Goodbye, Joplin Globe

The problem with newspapers isn’t the quality of their journalism but the weakness of their business model. It’s ironic that readership of newspaper content in print and online is at an all-time high while the revenues of the US industry are at a 60-year low. We should be focused not on preserving newspapers but on preserving journalism.”

—Paul Gillin, of Newspaper Death Watch

 should tell you that the Joplin Globe has given me the left foot of fellowship.

The beer money I was earning for writing this blog affiliated with the paper proved too much for its finances to bear.* Man, these are hard times when a newspaper the size of the Globe can’t afford to pay a pittance for quality commentary!  Maybe if John McCain had been president, the economy would have blossomed such that the paper could afford my meager wages. Damn, maybe I should have voted for McCain, but the Joplin Globe told me not to.

In any case, as grateful as I am to have had the conservative Globe’s blessing as a liberal blogger, I am now untethered from of our local newspaper, which means that if this blog continues it will do so as a labor of love.  For now, I plan to keep writing through the November election. I began this endeavor just after Obama took office in 2009, and I want to keep at it at least until voters have their say on his presidency.

And besides that, I have some scores to settle with a couple of (now former) conservative Globe bloggers, which I will hopefully get to in time.

As for changes, the only thing I can foresee now is that I won’t be so concerned about profanity. Regular readers who don’t appreciate cursing and coarse talk are now forewarned that I will no longer censor some of the language that most people—even religious people!—use  in everyday life.

I once audited a class out at the local ultra-conservative Christian college where a very capable Greek teacher held an enlightening discussion about profanity. He (unwittingly) convinced me that we make way too much of such words, and give them too much power over us.

William F. Buckley, whose writings I have read with great care and enthusiasm (as a conservative) and with great care and dismay (as a liberal), sometimes used words that stuffy folks considered profane and sacrilegious. He defended such use on the grounds that some words perform a function peculiar to those words and that a writer ought to use all of the resources of the language. On that I still agree with Buckley.

Finally, this would be a good time to thank all of the faithful readers of this blog. The readership has grown steadily since I moved to WordPress in September of 2009, and I appreciate your time and attention.

______________________________

*Most of the Globe blogs were on WordPress and thus readers could avoid going to the Joplin Globe website to read them. And since most readers bookmarked my site and did not go through the Globe (only about 3% of the traffic came from the link on its site), the paper’s management likely reasoned that they weren’t benefiting from my readership. The most obvious solution for the paper, if it wants to be a complete player in the digital age, would be to develop its own blogging platform.

46 Comments

  1. The demise of our diminutive stipend is indeed regrettable. Looking back, I am surprised at the effect such a small sum had on my own behavior. It is of course the same marginal effect that Maslow talked about.

    I’m glad to hear you are continuing, Duane. I can’t imagine you not doing so. But I am a little concerned about your expressed inclination to become more forceful and profane. In my opinion the strength of your writing is in your ability to project clear reasoning and I think being more profane, or even using larger font or all caps for that matter, would diminish the quality of your product.

    In thinking about this I searched and found an old web post that discusses the same matter. I offer it as food for thought.

    Be well, my friend. Have a beer.

    Like

    • Jim,

      Maslow, indeed.

      As for the profanity, I was referring mostly to the comment section. I had to delete folks’ curse words from time to time and I didn’t like doing that. Those words, as I said, have too much power over us and I hate to participate in that game.

      But I don’t plan on using, beyond mild profanity for emphasis, any F-bombs or things like that in my writing, unless they are quotes from others. The piece you referenced is, indeed, food for thought, and it is in the context that that writer uses extreme profanity (explaining the misuse of the words required him to use the words, is what I mean) that serves as an example of how I intend to use my new freedom.

      Thanks, though, for asking about that because I can now see that I didn’t make it clear what I meant.

      And have a beer I will do!

      Duane

      Like

  2. ansonburlingame

     /  April 30, 2012

    Leave it to Beaver (progressives),

    To complain about the loss of “beer money”. I estimate (roughly) that paying a “small stipend” for some of these blogs cost the Globe around $500 (or more) a month plus whatever cost was associated with maintaining the web page as well.

    They supposedly were not receiving any return on such investment. Thus to me it is a legitimate business decision. Sure I accepted my small stipend, when offered, but said then that I would continue to blog for free any time.

    Blogging is a new form of politidcal engagement in this Information Age and I believe it makes some differences in such debates. It at least “opens” them up to longer replys (as opposed to a Letter to the Editor).

    As well, I look forward to the fulfillment of the not so veiled threat (“I have some scores to settle with a couple of (now former) conservative Globe bloggers, which I will hopefully get to in time.”)

    I would assume that replies to such will not be “censored” or “banned”. Let’r rip and I will do the same right here in River City.

    Anson

    Like

    • AB, I believe Mr. Graham was being sarcastic about beer money and I think you know that. I am glad that you offer opposing views from time to time, but not this time. By the way, what the hell is River City? Nothing qualifies as a river in Joplin.

      Kabe

      Like

    • By the way, have you taken down your mail box yet?

      Kabe

      Like

  3. As long as you both keep blogging (no more of that ’till Nov’ talk Duane, please!) . . . if 3% of readers were coming through the Globe portal, then that means 97% come here for you.

    As for the cussin? Let ‘er rip. I don’t think, Jim, it would diminish the power of Duane’s arguments; they’re well grounded and thoughtful. As a fan of the occassional profanity myself (Buckley was right), I look forward to inventive uses.

    Like

    • Moe,

      Thanks so much. As for the cussin’ I seem to have run into some opposition on that one. But I am what I am and I can’t pretend I don’t use the naughty words from time to time. I don’t see why good writing can’t utilize the one thing that is common about us in terms of our language: from rednecks to Wall Street sophisticates most everyone uses profanity.

      The key, as you pointed out, is the “occasional” use of it. As I told Helen, the words would lose their effectiveness if they were inserted frequently and gratuitously.

      Thanks for the encouragement, Moe. I also enjoy your site (and thanks for that tip about the global warming blog you mentioned sometime back; that guy is fantastic).

      Duane

      Like

  4. Duane,

    Reading this, earlier today, made me sad. Never been to Missouri and don’t remember how I first found your blog, but I like what you say and how you say it. Your observations on the passing scene surely make Joplin a more thoughtful place.
    Also sad because, like your buddy Jim, I misinterpreted your forewarning.
    I’m glad I came back and took another look, and saw your response to Jim. Because the “cursing and coarse talk” would probably run me off, and I’d miss some good writing. And I was puzzled as to why someone with such a discerning grasp of the nuances of language would consider cutting the quality.
    I hope you’ll continue your labor of love, your quality commentary, for a very long time, ’cause the stuffy folks like me, and the more urbane and sophisticated, and the dissenters who, well, who dissent, have found a gathering place here.

    Helen

    Like

    • Helen,

      I appreciate very much your thoughtfulness. And by the way, you may not want to read my response to Anson, if bad words are not your cup of tea. Anson and I have a history and he deserves the rough treatment, if you had followed that history.

      As I noted about Buckley, sometimes there are only certain words that do the trick when you are making a point. Buckley, indisputably a first-class thinker and writer (although one needs a dictionary to get everything) had a habit of using the GD word and he did so because of the effect that word had in context. It has nothing to do with God or with moral sensibilities; it has to do with the use of language as a tool to communicate. And sometimes, as my comment to Anson demonstrates, profanity packs a punch that other language just wouldn’t pack in a short-form situation like this one.

      In this comment section, I want people to be who they are and in my experience most people use bad words when they talk among friends or when they get angry. I have been around church folks most of my life and I can tell you that bad language is not exclusive to the non-churched. And the truth is, Helen, that we are only talking about words and fighting with words is much more civilized that fighting with guns or knives.

      Having said that, I don’t plan on dropping F bombs on folks or any of that nonsense. The only reason profanity can be an effective tool in writing is because of its rarity. One shouldn’t use it to profusely. But there will be occasions where, like anyone else, I get angry and want to communicate it as clearly as possible. The case of Anson in this section is one example. When someone keeps telling a lie about you it just doesn’t seem appropriate to say, Oh, will you please stop it?

