Carol Platt Liebau: Yet <i>Another</i> "Tone Check"

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Yet Another "Tone Check"

To my "gentlemen" commentors (and yes, at the moment, I AM using the term loosely):

Feel free to disagree with me and with each other. But please try to do so without the nastiness that has become increasingly frequent in the comments here -- and which has been eliciting numerous email complaints to me.

To repeat: Spirited debate is valued here, and you are welcome to disagree with me. When you visit my blog, however, you are expected to voice your disagreement without stooping to gratuitous abuse (which only weakens your arguments anyway) and in accordance with the rules of common courtesy -- just as you would if you were visiting my house. Otherwise, you make the site unpleasant for others to visit. That's just unacceptable, and it will force me to eliminate comments entirely, against my wishes.

Anonymity is no excuse for poor manners and ungracious behavior. Please keep that in mind and conduct yourselves accordingly. Thanks.

3 Comments:

Blogger Greg said...

Is the use of the word "negro" allowed? How about "wacko"? Or "surrender monkey"? Somehow, the "tone" keeps getting abusive around here.

5:03 PM  
Blogger suek said...

>>Is the use of the word "negro" allowed? How about "wacko"? Or "surrender monkey"? Somehow, the "tone" keeps getting abusive around here.>>

You have a problem with the word "negro"?
Could you explain why?

9:19 AM  
Blogger Matt Brinkman said...

Just to get the rules of "common courtesy" straight, Carol...

Would it be considered civil discourse if everytime I mentioned Dick Cheney I called him Dick "Load to the Face" Cheney? Apparently in your house it is not considered gratuitous abuse to throw in Chappaquiddick every time you mention Ted Kennedy.

Would it be considered civil discourse if I posted that Dick Cheney was drunk when he shot his "friend" in the face, just because I read it on some crazy blog? Apparently in your house it was not considered gratuitous abuse to post false claims about Howard Dean sourced solely to the Drudge Report.

Would it be considered civil discourse if I posted that George Bush is having an affair with Condoleeza Rice after reading it in a newspaper? Apparently in your house it was not considered gratuitous abuse to assassinate the character of Jack Murtha based on a false newspaper report.

Would it be considered civil discourse if I refused to apologize to the President for calling him an adulterer, claiming that he deserved the name even if he wasn't having an affair with Condi? Apparently in your house it was not considered gratuitous abuse to blame Jack Murtha for being lied about.

8:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google