Apparently, it's OK for a Confluence poster to write, in 2009:
As hard as it is for me to accept, I now have to face the face that the forces of theocracy not only control of the Republican Party, but also they are well on the way to taking over the Democratic party.
But it's not OK for Corrente to look into Dominionist influence on Palin in 2008 (and have the whole thing peter out into nothing, I might add).
Which I discovered through SiteMeter in the usual way, as another grenade is launched by the usual suspects. So, I go over to the Confluence to respond, and, unmoderated, my comment goes right up. Somebody notices that, and turns moderation right back on. Courage. Good judgment. I like that. Take all the time you need to figure out how to respond, guys.
Hey, here's a thought. How about we leave the Confluence alone, and the Confluence leaves us alone? I don't need to waste the time, and surely there are other, more pressing problems for the Confluence to deal with than a C list blog that everybody hates and nobody reads?
NOTE Here's the article that broke "the family" story: Harpers, 2003Harpers, 2003, in answer to Northwestrain's question, which I am now unable to answer.
UPDATE Hilariously, myiq proceeds to waste even more precious front page space on a blogger everybody hates and nobody reads. (The "tell," for those who came in late, is that my first comment, a correction, went in with no moderation. Somebody noticed that, and immediately turned moderation on. If noticing that is whining, well, so be it.) No chance to challenge the usual talking points for evidence, of course:
See, here people get banned when they get called on claims they can't back up with evidence, propagate right wing memes, or ask to commit suicide; it's content based, and it's a process. If there is a posted moderation policy at The Confluence, I can't find it, but based on comments, the policy is tribalism. Whatever the policy might be, it certainly can't be anything analytical or content-based, since, as I show above, there are statements some in the "tribe" can make that others outside the "tribe" are not permitted to make. Not that any of us are immune from that, but some elevate it an operating principle. Hey, their blogs, and good luck to them!
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
not to get into all this again
but are you sure you were modded? The filters over there are weird, I'm moderated all the time. Regulars end up in the spam filter every day. They have all sorts of in-site jokes about it.
eta: ok, sorry, I just read the whole thread. I take that back.
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
What was your point?
Some of us voted for Palin as a protest vote. We were very up front about it. We weren't onboard with her politics. Did we think she got a bad rap last year? Um, yeah. Obviously. You can object to a politician's philosophy without getting all personal. Did we think she was qualified to be VP? Sure. Constitutionally, she was qualified and many of us never bought the stupid palin picture anyway. No one gets to be governor of a state without family connections or some kind of special quality. She's a natural politician. Her beliefs regarding abortion were stupid as all get out. But even Violet wrote many posts about how Palin was able to set personal beliefs aside to sign legislation. And then you have to ask yourself (well, maybe YOU never asked yourself) why Obama was running against Palin in the first place? McCain lost an opportunity there.
Mike Huckabee is as bad or worse than Palin. But for some reason, you're still harping on Sarah. I gotta ask myself why that is. I realize that there are some former PUMAs who regret what they did last year and are apologizing for it. Personally, I think this is stupid. I voted and acted the way I did last year out of principle. That principle was that the Democratic party wasn't going to get my vote after they disenfranchised me. It had nothing to do with Palin or McCain. In fact, until I stepped into that voting booth, I didn't know how I was going to vote. I registered my protest at the last moment. And I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
So, I have to wonder if your comment was meant to be deliberately inflammatory. Are you suggesting that co-bloggers at The Confluence harbor secret Dominionist tendencies because some of them voted for Palin out of protest last year? Are you insinuating that we are hypocrites? That's how *I* read that comment. You shouldn't be surprised that you were moderated.
Come together at The Confluence
You are way off base
Lambert doesn't need me to defend him, but firstly, lambert and vastleft asked MANY TIMES why Obama felt the need to run against Palin, and not McCain. They both deduced that this was because of the ease with which the faucets of woman hate are opened.