      In any case, I hope I didn’t offend you and I hope you keep participating. I have enjoyed your comments so much over the last several months that I would hate to lose you as a reader.

      Thanks again,

      Duane

      Like

  5. ansonburlingame

     /  May 1, 2012

    To all,

    Helen got it right, in my view in describing this blog site a “gathering place”. Might I add a public gathering place, sort of like Hyde Park in London.

    Duane is probably the clearest voice for progressives in Joplin. Maybe “clearest” is not the right word. Perhaps “polemical”, Duane’s own word refering to himself, is more apt. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with such either. Again Let’r Rip has always been my call.

    As for Kabe, I believe Duane was VERY ClEAR when he indicated an intenet to “settle some scores” and I seriously doubt it was hyperbole. He has every right to “settle” anything he likes as long as rebutatls can stand as well.

    As for profanity, again, Let’r rip at least to a degree. Duane told me to “shove it up my ass” not long ago and then went into an ignore mode. That was to me a very CLEAR statement of how he felt and was appropriately used in that way.

    I doubt that either of us will resort to gutter talk and he may simply continue to ignore as well. I for sure will not try to write to inflame, but writing “heck” when I really mean something a little stronger, well it has been a little frustrating to do so since our arguements over “new standards” several months ago.

    The only “test” that I look forward to seeing the results is if Duane again resorts to “banning”, “censorship” or actually changing words written by others (I know of at least one case where he did that) in rebutal to his views.

    Anson

    Like

    • Anson,

      I will break my ignore-you rule and tell you that you don’t have a goddamn idea what you are talking about when you say I changed the “words written by others.” That is a lie. As I have tried to tell you before when you pulled this shit, what I did–and I said I was doing it at the time–was change a link that your Berlin buddy Geoff Caldwell tried to post here in order to get traffic to his miserable blog. For fun, I changed his link to a link to the Obama campaign and was very clear to any readers who bothered to read his dreadful prose that I was doing it. It wasn’t a secret and no words were changed. I wasn’t going to allow him to promote his Obama-hate on my blog and that still holds true.

      You see, this is your problem. You come on here and write bullshit like that and expect me to keep publishing it. I won’t do it. If you are going to post on here you are at least going to stop lying about what happened in the past as regards these blogs.

      And I will have exactly no problem censoring your ass if you keep it up. Got it?

      Duane

      Like

      • No Duane you changed the context of the comment as well.

        Like

        • No Geoff, you are a goddamn liar. I changed nothing but the link. Please prove what you are saying or off you go.

          Duane

          Like

          • Food fight! Yeah! (feeling frisky today)

            Like

          • I’ll no longer waste my time. You’re no longer sponsored by the Globe and that’s good enough for me. You are what you are and no I’m not a “G..damn” liar. (The G in your comment should be capitalized by the way.)
            And don’t worry, now that you’re off, and no longer sullying the rest I’m off as well. Nonny Moose was right all along.
            Have fun with your little hate fest.

            Like

            • Geoff,

              Two things before you “self-deport”:

              1. I noticed that you didn’t bother to prove what you asserted.

              2. You even got the rule for the capitalization of goddamn wrong. (And how charming that you can spew all kinds of un-Christian hate on the Internet but you refuse to spell out goddamn.)

              Like

              • I don’t need to prove anything, you’ve lied so many times on other stuff. Besides it’s your blog and you’re the one who scrubbed it!

                Like

                • Of course you “don’t need to prove anything,” Geoff. In your right-wing world evidence isn’t necessary when you can slander someone without it.

                  But just for fun let’s look at the interesting (in terms of what it reveals about your psychology) construction of your defense:

                  I don’t need to prove anything…” Why? Because, “you’ve lied so many times on other stuff.” Hmm. That appears to me to be an admission that you have been caught.

                  And by the way, what happened to the Romney-blessed self-deportation you were about to engineer?

                  Like

    • AB, How did I end up in this? Please check what I said.

      Kabe (not to be confused with Gabe)

      Like

  6. Ah yes, the truth in news publishing, too bad some of the crooks who profited from the Joplin tornado were never outed. Perhaps this was due to the fact that the Joplin Globe gave them extra special news coverage, so that we the honest news seeking populace would never klnow the truth.

    How would you feel if your children and your bereaved family members were used by a certain organization in Joplin that received millions in tax-payer funds to secretely study, observe, and write individual assessments without consent?

    Would you feel any worse if you discovered that the “counselors” doing this were just college kids and friends of the Human Resource woman, who had no college degrees or certification as a mental health worker to begin with?

    Ah yes, the irony of lies and deceit, just proves that the news we read and see and hear is never what we had hoped it would be – the truth!

    Like

  7. Duane – that so many of these comments focus on your statement about freedom to now use the occassional profanity (as appropriate) seems the proof of the power of that use.

    Changing a link to an Obama site? Wicked funny, sorry I missed that one.

    Like

    • Exactly right about the power of profanity, when used correctly.

      Geoff Caldwell was a conservative blogger attached to the Globe whose professional jealousy of me was so robust it caused him to say stupid things, some of which got him into trouble on this site.

      He lied about me, slandered me, and wasted my time, and after awhile I refused to put up with his bullshit and banned him. When I allowed him back on last year, he started it up again and tried posting links to his own blog on mine. Since I’m not in the habit of promoting Obama-hate, particularly poorly-written Obama-hate, for fun I changed one link he provided to a link to the Obama campaign.

      Needless to say, he didn’t like that, but I noted it at the time and it was clear what I was doing. I didn’t change a word of the tripe he wrote.

      Duane

      Like

      • You allowed nothing. You were forced to abide by Globe comment standards if you were to continue to enjoy the pay and promotion of the Globe.
        Man, you are quite a piece aren’t you.
        And as for the “jealousy” please, your dwainbwain is showing.

        Like

        • You know, Geoff, I’m glad you brought up that episode with Carol Stark the editor of the Joplin Globe. I banned your sorry ass for quite a while, as I recall, and you couldn’t stand not being a part of the discussion going on here (since very few read your own blog and for damn good reason). But you managed to whine to Carol long enough that she asked me–asked me, Geoff–to put you back on. I can tell you that if she had “forced” me to put you back on it wouldn’t have happened. That’s just the way I’m built, my man. And after I told her I would think about it, I did. And I later decided not to put her in the untenable position of having bloggers in her employ banning each other from commenting. That’s it, Geoff. There was no forcing me to do anything.

          Now, about that jealousy…

          You can self-deport anytime, Geoffro

          Like

  8. ansonburlingame

     /  May 1, 2012

    To all,

    Funny, mildlly profane, polemical, etc. are all fine with me. But Duane slings around the LIE word all the time as well. Now he accuses me of outright LYING in my accusation that at least once he changed the words in a comment. I thus sought help to refresh my memory of that exhange, most of it in private. Geoff, above briefly restates that Duane in fact changed the intended purpose of the content of a comment written by Geof and then posted on this site.

    Unfortunately, I have not found the old emails and blog comments that transpired months ago. But I have NEVER LIED about what I was told or what I read.

    Did Geoff post a comment to this site that was subsequently changed by Duane, without indicating at the time the he had replaced GEOFF:S words with his, Duane’s prefered words or “link”.

    That was the nature of the events as I recall and such changes are “just not right” for anyone to do in a public exhchange, in my view. Changing gthe content of the written word is even more despicable than censoring the whole comment, again in my view.

    In this particular instance, long ago now, I “reported” what I had read and heard. I did not LIE and I remain confident that what I reported and restated above are an accurate depiction of what happened, to be BEST of my knowledge.

    Duane accuses most conservative of LYING all the time. It really doesn’t upset me all that much. Rather it simply shows a writer “sputtering” in a polictical argument and is a “school yard” tactic for political debate. Cherry pick, spin, “shape an argument”, etc is done all the time by politicians and their supporters.

    But yes Duane I “received” your last comment above “GOD it”. I assume that was a slip of the keyboard an you meant GOT it.

    But then, “I’m Not Sure, Are You?” You ususally write as if you in fact knew the truth of “GOD” in promoting your views! I as well have never, that I recall accused you of lying when you do so.

    Anson

    Like

    • No, Anson, you don’t just get to assert something as true and then when someone calls you on it claim that what you said is true to the “BEST” of your knowledge. That’s the oldest dodge in the world.

      You claimed I changed the words written by others, a slander at which I take great offense.  This isn’t just a misstatement of my position on some policy matter, something you have done with regularity. You are actually impugning my character and my integrity as a moderator of this blog.

      You originally said,

      The only “test” that I look forward to seeing the results is if Duane again resorts to “banning”, “censorship” or actually changing words written by others (I know of at least one case where he did that) in rebutal [sic] to his views.

      That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? And what you said is either true or it is not. I happen to know it is not because I am the one who changed the link, not the words.  I am glad that you and Geoff have conspired to try to prove me wrong, but guess what? You haven’t. Know why? Because I’m not wrong and you and he are.

      And the reason I call what you claim a lie is because I had to correct you (and Geoff) on this one before. I am willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt until they are corrected. After that, if you persist on saying it, it is a lie as far as I’m concerned.

      Now, if you have any evidence that I in fact changed Geoff’s words—or anyone’s words for that matter—then bring it on. Until then, as I said before, if you again insist that I did then off you go.  I don’t mind allowing your commentary on my blog’s comment section, Anson, but you are not going to use my own blog to slander me.

      Again, got it?

      Duane

      Like

  9. Duane, I guess you’re not the only one let loose of the Globe rules . . . Mr. Gabe is letting it all spill. And Gabe, I do notice that you engage (at least here, in this thread) in attack, not dialogue.

    As a long time reader, my observation is that this has always been a polite and civil place.

    Like

    • ansonburlingame

       /  May 1, 2012

      Moe,

      I am looking for “Mr Gabe” but see him not here within. Hmmmm! More censorship or just “cleaning things up” I wonder.

      Anson

      Like

      • Duane didn’t disappear anyone anson, I misread Geoff as Gabe, because I know a ‘Gabe’ Caldwell.

        Like

        • Moe,

          Thanks for starting yet another local conspiracy!

          Duane

          Like

        • ansonburlingame

           /  May 2, 2012

          Moe,

          thanks for the clarification. I actually thought you meant “Kabe” whom I did not see “cutting loose”.

          Anson

          Like

  10. ansonburlingame

     /  May 1, 2012

    Well,

    I have NOW seen the actually posts in dispute, dredged up by Geoff, from the past and they came straight from this blog. He posted them herein, or so he says, but I see them not herein.

    I wonder why?

    I won’t bother with trying to “sneak them in” with my own comments. I will only say that he shows the evidence requested by Duane, or so it sure seems to me.

    But link by link, word for word, Geoff sent me the posts. But he could of course have just “doctored” what he sent me as I well I suppose or at least be accussed of doing so.

    As for your character Duane, you show it frequently for all readers to consider. Some like it, others don’t which is about as political as it can get. When you accuse me of LYING that is a character assination as well, but go ahead. You are wrong in such an accusation but so what.

    When I write I try to express my views of what is the next right steps for America,whether it meets with your approval or not. You want to resort to name calling, go ahead as well. Sputter all you like.

    Anson

    Like

    • Thanks for bringing it to my attention that Geoff’s comment was hung up in the spam queue (it had multiple links). I can now officially and finally declare what you said “a lie.”

      Geoff saved me the trouble of digging up what I already knew to be true, and I won’t bother to post the entire thing since it is mostly irrelevant, but before I post the relevant part, let’s recap what you claimed:

      The only “test” that I look forward to seeing the results is if Duane again resorts to “banning”, “censorship” or actually changing words written by others (I know of at least one case where he did that) in rebutal [sic] to his views.

      You said you “know at least one case” where I actually changed “words written by others.” Clear enough? You said you knew something. Knew something. You claimed to have knowledge that I changed “words written by others.” Words, Anson. You were suggesting that I altered what someone had written as a rebuttal to my views. That is what you claimed.

      Now, let’s look at what I actually did and how it actually appeared online. First, the comment from Geoff, which contained my contemporaneous explanation of what I did:

      Geoff Caldwell Says:
      December 29, 2011 at 8:29 pm | Reply

      And I’m sure since you won’t publish my response to your post, you won’t publish this either but it’s all out in the open over at:

      [From TEC: This writer is trying to garner attention for his pedestrian prose and will simply have to find another way; in lieu of the link he provided, I will provide a better one:http://www.barackobama.com/obama-for-america-2012-campaign?source=OM2012_LB_G_Obama2012-search_bo-website_d1h&gclid=CJ3k_syMqa0CFQhjhwod8Dbr8w

      Clearly I did not alter any of his words, only the link to his crappy blog that he was trying to post here so as to get attention. (And by the way, his opening statement, in which he said I wouldn’t publish his other response, was false, too. Just like his comment today, it got caught in the spam queue because of the many links in it.)

      Second, even Geoff didn’t accuse me at the time of “changing” his words. I published a response he made to my substituting the Obama link for his:

      Geoff Caldwell Says:
      December 30, 2011 at 5:58 pm | Reply

      So now you not only censor but hijack my posts and insert what you want?

      You see, Anson? Even your Berlin buddy didn’t accuse me (until later, as I recall) of changing his words. You know, why? Because he knew I didn’t change them, that’s why.

      So, there it is. I not only admitted today that I changed the link, I admitted it when I did it! That’s the only reason I published his comment (which contained a falsehood) in the first place! I was having some fun!

      And what fun it has been.

      Duane

      Like

      • You conveniently ignore the broken thread between Anson’s comment and mine where you changed the link. There was more that you deleted hence why my comment is out of sync.
        Notice it is a “reply” to Anson yet it says “Since you won’t publish my response…….”
        Now WHY in the world would I be responding to Anson for not publishing when it’s YOUR blog?
        All I have left is the doctored thread after you deleted the other parts.
        I have been posting to the internet since it’s inception and NEVER had anyone changed a comment or a thread written by someone else so it didn’t occur to me that anyone could stoop so low.
        But as usual, you Dwain, set the bar again.
        The only question left is whether this post stays up uncensored for the readers to see the rest of the story you won’t tell.

        Like

        • You just can’t go away can you, Geoffro? So much for the Romney concept of self-deportation. It just doesn’t work very well.

          Your latest dodge here is as phony as the rest of them. There was no doctored thread, except when I sent readers via that changed link to Big O for a little Democratic pep talk. I suppose the last refuge for you is to accuse me of fiddling with the evidence, isn’t it? Pathetic.

          There is no missing comment, Geoff, no deletions, and you know it. Your original post that you accused me of not publishing went directly to the spam queue (honestly, that’s where it belonged) and I didn’t know it did until your little post below.  I explained all that to Carol (remember? you obviously whined about it to her and she asked me about it) at the time and I believe you were copied on that email.

          You clearly were addressing me when you said, “Since you won’t publish my response…” even though you apparently inadvertently directed your reply to Anson, which just shows your carelessness. (Remember way back when, Geoff, when you accidentally commented on my blog when you thought you were on Anson’s? Man, that stuff can happen to anybody, but it sure does happen to you a lot.)

          In any case, I couldn’t care less how long you have been posting your juvenile prose on the Internet (is this a good time to bring up that piece you wrote attacking Chelsea Clinton for being “ugly”?). And I can’t help it if you finally run into someone who won’t put up with your bullying bullshit, Geoff.

          And of course I will leave up your response here because it is so goddamn (small “g” there, big boy) pathetic.  The bottom line is you are now trying to slander me by accusing me of tampering with the thread and you and Anson earlier tried to smear me by suggesting that I changed the words you wrote. And believe me, if anyone ever needed their words changed, it is you. But I’m not giving away writing lessons for free. You’ll have to send cash for that.

          Here is an unaltered screen shot of the sequence, just in case anyone is tempted to give what you say a nickel’s worth of consideration:

          Now, about that self-deportation idea you had. I really want that to work, Geoff, so how about giving it a try?

          Duane

          Like

          • Maybe you should just admit that changing the post at all was kind of a lameass thing to do and you won’t be doing it again. I’m amazed that this platform even allows anyone to edit another person’s comments in any way. That in itself may be a good reason to abandon it.

            Like

            • Look, whoever you are, the lameass thing to do was to accuse me of not posting his hooey (it was caught in the spam queue), and then trying to post a link to his lameass blog and expecting me to just let it go because he had whined to the boss. That’s what Geoff tried to do, then subsequently accused me of “censorship.”

              I don’t really care whether you think it was lameass or not to have a little fun with his post, but the fact remains that I did not change a goddamn word of it.

              And as far as WordPress, there may be a lot of things wrong with it, but allowing the moderator to stop lameasses like Geoff Caldwell from posting whatever the hell they want is not one of them.

              Duane

              Like

              • Keep going Dwain, the holes getting bigger and deeper with each “lameass” excuse you make. When even rawhead sees through it you’re busted.

                Like

            • I’ve got no problem with you stopping lameasses like Geoff from posting comments on your articles. I do, however, see a problem with a system that authenticates commenters with personal logins and ‘signs’ their ‘name’ to their posts yet allows the person whom the comments are directed towards to edit said comments in any way he or she sees fit. It completely undermines the integrity of the system as a whole. How the hell is anyone to know who wrote what when you can edit every damn thing on here?

              I’m all for having fun with dipshits but perhaps deletion of the entire comment would have been the better course of action in this case.

              Oh… I’m Rawhead! Isn’t that identity good enough for you?

              Like

              • Rawhead,

                I will accept your point that “perhaps” I should have simply deleted the comment, but the temptation to substitute the link, I confess, was too great, especially since he had been trying to sneak in links to his blog during “the ban.” It really wasn’t that big a deal to me at the time, just having a little personal fun. But I did recognize that I could not substitute the link without notifying the readers, which I did.

                In any case, your point about the integrity of the system I would assume applies to every platform that enables moderation of comments. I suppose when I read comments on, say, Paul Krugman’s NYT blog I don’t know if they have been altered, since I would guess that once the comments are in the queue they are subject to editing. I guess when it comes down to it I have to trust Paul Krugman.

                All of which leads me to say that doing this blog with a nasty antagonist (and inviting target) like Geoff Caldwell shadowing me perhaps made me too ready to have fun at his expense without considering the point you raised about the integrity of the system. And while I don’t give a damn about pissing off Caldwell (he deserved it and much, much more), the whole thing could be seen as damaging to the integrity of the site. And for that I appreciate your input, whoever you are, Rawhead (!).

                Duane

                Like

  11. Your “screen shot” is as bogus as your claim. It comes only AFTER you edited the thread!
    NOTICE to all you dwainbwains out there: The “link” in question has ALREADY been changed AND the comments that would have been between the Anson comment and mine are gone!
    Why in the world would I state to Anson, about not publishing on a blog that isn’t even HIS?
    Face it D.B. you’ve banned comments, you’ve censored them and you’ve even changed them.
    As the tag line says, the truth IS out there. You can try all you want, the thread break exposes it for what it is a lie that you’ve been caught in and no matter how much you try, it just won’t go away.

    Like

    • Okay, Geffro. This is it. Say goodbye to the only readers you will ever have. But before I let you go, know this:

      You wrote,

      Why in the world would I state to Anson, about not publishing on a blog that isn’t even HIS?

      Why in the world would you do something so dumb? Because that’s who you are, Geoff. You do dumb things. You write dumb things. You think dumb things.

      But since there is no way I can prove I didn’t alter the comments (you got me there; I can’t prove a negative in this case, just like you can’t prove you didn’t send me a comment expressing how much you want to sleep with Anson, both of you decked out in a M1943 uniform ensemble), I will leave you with this email exchange I had with Carol, after you whined to her about something you thought you knew but really didn’t:

      Carol Stark <cstark@joplinglobe.com>Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 6:20 PM
      To: “R. Duane Graham” <grahamzz@cableone.net>

      Duane,

      Did you change Geoff’s comment and insert something different. If so, please change it.

      Thanks,
      Carol

      _______________________________ 
      R. Duane Graham
       <grahamzz@cableone.net>Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 6:06 PM

      To: Carol Stark <cstark@joplinglobe.com>

      Carol,

      Oh, my God. This is ridiculous. What a big bleeping baby Geoff is.  I just get back from Arizona and I find he has been whining again. It is professional jealousy, I tells ya. Either that, or he has a man-crush on me.

      Here’s the deal, just for your information: I did not change a word of Geoff’s comment, but he inserted a link at the end to something he wrote on his own blog that apparently trashed me for something I didn’t even do. Am I required to promote the trashing of myself for something I didn’t do?

      Here is how his comment began:

      And I’m sure since you won’t publish my response to your post, you won’t publish this either but it’s all out in the open over at:

      After the “at” was a link to his blog, which I replaced with one linking to the Obama campaign, telling readers I was doing it, so it was not a secret. It was an obvious joke.  But the reason I did it was because I didn’t have the slightest idea what the hell he was talking about. He said that I wouldn’t “publish” his response.  I have published all of his responses (except the ones that come in with a link to his Dwain Bwain site, which is dedicated to a pitiful, sophomoric trashing of yours truly and which I have not asked you to make him take down) and it wasn’t until today that I figured out what he was referring to.

      The spam filter on WordPress will hold all comments that have multiple links in them. Geoff’s comment, as I found out today, had multiple links and was in the “pending” queue. Since the pending queue is not something I check regularly, it went unnoticed. The next thing I know Geoff is trashing me and wondering why I won’t publish his damn comment. That kind of conclusion-jumping and childish behavior is exactly why I won’t have anything to do with him.  He actually made another Nazi reference on my blog over this whole thing, but apparently it is always okay to call folks Nazis or pussies or idiots (just some of his favorite names for me).

      You have asked me to publish his comments, which I have done. Are you asking me to promote his blog, too?  Am I required to allow him to post links to his blog on mine, including ones that trash me? And if that isn’t enough, will he also whine about my ignoring him? Will I then be required to respond to his comments?

      Duane

      __________________________________

      Goodbye, Geoff. And I suggest you let out the waist in your M1943 field trousers, as you and Anson love your way to Berlin. I want you to be comfortable and not all bound up.

      Duane

      Like

      • (you got me there; I can’t prove a negative in this case, just like you can’t prove you didn’t send me a comment expressing how much you want to sleep with Anson, both of you decked out in a M1943 uniform ensemble)

        I think this is the closest thing to ‘comedy gold’ I’ve seen on here yet.

        Like

  12. ansonburlingame

     /  May 2, 2012

    To all,

    The ONE important matter in this far too long string and debate is the one mentioned by Rawhide above, in my view. It is the INTEGRITY of the “system” of political debate in blogs (and elsewhere).

    No one’s written comments should be changed in any way, period, by someone else. A link, a word, a spelling error, anything, in my view. Comments should stand as written and posted by anyone.

    As for banning and censorship, only in the most extraordinary cases should such take place in any public forum, and I mean really extraordinary. And IF a comment is censored or even “banned” a note should be inserted into the blog string that such action was taken by the “owner” of the blog and the reason why, again in my view.

    Let’s see. I am now a liar and Rawhead is a lameass, according to Duane. But thus far our comments still appear, as they should.

    Now if I and/or Rawhead simply “disappear” from this blog comment section, who would know the reason why?

    Well if you want to only read progressive views, fine, just read such and don’t be tainted by any dissent. Hitler liked it that way for sure as did many others that wanted to control political debate. But that has not been the traditional form of political debate in America and I hope it does not come to that, here or anywhere else in a public forum.

    It all boils down to free speech in my view and speech is not “free” if some “owner” has the gall to change it., which Duane in this one incident admitted that he did, change a link, for whatever reason. To me it is really that simple.

    Anson

    Like

  13. Well, your blog certainly hasn’t gotten duller.

    A little rough language is OK, just don’t overuse it.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: