevented from being expressed on this site. If you cannot provide an example, then I am sorry, but it is way past time to shut the fuck up about censorship. There are places in the world where there is real censorship. DCUM is not one of them.

Anonymous wrote:
I found your abortion quip rather offensive a few weeks back. You're certainly not the first to use the bolded phrase above, but I find it awful every time I see it on DCUM. No sense in hitting the report button to complain to the fox overseeing this henhouse, so I just mention it here.

jsteele wrote:
I am sorry, but it is way past time to shut the fuck up about censorship. There are places in the world where there is real censorship. DCUM is not one of them.

jsteele wrote:So, I assume you are advocating censorship? It's going to be hard to satisfy the pro-censorship and anti-censorship crowds at the same time.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the grandpa in the movie Moonstruck-y'know, the one with all the dogs. I'M CONFUSED. What is OK, what is not? What constitutes redress or dismissal based on an OP's request? When is it OK to list a person's full name in a post? I thought never until the Brendan Sheerin thread. When are we supposed to ignore a troll, address a troll or not believe a troll? When is snark OK? (apparently on the Political Forum when it supports the liberal left of which I am a member) but not on GP if offends a well-meaning mommy? Editing and censorship seem to be very closely linked on this site based on no particular predictable formula. Jeff, just give us a model and stick to it,it would end a lot of confusion on here. BTW, do you and Maria ever disagree about what should be deleted and what should stay as is?

I'm sorry that this site is not run to the perfect standard that you desire. I am not going to give you a model. The minute I did that a bunch of you would devote every free minute you had to finding loopholes, inconsistencies, or shortcomings in it. I have better things to do with my life then spend it debating such minutia. As for your claim of "censorship", can you provide an example of a single viewpoint that I have prevented from being expressed on this site. If you cannot provide an example, then I am sorry, but it is way past time to shut the fuck up about censorship. There are places in the world where there is real censorship. DCUM is not one of them.

What's interesting to me is that you haven't acknowledged once that we might have a point here. Do you really think you are completely right or is there any room for you to just say "maybe I need to reconsider this" or "these are valid issues?" You seem angrier every time you post, which doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. I'm not trying to piss you off, I'm trying to make you think about something a different way.

Anonymous wrote:Just noticed that 20:39, 20:42 and 20:53 do not appear on Recent Topics (although 22:39 is there). Was it something I said?

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering what you would do in the examples provided by a PP. If I"m remembering correctly:

example one:

OP knows of a couple who is trying to adopt a baby. The couple is gay, and OP wants to know if there's any way to intervene and prevent the adoption. Surely others would chime in and say "it's not your place to do that!". We're assuming a real question from a familiar IP address, not a drive-by / trolling. Jeff, if the OP then said "please, they're not answering my question!" would you intervene similarly?

Example two:

OP's daughter is a bit "chunky" at four years old and is considering adderall, hoping the appetite suppressing benefits help with her daughter's weight. OP is not interested in hearing that it's not the appropriate use for that medication, or that she might be damaging her daughter's psyche with the body image obsession she's imposing on the girl, OP only wants to know if people have noticed appetite suppressing effects with adderall, and also a physicial that would be open to prescribing it to a four year old. Jeff, if the OP asked you, would you bar conversation beyond the specific appetite stimulant effects of adderall and a doctor who will prescribe it?

The point many of us are making is that you're starting to walk a fine line here when you decide when you'll intervene and when you will not. You jokingly say that consistency is not something you promise here, but I think it would be really challenging to sit around and determine which answers are germane or not (I mean, do you really want to spend your time that way, anyway?) and if you're using the premise of the argument as the litmus test (maybe the disrupting an adoption is so abhorrent that of COURSE you're not going to prevent people from saying it) but we're really relying on you to be the lone arbiter of what's worthy of full debate and what can only be discussed within very narrow confinces.

What's interesting to me is that you haven't acknowledged once that we might have a point here. Do you really think you are completely right or is there any room for you to just say "maybe I need to reconsider this" or "these are valid issues?" You seem angrier every time you post, which doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. I'm not trying to piss you off, I'm trying to make you think about something a different way.