Also, lambert finds the investigation into The Family's connections a perfectly legitimate investigation. His questions is, why wasn't it last year, when it was in reference to Palin.
The thing is RD, and this is really how it reads to me, is that lambert makes observations about the Confluence based on the things he reads there, whereas you come over here and make accusations about the things you think are being said here, case in point, your accusation about lambert never asking about the odd obsession about Palin, when it's been a continuing in-joke at Corrente(titled "Look! Over There! Sarah Palin!) since before the election.
He is not harping on Palin, he is harping on the intellectual inconsistencies at the Confluence. Also, reading the comments on myiq's post, some commenters are under the mistaken assumption that Confluence people aren't allowed to post here, though quixote joins in threads all the time, and you are here yourself, an assumption nobody over there corrected, though myiq continues to play the pity party about how he was banned.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Thanks...
It's not that I couldn't spend another day and-a-half untangling all the dreary agita, but who has the time?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Then Lambert is wayyyyy off base
I don't know what it is he *thinks* he sees at The Confluence. But whatever it is, I'm positive that it is a figment of his imagination.
It's time he stopped spreading sneaky insinuations every time our site numbers go up.
As far as the comment policy here, open it up to EVERYONE who posts at the Confluence and maybe you'll have a point.
Actually, I post here rarely. I was quite content to not post here at all. It seems like you don't have a lot of commenters anyway. That's not the kind of blog you run here. And it seems like every time our numbers go up, Lambert finds another reason to read things into our posts that aren't there and start off another round of this war. I would prefer it if my bloggers didn't post responses to this blog on our frontpage. It gives you guys traffic that you should be earning on your own. We're not as stupid as Lambert would have you think.
So, to recap: Lambert is seeing things that aren't there, like dead people, he's sensitive to his site traffic and we aren't going to help him out in that department anymore.
Come together at The Confluence
What do you mean, "then"?
What an amazing comment.
First, Goldberry either hasn't read the moderation policies, or she's chosen to ignore them; see #4 (no evidence for charge above, nor can there be), and #7. Second, read the screen dump for what Goldberry thinks is a "sneaky insinuation," for pity's sake.
UPDATE 1 Is it OK if I spread "sneaky insinuations" when your numbers go down? Is there a time frame? Like, if the numbers go down in an hourly period, do I get to spread "sneaky insinuations" then? Or is the standard daily? Weekly? Are these rules posted somewhere? Maybe with the moderation policies?
UPDATE 2 As for the site traffic thing, our SiteMeter numbers are visible for all to see, unlike those at the Confluence. So anyone can verify for themselves that Corrente doesn't depend on the Confluence for traffic. Yet another charge that can't be substantiated.
UPDATE 3 And as far as who sees what... One blog is posting screen dumps of comment threads and using them for evidence. Another blog is posting pictures of babies. Which one is yours?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
LOL
*
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
no, the relevant measure is
of those TCers who would like to post or comment here, how many has Lambert rejected? Or more accurately, failed to approve?
Running a login-required site isn't inherently anti-TC. TC has made a different choice about how to manage posting and comments. Either way has its own problems. Demanding that he open up the site to the kind of 24/7 spam-filter-clogging crap which the moderators at TC have to deal with (and which they deal with admirably) is not relevant to whatever is going on between the two sites. Neither is the sitemeter stuff.
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
Even that metric can't be measured...
... since with handles, and email addresses from anywhere, there's no way to get a total number anyhow. This being a feature, and not a bug.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
well, I suppose I could hone it down to
of the TC posters and commenters who identify themselves with the same handles, who attempted to register here, after the primaries/campaign chaos, who weren't passed in.
Although that would also require some sort of tracking/high level of familiarity with posters and commenters over there.
Whichever -- my point was really just that the denominator can't be total number of TCers.
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
Well...
At this point, I'm not that into spending more time than I already do, especially if its screening accounts for spammers and such. We tried that a couple of years ago and it was a PITA. Ya want better service, write me a check.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Er, what's up here?
I was just speculating about what the proper way to measure your alleged antipathy to TCers, not demanding you do so. My opinion, fwiw, is that painful or not, it's not worth it. However, I do object to statistical distortions, which the original supposition (denominator = all TCers) was.
Btw, I have written you a few checks. (where the heck did that come from?)
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
"Denominator"?
I'm an English major, let us remember...
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
i registered at corrente during the primariez chaos
took me weeks to get approved, and that was only after sending lambert some emails [plural, iirc] positively laden with assurances that i was not a troll.
anybody who tried to register during a time when lambert was up to his ears in stuff to do had a good chance of falling through the cracks.
I had the same experience
But I think it took more than a month, maybe two or more even. Don't comment much, lurk a lot. Love this blog, as it focuses on the health care issues and the rights of women - my things.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot." - Albert Einstein
Don't forget finance!
Since that's what our enemies care about the most...
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
You mean you won't post here anymore?
Whadda we gonna do? (Sob.)
JFK has been shot, we miss him a lot
He always knew what to do
-- Philly Cream
Geez, you forgot to say
I mean
Come on, dont leave us hangin.
Changed the subject line
Rule 7.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Oh, dear
I've commented before on RD/Goldberry's seeming inability to respond on point. Here we go again. In addition to what Aeryl said, here's myiq's comment, and my response (before the moderation kicked in):
The Confluence poster's comment (myiq) is at the top; "this" and "this" are links to dogemperor's posts on Palin as a dominionist, which, IIRC, didn't pan out under scrutiny.
My response is at the bottom, which I'll repeat:
As Aeryl points out, "intellectual inconsistency."
Goldberry/RD manages to convert that into:
Which is obviously off-point, for three reasons:
1. The process whereby my comment could possibly be converted into an accusation that anybody at the Confluence is "harboring secret Dominionist tendencies" is utterly mysterious to me. Why anyone "would have to" wonder about that is equally mysterious, but whatever: It's not on point.
2. "Hypocrisy" is an inner, spiritual state; and if I'd wanted to use the word, I would have. What I did note was that it was OK for a Confluence poster to scrutinize Republicans (and Democrats) for theocratic tendencies in 2009, but for some reason not OK (at least for myiq) for Corrente to do the same thing in 2008. As Aeryl points out, that's inconsistent. Responding to myiq's comment, I asked a question: "And the problem would be?" Of course, I'm still waiting for an answer. One possible answer is indeed hypocrisy, as RD/Goldberry notes. The answer I prefer is tribalism (see above).
3. I wasn't "surprised" to be moderated at all, so that's off-point as well. I can't imagine where Goldberry/RD got that from. I was surprised not to be moderated in my initial correction, and (I say this in retrospect) surprised by how fast the shutdown happened. Hey, their blog.
In terms of method and moderation policy: Hypocrisy is always one possible explanation for intellectual inconsistency; there are plenty of others. (If Jason Rosenbaum, for example, is inconsistent, I put that down to him doing what his boss told him to do.) However, if the inference drawn from a claim of inconsistency is always to be that the claim is really a charge of hypocrisy.... Well, I can't imagine a better formula for producing groupthink and tribalism on a blog.
That question of method is an important one, so perhaps this thread is not completely wasted.
NOTE What did voting for Palin have to do with any of this? Why on earth is that the lead?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
That's pretty Hilarious
that the rabble over at RiverChucky are up in arms over this.
Somebody should tell MeatProd and PugetSoundRacistGirl that Hillary was a member of "The Family."
Evidence, please
Linky goodness Hillary's membership, please. Hopefully not from a hate site, mkay?
Thanks.
NOTE Your execution of the classic "Let's you and them fight!" move is noted, and admired.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
You can start here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/eh...
And work your way back to the Mother Jones article in 2007.
Thanks
And enough with the "MeatProd" shit; even myiq wouldn't deserve that. I don't want to invest the time to work out a new policy on civility, but if I have to, I will, and that won't fall under it.
UPDATE Yeah, I posted on that story back in 2007 (though via WaPo's Bernstein, and not Joyce and Sharlet, who, when I "work my way back" from the Nation to Mother Jones, are the sources). I don't have a takedown of the story, but if anyone else does, post it. Bottom line at worst: Hillary not perfect: Film at 11. As ever, the issue was which of the two Dem candidates was marginally better than the other. But, whatever. We're dealing with President we have now who, IMNSHO is doing a piss poor job unless you work for Golden Sacks.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
The bottom line for me
Is that regardless of the fact that yes, Clinton did meet with members of the Family in prayer group, where is the evidence that her affiliation with them has swayed her from a previously held position?
There isn't any, at least not that I've found. Which is the kicker, at least for me. She affiliated with one of the most heinous groups in DC, but didn't substantially change her positions or stances because of it.
Some people would say that's because she already agreed with them on ideological grounds, and I'd like to know where.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
No offense
but I disagree. I often enough find myself on the other side of an issue with everyone from RD to Dak and I will tell you that I haven't had any problem with getting my position posted.
Furthermore it doesn't help the situation when YOU yourself leave examples of your own brand of tribalism like the one above. I can't imagine for a minute that if the above poster changed the name of Corrente to something putrid that they'd be gone.
Oh and is it true that you won't let Dakinikat have an account? Why in the world not? She's wicked sharp even if I don't agree with her all the time.
Ok, so we're not to judge
The Confluence on the actions of the front pagers and moderators(as bostonboomer already copped to modding lambert) but you are supposed to judge Corrente on the actions of random posters(as justlen is someone I've never seen before), and people who've been banned(as Mandos keeps getting brought up).
Odd that.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
moderating
I've been moderated so is there a point. Moderation is often used when a topic can become heated so the whole entire thing does not become a flame fest.
Go to the site and try and post the word racist? It won't let you. Why? Is it some vast conspiracy to rob people of their first amendment rights? No. It's an inflammatory term and the site wants CIVIL debate not a flamefest.
I woudn't in a million years tell you what kind of criteria to use when judging the content of blogs. Frankly, I haven't seen much at TC that would lead me to believe any of the people you list are doing anything nefarious and the one post I do see as inflammatory is a result of this thread. Did you really think they were going to let a shot go across the bow unanswered? Particularly if THIS SITE has done its own share of moderation(which it is certainlt entitled to do by the way)
Frankly, I don't see how moderation is much different then say making someone sign up for a site to have commenting privileges(which is what occurs here). The Confluence doesn't have a sign up type blog instead it relies on moderation to ensure that debate stays civil. Furthermore I don't think it would be unreasonable for lambert to be moderated over at the Confluence if he has a)told specific people at the confluence that they are not welcome and banned others(ironic since he is arguing tribalism over there when that behavior indicates the same type of behavior) or b) (and I wasn't here to witness this so correct me if I'm wrong) called people stupid or racist for their position.
By the way, if he(lambert) didn't call anyone names, there seem to be quite a few folk under the impression he does feel that way about them. I'd correct that perception if it were me. Disagreement doesn't have to result in a huge flamefest and many of the people at TC would be natural allies. I'm sorry if you felt I was mocking or ridiculing you for your opinion might go a long way.
As for justlen's statement I stand by my position that it is in poor taste and leaving it as is and not calling it out imo is no different then what lambert is accusing TC of doing(tribalism is at its worst when mocking and ridiculing). I stand by my position that if this poster had written an offensive twist on Corrente that they would have been called to task. It isn't a judgement on the WHOLE SITE but a judgement on the content of this particular post by the way. I tend to judge things piece by piece rather than making broad judgements based on one or two actions I might not agree with.
Hope that clears things up since you found my position an oddity.
Moderation 2
Thanks. I didn't find your position an oddity, I just wanted to understand what it was. As a moderator, I focus on things I can verify. I don't moderate for "truth," for example, but for evidence. And I don't moderate for candidate or policy support. I do moderate for conservative memes, because they're manufactured and we can recognize them. I do moderate for "any stick to beat a dog" arguments, again (a) because that's verifiable, and (b) because the left doesn't have the money to maintain a structure of bullshit and lies like Versailles
does, so method is very, very important.
I've never been able to figure out a bright line to test for civility or not being "inflammatory" (which would seem to be very difficult to enforce; deadly insults can be delivered politely, after all). That said, you might have missed the UPDATE above as our comments crossed; obviously, inventing names like "MeatProd" is easy to verify and if I were to invent a policy for civility, eliminating shit like that would be part of it. So that's why I didn't respond immediately to justlen (that, and needing to respond to the content of the post, where I needed to read a couple of articles). Hope this helps.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I don't have a problem with moderation
It just seems pretty obvious to me that lambert was modded b/c of personality issues people have with him, and because no one could substantially engage with what he was asking about.
Which is an unfair modding policy, IMO.
And bringing his moderated statements, from The Confluence, OpenLeft, and other sites, is part of Lambert's MO, and it's an important task. When need to know what people consider unacceptable discourse in certain places. At Open Left, single payer support over the public option, is considered unacceptable discourse. Apparently, at The Confluence, it's pointing out inconsistencies.
He brings them here, so his words, and the arguments he responded to, can be brought into an open discussion, since one apparently wasn't possible at the original site.
"Furthermore I don't think it would be unreasonable for lambert to be moderated over at the Confluence if he has a)told specific people at the confluence that they are not welcome and banned others(ironic since he is arguing tribalism over there when that behavior indicates the same type of behavior) or b) (and I wasn't here to witness this so correct me if I'm wrong) called people stupid or racist for their position
Specific people at the Confluence were banned for their behavior on this blog. The commenting policy is well spelled out, and people who were banned were warned repeatedly before they were banned. They were banned for breaking specific rules. That isn't tribalism, that's justice. Tribalism is moderators at the Confluence, moderating lambert, just because he's lambert, and they don't want to engage with him.
And lambert never attacks people, he attacks their arguments. Since you don't know the history, let me fill you in real quick.
Someone who posted here, began using tactics that supported Republican tactics and attacks being used against Obama. They were banned.
Someone posted a blog at the Confluence that many, including Anglachel, felt relied too much on racist tactics and themes being pushed by Republicans, to attack Obama and his supporters. This was roundly discussed here, but no one from the Confluence wanted to discuss the problems that were had with the tactics, and instead chose to attribute motives to almost everyone at Corrente, that we believed the PUMAs were all hysterical racist bitches, and that's how we ended up where we are now. Oh, and that this blog, which did much to defend Palin from unfair sexist attacks, where a bunch of misogynist fuckers too.
The motive attribution is still something goldberry is doing, witness her comment above. It never helps any discussion, which is why I think she does it. If we are too busy defending ourselves from whatever nefarious motives she has impugned us with, we aren't discussing the inconsistencies that were observed, are we?
Why does lambert need to correct any perceptions, when he's always said, "Your argument is not you". It's not his problem these people don't have reading comprehension. If he told them again, they would still think he's calling them names, and trying to have a constructive discussion with someone who believes the worst about you, without evidence, is rather pointless, wouldn't you say?
And you are really equating the fact that lambert hadn't gotten around to correcting one person's rhetoric(which is something anyone is capable of doing, that's why all the posts say REPLY at the bottom), to the fact that lambert's opinion was obliterated out of existence before anyone could look at it.
Cuz, to me, one looks to be free speech(which doesn't actually exist on blogs, as they are private property, but the spirit remains the same) and one looks like pre-emptive censorship.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Well...
... I try to attack arguments only. Snark does bleed in, and in terms of style, people who strike get the riposte they earn. But last I checked, snark was endemic in the blogosphere, for good or ill, so deal. Anyhow, what Aeryl describes is the best self I try to be.
* * *
I think it's fair to talk about "motives" in the sense that business models may drive posting in this or that direction; but that's different from converting a claim of inconsistency into a charge of hypocrisy, and then making additional claims based on the inferred charge.
* * *
On the history, the posted policy is recent, but the "warned repeatedly" is correct. The policy evolved empirically out of experience on such threads. As for the rest of the history, I agree that's how it went down. (Thanks, Aeryl, for the thankless task of putting it together.) That's why no corrections or retractions have been issued. And that's also why a "live and let live" approach is fine with me. As violet wisely said somewhere, "we all got played."
* * *
What I've given up doing, even for conservatives, is making up names (like MeatProd) and having to win arguments at any cost. What I have not given up is responding; as you can see from the screen dump, I'm not initiating, but responding. Perhaps I should just post a generic disclaimer and link to it when appropriate. It would certainly save immense amounts of time and bits.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Dakinikat's account?
See here and note the policies. Sounds like it's point
AB, to me. To my recollection, dakinikat didn't violate 3, 4, or 5, or commit suicide. If she wants to apply again, she can have one, just like Goldberry does. I like what she writes on finance these days."First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Confused
Point A, as in the spam filter? I think you mean B., applied during the overwhelming period?
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
Thanks, yes
B it is.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Huh?
cwaltz, why is the above an example of tribalism?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Mocking and ridiculing
imo are what tribal groups do. Rather than discuss a problem or a difference or even agree to disagree far too often nowadays insulting seems to be the way people go. If A doesn't agree with be they must be an (idiot.....racist......watb.....or fill in the blank)I would be remiss in pointing out that TC responded to this post in the exact same manner by the way. I was less harsh with them though because theirs was a response, not the initial shot across the bow.
It bothers me that two natural allies can't seem to get along. AT ALL. I don't know the whole history and I daresay it probably isn't important to rehash it. I do wish the two sites would get along though rather than drag their emnity from site to site(yes I also read reclusive leftist so I witnessed the brouhaha there).
cwaltz, thanks. And if you pick...
... threaded list expanded, you'll be able to respond to comments directly.
See here on moderation and here on the thread. Obviously, or obviously to me, it's not uncivil to point out that somebody isn't responding on point if they're not responding on point. "Your argument is not you," eh?
NOTE On "agree to disagree" I tried. Really.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Everybody was played
Yes, that was a very wise take on the Corrente-TC feud by Violet. I read all y'all and agree that politically speaking, there's not a dime's worth of difference between you. What varies is more style than substance. Beyond substantive content on a blog, I look at a couple of other things to judge whether a place is worth reading on a regular basis:
1) How long will they tolerate anyone hijacking/derailing the discourse? Twisty wins the prize on this one with The Mandos Referendum for the way she simultaneously used it as a teachable moment and insect repellant.
2) How do they handle dissent/honest criticism of the blog? A blog that won't tolerate well thought out and supported dissent might as well be a koolaid spigot. A blog that won't hear honest criticism won't ever improve, so if you don't like it as is, might as well get along.
As I'm still here, Corrente's all right in my book, for a C-list blog, but then, so is TC, although I hardly ever comment/read comments there. FWIW, it's not the traffic that makes the blog, but the content; sometimes high traffic is actually a detriment.
Maybe next time an opportunity arises to resurrect the feud it would be good to meditate instead upon how everybody was played. Just sayin'.
Substance?
HeroesGetMade, method counts. The way that one reaches a political stance has substance, in and of itself, as well as the stance itself. On a purely pragmatic basis, that's because the left doesn't and won't have the funding to maintain the structure of bullshit and lies that Versailles
does. That's why the dreary insistence above on examining the words actually used, the laboriously re-iterated requests for on-point responses and evidence, the shunning of manufactured conservative memes, etc. (The moderation policies are structured to encourage this.) If you think that's "feuding," well, there's no much I can do. Most of this gets fought out in comment threads, of course, which you say you don't read, so your perspective will be different from mine.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi