Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    May 4, 2007
    Question for REGULAR Olbermann Watch readers

    This post is NOT addressed to folks who just happened to stop by but those who consider themselves regular Olbermann Watch readers. If you are a regular reader please click the MORE link and join the discussion in the comments thread.

    If you are reading this then you are identifying yourself as a REGULAR Olbermann Watch reader and so I want to hear from you.

    I recently mentioned that some "blocking" software at schools and businesses is blocking Olbermann Watch. I suspect this is because in having a free and open comment policy we have allowed ANY sort of language on the site and given the nature of OlbyLoons and far-left trolls, this has resulted in a good deal of "bad" words being on the site.

    I am not sure whether it is possible to do a massive FIND/REPLACE to cull through the database and clean up the "bad" words but if it is possible then I propose to undertake that effort.

    That issue got me thinking about some of the trolls on Olbermann Watch. They have always come and gone and it is always best to just deal with trolls by ignoring them. As they realize they are being ignored the motivation to post - getting a rise out of others - diminishes and they move on to some other place where they can display their pathological need for attention and validation for their pathetic lives.

    It is possible using the Movable Type software to block IP addresses and there are ways to use black lists and white lists and some other new features of the software to discourage trolling, the use of bad language and other unwanted behavior. I have tested comment moderation options but was never happy with them - and the MT TypeKey thing is a pathetic joke. None of it is bulletproof and a motivated spammer or troll can always find ways to get to a site that is otherwise "open" as is the case with Olbermann Watch. At the same time, putting up various hurdles combined with a general "do not feed the trolls" agreement among regular readers can reduce (not eliminate) bad behavior.

    My primary interest is to have as much discussion and debate as possible. I am NOT interested in suppressing liberal or Pro-KO or anti-GOP/Bush points of view. One of the things I personally enjoy the most on Olbermann Watch is reading the comments and those comments would be pretty dull if you had to pass some litmus test in order to comment. Further, there are enough times when the comment threads really click that the wide open policy justifies itself.

    My concern is that things may be out of balance. That by allowing people who exhibit bad behavior or use objectionable language to keep posting comments we DO get new comments generated which APPEARS to increase the activity of the site. My concern is always about the dogs that are not barking. How many readers DO NOT comment or who are otherwise driven away from the site because of a few bad apples.

    What say you, good readers of Olbermann Watch?


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (104) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    104 Comments

    I, for one, would like to see a little more moderator involvement (you would need to state your commenting policy clearly and specifically up front)... I come to this site because of you and J$ and would trust your judgement in moderating the comments area.

    I'm one of those who would post comments more often and visit the comments section more often, but get turned off by the indecency (from both sides of the political spectrum) of some of the posters. I do my best to ignore them, but often it's just better to not visit (if you know what I mean :-)).

    I, for one, love the lively debate. I would hate for OW to become an echo chamber. Maybe a link to "report inappropriate behavior" would be in order. That way, the moderator would be notified if an inappropriate comment had been posted and could, theoretically, take appropriate action if enough commenters (ie. 5 or more) felt it was over the line.

    I like the do not feed the trolls idea which I really have not seen utilized that often here. When you cut off Rudy Ramirez, that was very effective. I think Rudy had fair warning what was coming down. What about some kind of warning before blocking (for language or other bad behavior)? It is pretty obvious when someone starts crossing the line. I for one am very guilty of straying from the theme of OW, that is Olbermann himself. Mike seems to think that anything goes because any political topic indirectly involves Olbermann; maybe you agree? That doesn't seem to be your concern but I don't know.

    Robert, in regards to the "trolls" the only one that is annoying on a regular basis is AAP. There is another poster who is nothing but an argumentative, self-righteous jerk. These 2 know exacty what they are doing, disrupting a normally decent discussion board. There are a couple others, but, I think they are the same people using different names as you probably already know. The one's that post the same old crap over and over again (bushwipe, etc.) should be blocked for good. In regards to going back and "cleaning" up the board, why would you care if people that are at work, who are supposed to be working are being blocked? They are at work to work, not screw around!

    I'm a lurker, not a poster, who doesn't care for the objectionable remarks but would never allow them to dissuade me.

    [comment deleted for precisely the reasons cited above]

    The important thing is to NOT suppress anyone from giving their opposite views on OW. What I hate most about sites like OLBERMANN.ORG is that they do not want and cannot take any criticisms and will block anyone that keeps doing this. To me, it's boring as hell to always be bombarded with the SAME viewpoint which is probably the reason that the Hour Of Spin cannot appeal to the general masses. It only appeals to far left nuts who hate the President and it NEVER has any opposing views. I'm not a Matthews fan either but at least he does have people from the opposite party on.

    So please don't block anyone, even those wacko OLBYLOONS from OO who are so infatuated with a poor Steve Allen lookalike!

    I'm for free commenting even from trolls, up to a point. I have no quarrel witih the parameters you have set so far.

    An example of the type of troll who should be tolerated is Average American Patriot, who is chiefly here to annoy others, but who doesn't really want to disrupt discussion.

    An example of a troll who was rightfully banished is Riverdog, who would have filled the entire blog with ten mile long obscene rants in capital letters.

    I'm not so sure about bad language. If it's causing the site to be blocked then it would be best if it stopped, but since I don't know the work involved in policing it, I have no comment, other than that it isn't worth a great amount of effort.

    As to your concern about some people being driven off by the behavior of a few, Bob, I think we've seen that this type is generally the sort of person, pro or con Olbermann, who will ALWAYS be offended and will ALWAYS be whining, not just about idiotic trolls, but about some daily insensitive outrage that someone has typed, and they'll inevitably huff out and slam the door behind them eventually, no matter your efforts to appease them.

    I just don't see where any of the benefits of getting rid of a few idiots is worth the work involved or worth squelching speech.

    Royal,

    The blocking software that I am concerned about is not MEANT to block a site like Olbermann Watch. It is intended to block people from visiting porn web sites, accessing sites that use up a lot of corporate bandwidth (e.g., YouTube), etc. That software can be used anywhere - home, work, school, public libraries, internet cafes, etc. The use of the F-word or the C-Word on OW may well cause the site to be flagged as a potential porn site.

    So, my concern is not encouraging or discouraging people from doing their job while they are at work but whether or not Olbermann Watch ended up on various black lists. That some folks report that they cannot access the site from their office tells me we are ending up on some black lists for some blocking software. Once we are on black lists then NO ONE can access OW from any location where that software is being used whether that be work, school home or public space. You are also forgetting that are people who access Olbermann Watch AS PART OF their job.

    Sharon, I find it interesting that you felt a need to bring up my name in this thread because I supposedly think 'anything goes' politically....yet I don't see where you have been particularly focused on Olbermann yourself.

    I think Bob IS correct to be concerned about bad language although he is wrong about one thing...it is NOT just coming from the left.

    Also, Brindrat is 100% correct about 'Royalking'. He is the only consistant troll on this site, and his sole mission seems to be to incite incivility and name calling on this blog whenever he can, even when he has to insert himself into otherwise civil discussions in order to do so.

    I don't know how you are going to get people to stop bickering like naughty six year olds. I don't know if you want that, really, it seems to be "the base." But if you wanted to have a serious site, perhaps the first step would be not to have the summary basically indulge in and thus encourage childish bickering and name-calling itself.

    The real problem with the content here is that there isn't much, and idle hands are the devil's plaything. If the three or four intelligent OW people would actually participate instead of relying on Cecelia for everything, the problem would solve itself.

    Cox,

    No bad language in my post...just facts. You know who the trolls are. You simply want opposing viewpoints, especially those who back up their facts, off of your board...

    The real problem with the content here is that there isn't much, and idle hands are the devil's plaything. If the three or four intelligent OW people would actually participate instead of relying on Cecelia for everything, the problem would solve itself.

    Posted by: VOK at May 4, 2007 1:05 PM


    Hey, I'm here for everyone, Vok. That's just my generous nature...

    Cecelia,

    I think you might misunderstand my concern. I am not trying to "appease" anyone who expresses their concerns. I am thinking of, to borrow a phrase, the "Silent Majority".

    My concern about people being "driven off by the behavior of a few" is not about those who ARE engaged in debate in the comment threads but by those who are not. That is why I used the term "dogs not barking" -all visitors to the site read the posts, some lurk in the comments thread, some may leave because they are not happy with tone/content issues in the comments. These folks do not slam doors or go off in a huff - they just leave.

    There is no good way to get a handle on this which is why I say it is a question I have been mulling over not something I have a definitive answer to at this point but let me clear that I am talking about visitors to the site who NEVER comment. What I am trying to sort out is whether cutting out a few folks who generate a lot of comments (their own plus reaction to their comments) would result in more or less activity in the threads. In the short run, I would expect the activity to decrease. I am wondering what would happen in the long run.

    There is no good way to get a handle on this which is why I say it is a question I have been mulling over not something I have a definitive answer to at this point but let me clear that I am talking about visitors to the site who NEVER comment. What I am trying to sort out is whether cutting out a few folks who generate a lot of comments (their own plus reaction to their comments) would result in more or less activity in the threads. In the short run, I would expect the activity to decrease. I am wondering what would happen in the long run.

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 4, 2007 1:12 PM


    Bob, have you gotten feedback from many thoughful lurkers saying that the only things stopping their responding to intriquing posts or subjects are shouts of "Bush Supporters!!" and the flame wars?

    Bob,

    May I ask if Johnny's absence has anything to do with his being unhappy about this situation?

    If that's the case, lay down as many boundaries as he wishes! Just get him back!

    Bob, I would very much appreciate if you devoted more time to this commendable endeavor.

    I'd like this site to be like Johnny $'s, where mere pointing out of a lame thread and suggestion of a more interesting topic gets your post deleted.

    "Post deleted by site owner. Off Topic."


    Sorry I forgot one thing.

    Whatever you do, *do not get rid of BovineQueen* :D

    I've been reading OW for a little over a year I think. I enjoy the comments especially from the olbyloons and especially when they wax elequent with colorful language. It would be unfortunate to lose that unbridled humor.

    Joe

    Robert, I have recently used some bad language (as a anon) and will refrain in the future. I do feel that the KKK link, picture & thread are also a problem besides the bad language. They are a terrible HATE group and do not help to legitimize OW in any way. I was embarrassed when you had that thread, and got me to examine why do I comment here. Yes there is a certain "hobby" aspect, it is fun and what Paul said earlier, the other KO boards are boring & fawning. Even though I said I would not be back, I guess I am just addicted, but I would feel uncomfortable telling other people to come to this site because of the KKK thread (and potential future KKK threads). I know you think it is only bad language, but I think you should consider HATE groups off limits here as well.

    blindrat,

    I deleted your comment because you were taking the subject away from what I raised in my post. I do not want to get bogged down in personalities, accusations and recriminations with specific people but just sort out what will result in expanding the discussion on the site. I am not looking to "get rid" of anyone. Just determining whether we should have some policies, what ought to inform the creation of those policies and how those might be enforced if we did have them and what results might flow from that.

    As I said, I am certainly not interested in preventing a clash of viewpoints. No one could seriously advance the idea that I am not willing to have opinions I do not agree with added to the site since I leave up some pretty nasty attacks on ME. If someone told me that by enacting and enforcing certain policies we would lose a dozen regular commenters but gain five dozen more then the choice is obvious. In other words, my concern is that in being so laissez-faire perhaps I am getting the opposite result from what I intend - more people engaged in discussing all things Keith Olbermann.

    A prime example-1:39 PM.

    Cox,

    I've got no problem with your having standards of style. I simply have my doubts that you would be fair...

    Hopefully, I am wrong...

    Bob,

    I see your point now about being on a list for a porn site. I don't mind anyone opposing my point of view and don't think speech should be squelched but if OW is being blacklisted, that is a concern.

    **Sharon, I find it interesting that you felt a need to bring up my name in this thread because I supposedly think 'anything goes' politically....yet I don't see where you have been particularly focused on Olbermann yourself.

    Here is what I said, Mike, admitting my guilt:
    I for one am very guilty of straying from the theme of OW, that is Olbermann himself. (posted by me)

    I asked Bob if he thought it was acceptable to stray off topic, but now I see the purpose of his post. Sorry, Bob, to waste space for clarification.

    Oh, Bovine!

    Shut up!

    I'm trying to place you in the endangered species list to protect you and off you come like the ugly varmint that you are.

    My vote is for a "report inapproproate behavior" link with clear parameters of what is not wanted in posts at OW.

    "Sharon, I find it interesting that you felt a need to bring up my name in this thread because I supposedly think 'anything goes' politically....yet I don't see where you have been particularly focused on Olbermann yourself."


    Another prime example. Argue, argue. Whaa, Whaa. Think before you post, PLEASE!

    Bob,

    You stated:

    ". . .I intend - more people engaged in discussing all things Keith Olbermann."

    This tells me that if people are using inappropriate language (that would likely result in being tagged a porn site) having nothing to do with Olbermann, they should be banned. What would be the purpose of allowing the response?

    I guess the real question is whether stricter standards of discourse would result in more traffic for OW or less traffic for OW.

    That is the issue, right?

    The issue certainly isn't offending someone's delicate sensibilities.

    I say 'Let Freedom Ring'

    After all, you didn't become the #1 Keith Olbermann Blog in the world by accident, right?

    In these, the last days, I find it odd that this is a topic of concern. I find almost on a daily basis in dealing with the public that "the words", used passively or with hateful intent, are the norm for a large sector of our society. They speak like this to one another in a family setting. The latest example was last night at a 9 year olds baseball game.... this kid called his mother a "bitch" in front of everyone, and she did nothing. My thought....your site, your rules no problem here.

    If the main concern is regarding OW getting "blocked" because of profanity, and there are some computer programs to remedy that, I say go for it.

    The rhymes are generally clean
    But there's humor in the obscene
    I'd say use common sense
    But most moonbats are dense
    They behave like your average pre-teen

    Block anyone who uses bad 4 letter words and racial slurs. That should be enough.

    To the Olbyloons and Olbyhaters,
    Let's all call for a cease fire.
    Let's disagree and be civil about it.
    No cursing just let's express our viewpoints.
    How about it?

    Bite me, Joker.

    I agree with the do not feed the trolls theory. I do my best to ignore the over top statements and reply only to the more sane arguments. If the out of line trolls are ignored, they'll clean up their act or go elsewhere. By the way, I love the site.

    [comment deleted for precisely the reasons cited above]
    Posted by: blindrat at May 4, 2007 12:33 PM

    Have we already changed the rules without a formal declaration and before all the votes have been counted?

    Before today, I've never seen:

    [comment deleted for precisely the reasons cited above]

    And how is:

    "Mike seems to think that anything goes because any political topic indirectly involves Olbermann; maybe you agree?"

    Not:

    "getting bogged down in personalities, accusations and recriminations with specific people but just sort out what will result in expanding the discussion on the site."

    Apparently expecting Cox to be fair to anyone who isn't a member of the choir is too much to ask.

    Suuuuuuuuure you want libs, mods, and indys to post, as long as it supports what you already think you know.

    Ultimately you can do what you want (just like Olbermann).

    But expect to be judged (just like Olbermann).

    I think the differences that separate you two are a lot smaller than either one of you think.

    And, oddly, I know you'll take that as a compliment..

    I say let the Olberdouche people have their say. No matter, Olberdouche will always be a, well . . . douchebag.

    Cecelia asked "May I ask if Johnny's absence has anything to do with his being unhappy about this situation?"

    I had mentioned this already. J$ has been in the processing of moving. While that was going on Ed agreed to fill in and I pitched in as well. J$ may be back tonight but at the very least Monday.

    I think a good idea would be to install software that censors swear words. The f-word will appear as *bleep* or something like that. We could also allow a "notify moderator" option like they do on many websites such as IMDB. Violators should get a warning, and if they don't stop, their ip address should be blocked. We should also block certified trolls like that one guy who does nothing but post "Bush Supporters" over and over and over again. I think with a few improvements here and there, this board will become more enjoyable, and, most importantly , viewable from schools, libraries, and businesses.

    I'm with JohnE. I love this site and visit often. Well, at least once a day. But I rarely post and rarely read the comments sections because of the types of comments and the constant personal attacks that contribute nothing to anything. These comments come from both sides and the middle.

    Yes, Bob.

    Please do install the anti-profanity software.
    And do include in the filter the following:

    "Real Reagan Republican"
    "Real Reagan Repub"
    "Real Reagan Pubbies"

    AND

    "REAL REAGAN BU$HWIPE" or its shorthand "RRB$"

    oh, oh, oh... I almost forgot. Also include in the filter the words:

    "Bovine"
    "BovineQueen" and
    "royalking"

    :D

    I am a Countdown fan, and I'm not a "troll". I wouldn't expect to be blocked, because I don't come here to cuss anyone out. I am only interested in objective analysis, and I skip everything that isn't.

    I would never post at the old MSNBC message boards because of all the foul idiots there, but this site isn't like that. If it starts to become like that, you'll have to do something, and you should.

    Robert Cox: This swear-word blockage is not what is most inportant an issue for Olbermann Watch. What is the most important issue is why you are allowing an amateur Olbermann Watch provider permission to write Countdown episode summaries despite the fact that he obviously can not in anyway come in on the appropriate time to post what has been found on Olbermann's program and furthermore, barely posts pictures as apart of the posting.

    Aone instance complaaint is that he called the New York Sun a "Blue News Source" when, despite putting up a Giuliani hit piece, are obviously a conservative news rag. The home of Alicia Colon and all kinds of Conservative paraphanalia. On a much more recent posting, while it was posted as R. Cox, I hardly believe an expert wrote that episode summary. The person who wrote that placed issue three ( which WAS Alberto Gonzales) as issue two (which WAS pants). That is a fundamental screw up. That latest episode summary was also ranty at best.

    Furthermore, I never got that answer on wether that "roadkill"ed possum was actually injured. Not that I am whole-in-part willing to debate this now, but that would just be the first moniker of a web blog going down the drain. Even before the painful-looking photograph.

    # You went off line for a measely one week before redoing the cite on this Geocities format (from the much more comfortable looking National Debate format). No more light red or magenta border. A non-issue is that you went "off" lock, stock & barrel, rather than a picture of Col. Allen, which would have meant that you were going off permanently, but that was just a misnomer.

    # You returned because of what some last minute commenter posted about Gen. Patton. Not that that is a problem, it did get the website back, that whole reason was still rather pathetique. Almost like the G.O.P. mentioning Ronald Reagan a total of 19 times.

    # You did not back Don Imus. I will take this website as an Olbermann-focused project, but you guys do different issues every once in a while. This is also an endictment on the whole of Conservativism. They have not played an urgent race ikssue in order to back someone in a while, and I think that has crippled Conservatives everywhere. What is hurting Conservativism is that they are now just focussing on the war and global warming. Not that the Liberals have nott spent as much time, but I think they have been better at mixing in other issues. Conservatives have not. Where are the conservatives on over-technoligization? Economic issues? Religious issues? By the time it had come to defend Don Imus for uttering three innocent out of context words --- where was the conservative base to do thecorrect thing?

    # What is with the blog rolls? I do not like them. They are point less and do not prove Keith Olbermann a completely bad news show host & anchor. You also never returned tags to the commentors. I never got to see them because I came in too late.

    So that sums that up. Improve & appologize for Eschatx's behaviour. Please.

    Oh --- & where are our limricks? You never updated the limricks page from August 2006. It is getting worriesome when it is easier to find a limrick on Media Matters than on Olbermannwatch.com.

    I had mentioned this already. J$ has been in the processing of moving. While that was going on Ed agreed to fill in and I pitched in as well. J$ may be back tonight but at the very least Monday.

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 4, 2007 6:32 PM


    Oh, I'm so glad! Ed did a great job and is an absolute doll. But of course, we love Johnny.

    Bob,

    I'm guessing you're familiar with Tom Maguire site, because he did blogroll the Libby trial, so I'd just ask how he handles his comment section?

    At the risk of sending every troll scurrying to the site, it is without a doubt the best and most interesting blog comment forum that I've seen.

    WWTD-- What Would Tom Do? :D

    Kool Aid Alert:

    Oh, I'm so glad! Ed did a great job and is an absolute doll. But of course, we love Johnny.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 4, 2007 8:57 PM

    Cecelia hates Olbermann so much, if Hitler bashed KO, he'd be a doll.

    This site needs a link to military recruiters - so these war-loving heroes can more easilly sign up for military service.

    Mr Cox, your request for input from OW regulars is very difficult and challenging for me. I agree that many 'bad words' I've read here, or even written myself, should be blocked from certain forums and our young people, especially MY grandchildren. Additionally, there is the problem that some of these 'bad words' come from KO himself. And there is the 'general bad behavior' issue that you mentioned.

    In September 2006 OW was the second blog I ever read and the first I ever commented on. Over time I have allowed myself to be coarsened by the experience and writing things that on reflection surprise me . I am neither a shrinking violet nor squeamish, but sometimes I have to take a break from it. I have no doubt that potential contributors are unwilling to join in or tentatively try and hastily depart.

    I have no idea of the possible solutions, the difficulties involved or what any unintended consequences could ensue.

    I do, however, vote that some effort be made to alleviate the situation, at least on a trial basis.

    Grammie

    PS Johnny is coming back! I can feel myself swoooooning already.

    R. COx: Where is he moving to?!? The Kuiper Belt ?

    Mr. Cox,

    I am a regular reader and I have posted a couple of times. I gave up reading the comments because of the trolls. I know there is little that can be done without suppressing the free and open exchange of ideas. I do not envy your position on this matter.

    I’ve been coming to this site for well over a year and have posted a couple of times. I used to read the comments all the time but have stopped doing that, because most of them seem to be off topic and consist of Bush sucks or Bush is great. I don’t care about Bush on this site, I come here to read about Olby’s antics. I still read your posts every day, I just avoid the comments now. As far as swear words go, I don’t care, but please do what you have to do to avoid the filters. I still love your posts and am happy you decided to bring the site back. Please block that idiot that only posts "Bush Supporters" though.
    THANK YOU
    XPLODEIT

    Awwwh shucks!!

    Now everybody is doing it!!

    I think there should be as much censorship as much as possible at this site.
    After all, it's the least we can do to celebrate the Republicans last 1 1/2 years left in power.
    It would be a fitting tribute modeling the pursuit against free speech, privacy and a few of our other Constitutional rights.
    Enjoy your last few months in power.
    You won't be seeing anymore for a long, long time !

    You won't be seeing anymore for a long, long time !

    Posted by: censorhip king at May 5, 2007 2:20 AM
    Just like "Gonzales will be gone by Monday" about 8 Mondays ago?

    Just like you were going to sweep the Nov elections.

    Idiot.

    Gonzalez has made a fool of himself, and that's all you have to say about him.

    Bob, let me give you an ongoing example of how a previously identified troll, Royalking, is continuing to try to stiffle legitimate debate and civility by making false accusations about another poster's honesty (mine)....in the use of this discussion board.

    For about 2 months now, RoyalKing (Jeff) has been accusing me of being various assundry other posters with other names, and also many, many other times as an 'anon'. I have corrected him multiple times in an unsuccessfull attempt to get him to stop doing this for two reasons; 1) - These kind of unfounded personal accusations do nothing to further any discussions about Olbermann, or any of the other interesting debate that occasionally occurs on this board, & 2) - They are lies!

    Recently, I have just grown tired of correcting him about this because it clearly is a waste of time for me to do so. Many of the posters he has accused of being me have corrected him as well...again to no avail. LMAO has continually lampooned him about it....once again to no avail.

    Bob, While I did OCCASIONALLY post with a couple of other names, and occasionally as an anon up until almost 2 months ago, I stopped doing it completely once it became clear that it seemed to annoy a couple of the regular posters, who made an issue out of the practice around that time. If this was a problem for them, I decided to stop being part of the problem. I have posted exclusively as 'Mike' ever since.

    RoyalKing just accused me of posting as an 'anon' again twice about an hour ago on the "Dark Power" thread at 2:36 and 2:46. Implied accusations appear elsewhere on that same thread as well. This is a thread I had stayed off of entirely as a poster.

    Bob, YOU COULD STOP THIS! I'm not asking you to do anything drastic, such as 'blocking' Royalking, but I am asking you to step in and make it clear to him that he is WRONG about this, and has been all along. For example, if you will just take a look at the IP's of the anons he is addressing on that thread, you will clearly see that none of them are mine.

    Yes Bob, I know that I am considered to be one of the 'enemy' on this board....one of those darned Olbermann 'defenders' who just hasn't been gifted with the ability to be a "clear thinker"....but that shouldn't matter in this situation. You have a poster continuing to make false accusations about another poster, and for the life of me, I can't see how this kind of thing furthers any goals you might have about the operation of this site.

    I'm really NOT 'whining' Bob, I can continue to live with this if you can, but I really would rather be involved in meaningful discussions than this kind of crap....and I really believe your readers would prefer to see less of it themselves.

    Imagine my surprise sometimes to come in from being out on the road for hours only to find that I have been involved in yet another flame war with Royalking....anonomously!

    Just a thought...how about it Bob? I thought this thread might be a good time to bring this up again.

    Bob, let me give you an ongoing example of how a previously identified troll, Royalking, is continuing to try to stiffle legitimate debate and civility by making false accusations about another poster's honesty (mine)....in the use of this discussion board.


    Mike, "honesty" just doesn't look right, don't ya think? How does he "stifle" debate? Why do respond to every single one of his postst? Why do you lie? Why are you a hypocrite?

    I'm really NOT 'whining' Bob, I can continue to live with this if you can, but I really would rather be involved in meaningful discussions than this kind of crap....and I really believe your readers would prefer to see less of it themselves.

    You're not whining? Sure sounds like it to me. Do you try to make rules on other blogs, too? I've seen Jeff make a fool out of you several times, as well as other posters like Cecelia, Grammie, Sharon, and Cee. Weren't you the one that said you were going to leave and never come back? Now you are whining? Do you live with your Mom, still? Cry to her.

    Anon 11:31...is your name 'Bob'?....was that post addressed to YOU? Did I ask or say anything to YOU? Go take your unasked for response and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

    So you think Jeff's somehow "made a fool out of me" by lying about me being other posters? Is that what it takes to "make a fool" out of someone in your twisted mind...to LIE and make false accusations about them that they can't prove?

    That said, if you were not a coward yourself, you wouldn't post as an anon, would you?

    All I've done is ask Bob to expose an ongoing lie from a serial liar that is causing contention on his board....so Anon, if you continue to have a problem with that, I've already told you what you can do with that 'problem'.

    That said, if you were not a coward yourself, you wouldn't post as an anon, would you?

    All I've done is ask Bob to expose an ongoing lie from a serial liar that is causing contention on his board....so Anon, if you continue to have a problem with that, I've already told you what you can do with that 'problem'.

    Posted by: Mike at May 5, 2007 1:20 PM
    Haven't I seen you make posts stating the content of posts is what matters and not the name? Now I am a coward for not using a name? Isn't that a little bit hypocritical? You defend other posters that agree with you anonymously, yet, you criticize me and call me a coward? Too funny!

    "Bob, While I did OCCASIONALLY post with a couple of other names, and occasionally as an anon"

    Did you consider yourself a coward when posting anonymously? Oh, that's right, it's ok for you to do it, how soon I forget you make the rules. lil mikey is not starting off the day very good, is he? Proving what a dope he is.

    I've criticized you for sticking your nose into a personal controversy you are not a a part of...or are you?...And then not even having the guts to even say who you are...clear on that?

    As I already stated, I've made it a point to post only as "Mike' since it was some of the regulars on YOUR side who kept crying about who was posting....as if that were really that important.

    You think when someone keeps accusing me of making posts I don't make....I shouldn't have a problem with that?

    My question to Bob was; is he interested in letting a liar keep on lying about another poster, when he is the only one who can actually prove or disprove the lie? The fact that this poster is doing this has caused much incivility on this board, and I thought that is exactly what this thread was supposed to be about, or weren't you paying attention?

    So why don't you just let BOB answer the question I posed to him?...or just ignor it if he chooses to do that? Either way, we'll know where he stands on the issue...and then if you want to have a flame war with me...identify yourself, and then we'll have one.

    You totally avoided my points and questions as well as the "anons" questions a points, not bad! Then again, how can you defend the indefensible and the obvious?

    Ooooooh Boooooovine?

    How many times have you falsely accused Mike of being Average American Patriot, and vice versa, plus "some other 20 posters."

    If Bob has too heavy a burden of fighting K.O.,
    I suggest Bob appoints you, BovineQueen, as the "Official Olbermann Watch Moderator."

    Please Bob! Please!
    Only BovineQueen can keep your site clean and safe.

    "I carry a Desert Eagle"

    Hows that "taliban" research coming, patty? lmao

    I posted my reply in the corresponding thread.

    However, when I clicked on the "Post" button,
    I received a message saying Bob was going to take his time and post it if he approved of it.

    It is supposed to appear 2 posts after that nice, profanity filled rant from Puck. Since his post passed, I can't possibly imagine why a few B$WPS won't.

    Bu$hwipe

    That went through.

    I'm going to break the response in smaller chunks, just to see what happens

    "Proclamation 5034—Afghanistan Day, 1983
    By the President of the United States of America, 21 March 1983

    The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters [The Taliban] persevere in standing up against the brutal power of the Soviet invasion and occupation. The Afghan people are struggling to reclaim their freedom, which was taken from them when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December of 1979. "


    Proclamation 5034—Afghanistan Day, 1983
    March 21st, 1983
    Public Papers of the Presidents
    Ronald Reagan
    1983: Book I
    Ronald Reagan
    1983: Book I
    Print
    Republish
    Report Typo
    Font Size:

    By the President of the United States of America
    A Proclamation

    "The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters persevere in standing up against the brutal power of the Soviet invasion and occupation. The Afghan people are struggling to reclaim their freedom, which was taken from them when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December of 1979. "

    FREEDOM OR THEOCRACY?: CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ
    Hannibal Travis*

    >U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Pakistani dictator Zia ul-Haq directed billions in American military aid for the mujahideen, mostly to "the more extreme Sunni fundamentalist faction led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar."161

    Keeping Keith Olbermann honest - one lie at a time.
    Thank You for Commenting

    Your comment has been received. To protect against malicious comments, I have enabled a feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first time you post a comment. I'll approve your comment when convenient; there is no need to re-post your comment. Return to the comment page

    Hmmmm... it seems the problem is with the links... let's see...

    It is supposed to appear 2 posts after that nice, profanity filled rant from Puck. Since his post passed, I can't possibly imagine why a few B$WPS won't.

    Posted by: Average American Patriot at May 6, 2007 2:03 AM
    After a thousand 'Bush Supporters" in a row, we get it, anybody that supports our president (a REAL patriot/American) is a bushwipe. Thank God you're a (d).

    Mr Cox, I have reread all the posts and have been thinking about the question off and on all day. I really do think that at a minimum some device to keep OW from being blocked for 'bad' words should be done.

    As for the trolling and other bad behavior you mentioned I don't know what the implementation would require. I am guessing that posting would require a registration of some type to lock posters into an identity that can be tracked. It seems to be standard for virtually every site that I have visited, so I wouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand.

    However, I totally agree that when OW clicks, it clicks with a big bang precisely because of the open and unrestricted nature of the site. On the other hand that same open and unrestricted policy can be abused, and all too frequently is, to the point that I am convinced many just walk away. Hopefully, there is a middle ground that allows OW to keep its vibrancy while blocking the excesses.

    Several posters have advanced the idea of posters notifying a moderator when they think others have crossed the line, wherever that line would be drawn, to solve the bad behavior problem. On its face it sounds good and could very well be a workable solution. If I understand the concept accurately I can see a potential pitfall with this approach. I have read so many posters proudly proclaim that they only come here to jeer, ridicule and disrupt the site that I can see the moderator idea being just one more opportunity for them to disrupt and harass the moderator.

    On balance, though, I come down firmly on the side that OW can only benefit from some, if not all, of the changes you are thinking about.

    Grammie

    Oh, well. "Taliban" Part 2


    From Encarta:

    http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588418/Taliban.html

    ...Taliban, Islamic fundamentalist movement in Afghanistan that controlled most of the country from September 1996 to November 2001. The Taliban movement was created in 1994 by a senior mullah (Islamic priest), Mohammed Omar, in the southern Afghanistan city of Kandahār.
    * The name Taliban, meaning “student,”*
    refers to the movement’s origins in Islamic religious schools, or madrasas,
    *although most members knew war all their lives and attended the madrasas only for rudimentary religious training.*

    II
    Origins and Rise to Power


    The Taliban movement emerged out of the chaos and uncertainty of the Afghan-Soviet War (1979-1989) and subsequent civil war in Afghanistan. During the 1980s Afghanistan was occupied by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and ruled by a Soviet-backed government. Afghanistan’s long war with the USSR was largely fought by
    *mujahideen (Islamic guerrilla) *
    *factions with assistance from the United States;*
    Pakistan also provided places of refuge, military training, and other support. After the Soviets completed their withdrawal in 1989,
    *civil war broke out between the mujahideen factions and the central government*..

    ...The Taliban emerged as a faction of mujahideen soldiers who identified themselves as religious students.*
    The Taliban consisted mostly of Pashtuns intent on once again dominating the central government in Kābul. They were trained and armed by the Frontier Constabulary, a quasi-military unit in Pakistan, which also has a significant Pashtun population. The Taliban actively recruited thousands of young men in the Afghan refugee camps and the madrasas in Pakistan. Many war orphans also joined the movement.

    However, when I clicked on the "Post" button,
    I received a message saying Bob was going to take his time and post it if he approved of it.

    It is supposed to appear 2 posts after that nice, profanity filled rant from Puck. Since his post passed, I can't possibly imagine why a few B$WPS won't.

    Posted by: Average American Patriot at May 6, 2007 2:03 AM


    It's kinda like putting a shock collar on a dog. Nobody like to do it, sometimes it's just easier.

    "Taliban" Part 3 - Last.

    I'm glad we have cleared the air.
    Raygun did not praise the Taliban. He couldn't. The Taliban, per se, did not exist yet.
    However, Raygun did praise the "the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters" or *mujahideen (Islamic guerrilla) * and Raygun even provided them with "assistance from the United States*"

    Now, you can slice it and dice it anyway you want, Bush Supporters.

    It turned out that those poor, "valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters" or *mujahideen* or *Islamic guerrilla* didn't have the words of wisdom from Raygun to guide them in the path to freedom after defeating the Ruskys. Otherwise they would have stopped being "*mujahideen, Islamic guerrilla soldiers* who only *attended the madrasas... for rudimentary religious training.* Worse yet, they could have become secular progressives!

    I feel much better now knowing that Raygun's help to the mujahideen, Islamic guerrilla soldiers, did not encourage Osama Bin Laden; remember, he's not in the Taliban yet, he's a lowly freedomfighting mujahideen, or the other Islamic extremists resulting from the mujahideen.

    DAMN KEITH OLBERMANN AND HIS LIES!!

    I AM NOT A BU$HWIPE!!
    I AM A REAL RAYGUN REPUGLICAN!!

    Actually, AAP, the policy of helping the mujahideen, started under Pres. Carter and his national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    At the time, our biggest enemy was the USSR, and their advance into the Middle East via afghanistan was ....a bit problematic...

    >>Actually, AAP, the policy of helping the mujahideen, started under Pres. Carter and his national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    Oh, yes. I forgot!

    It was those damned Democrats again!
    And they had us sooooo deep in doodoo, that Raygun just couldn't get us out, though he tried his best during 8 years!!

    >>At the time, our biggest enemy was the USSR, and their advance into the Middle East via afghanistan was ....a bit problematic...

    Oh, yeah! Propping up Saddam, another stroke of pure genious!

    Only the Middle East?
    How about his support for the other tin-pot dictators in South America?
    Iran-Contras?
    Panama?
    El Salvador?
    Guatemala?

    Oh... I know... "I don't remember"
    but
    I AM NOT A BU$HWIPE!!
    I AM A REAL RAYGUN REPUGLICAN!!

    Got any ideas why tin-pot dictators in Central and South America would have been worth supporting in an era where the Soviets were funding Castro sending troops and supplies into the area?

    Now the convention wisdom is that it would have been worth propping up a Saddam in Iraq over a Khomeni-like threat to his govt...

    Mr Cox, I have reread all the posts and have been thinking about the question off and on all day. I really do think that at a minimum some device to keep OW from being blocked for 'bad' words should be done."

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at May 6, 2007 2:37 AM

    Our redneck geriatric gestopo, Grammie is pushing for censorship.
    Follows in suit with her approval of Bush butchering the Constitution.
    What a right wing fascist.
    You would have thought she would have learned something about freedom in her many years on the planet.
    I guess her Republicanism stunted her intellectual and political growth.

    Cecelia sez:

    >Got any ideas why tin-pot dictators in Central and South America would have been worth supporting in an era where the Soviets were funding Castro sending troops and supplies into the area?

    Yes, the old "Cold War" and "Domino Theory"

    It is always interesting the discussion of these facts with someone well informed, who drops any pretense of "defense of freedom" and explains the circumstances plainly and simply: Self-interest.

    On the Middle East, "who cares who Saddam is or either these mujahideen are, as long as the Ruskys don't set a foothold"

    On Central America, same, "who cares what vile characters the tin-pot dictators are, as long as the Ruskys don't set a foothold"

    Odd enough, given the current state of Iraq, similarly crude but realistic suggestions have surfaced:
    "Freedom and Democracy be damned, let's find them another dictator... let them kill each other... as long as they don't come after us, and if they do, NUKE! NUKE! NUUUUUUKE!... "

    Remember, Boys and Girls!
    If a Democrat wins, the terrorists will come to get ya!
    Only a repentant BU$HWIPE, dressed in full Reagan Regalia, can keep us safe!

    >>Actually, AAP, the policy of helping the mujahideen, started under Pres. Carter and his national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.>At the time, our biggest enemy was the USSR, and their advance into the Middle East via afghanistan was ....a bit problematic...

    Oh, yeah! Propping up Saddam, another stroke of pure genious!

    Way below average, rather than admit he's wrong, he plays the 'divert' card, a common olbyloon tactic.

    Oooooh Bovine!

    >>Actually, AAP, the policy of helping the mujahideen, started under Pres. Carter and his national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.>At the time, our biggest enemy was the USSR, and their advance into the Middle East via afghanistan was ....a bit problematic...

    What part of 8 years of Reagan's support for the mujahideen (Islamic guerrilla), including Osama Bin Laden, don't you understand?

    -"oh...uh...well... it was that damned Carter that started it... poor Ronnie tried, but he just couldn't get us out in 8 short years...and besides, Saddam was a nice guy at the time... and the Iranians too, very nice of them to buy our weapons... so why do you even bring them up. Just look at the Middle East now, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. they can't help it but juuuuuuuuuust looooooove us"

    I AM NOT A BU$HWIPE!!
    I AM A REAL RAYGUN REPUGLICAN!!

    There is no question in any sane person's mind that Iraq was better off WITH saddam than deposed.
    He knew how to keep the warring factions in line and the country had electricity and educators weren't fleeing the country as they are now.
    Was he a brutal dictator?
    Sure...but it's much worse now.
    You can't walk the streets in Baghdad now...before you could.
    The lying right just keeps pumping out the bullsh-t , and within their small circle they actually believe it.

    And Iraq has to do what with Bob's question how exactly? Funny but I don't remember him asking anything about the president or this war in his initial question. I honest to God believe that someone could ask some of you the time of day and you couldn't answer the question without throwing in the words, "Iraq" or "Bush".

    Bob,

    I am a daily reader of OW, but just the comment section of this thread shows why there are so many of us who read the posts but stay away from reading or posting the comments...the originiality of the 'loons is astounding (the topic is should we take steps to make this site more "work friendly" not whether Reagan helped the Taliban.) The repetitive "Bu$hwipe" "Raygun" blah blah blah just gets old and adds nothing to the discourse, not to mention is completely off-topic.

    Unfortunately there are a few people, on both sides of the aisle, who find it difficult to engage in a spirited, intellectual discussion while staying on a topic and avoiding personal attacks. These same people generally have a tendency to use words that cause sites like this one to be flagged by software. It is those people who cause others to avoid comment sections in blogs like this one.

    Scott, if Mr Cox devised a method to to at least alleviate the worst abuses would you perhaps become a regular commenter?

    I think that you are the type of poster who could add to the site.

    Grammie

    I understand the focus, and I am afraid I am out of the core group you are trying to attract, but I had someone refer me to this site, and I have to say the raw numbers of posters is impressive until you realize it is the same handful of extreme right wing bigots and zealots who post repeatedly in the same cycle. This is pathetic

    Hey Grammie,

    I enjoy a spirited discussion of issues and events, so let me just reiterated I am not trying to silence those that take the opposing view.

    Although I have been guilty in the past of using some of these same words that have caused this topic, I feel that in intelligent, adult conversations that type of language can often detract from the points the poster are making.

    In all, though, its the constant name calling (by those on both sides) and off-topic postings that I find distracting. As I said before, this thread is a prime example. The topic is on possible changes to the comments section of the site. So we get a three post cut-and-paste of an article on the Taliban in an attempt to again attack a President who was been out of office for almost 20 years, and by association, make some type of insinuation about the Republican party in general. In addition, it is an article this poster had already submitted in other threads.

    Why? Only AAP can answer that.

    I enjoy J$ writings. He adds a touch of humor, and does well in adding context to topics KO "covers." While Olby's core of defenders continually attack J$ for the "name-calling" he engages in, in almost every case it is J$ applying KO's own words. It is masterful, and enjoyable. And by reading what KO discussed with his every shrinking pool of guests, I can skip reading KOS and Huffpo to see what the other side is on today.

    As I have strayed here from your question, let me just say that if we could just stay on topic and avoid the personal and character attacks, this comment section would have much more appeal to me.

    Imho.


    Scott, you are right on point and I think have gone to the crux of the question and why it is being raised. There has to be a middle ground between Barney and Friends treacle and all out street warfare.

    Surely both sides can present honest arguments without degenerating into so much of what we see here day in and day out. As I stated in my first comment there are times that I take a hiatus because it becomes unpleasant to read, much less participate. And, yes, I have done it myself.

    Well, it is all up to Mr Cox to decide. I hope he moves in the direction that he has raised as a possibility.

    Grammie

    The problem is that "staying on topic" means a lot of different things to a lot of different posters. Mike for one seems to think that because Olbermann talks about Bush then it gives him a right to bring up Bush in every single thread no matter what the original discussion started off as. Once we define what staying on topic either is or isn't, that might help narrow down the argument a bit more.

    Anon 8:26, I challenge me to prove what you just said about me. You can't because it isn't true.

    Can't you discuss a concept without bringing up someone's name?...especially when you chose to remain a "chicken blogger" yourself.

    Oh, but, a name doesn't matter, isn't that what Mike said, himself? How many times?

    I may have said something to the effect of "a name doesn't matter once or twice", but it never was anything I ever spoke often or strongly about, and you know it....whoever you are.

    And a name wouldn't matter if you or I were discussing general political opinions...or Keith Obermann.

    However, you just brought up my name while whining to Bob about me as a specific example of somebody who doesn't use this blog in a way you personally approve of, while hiding behind anonimity yourself.... and that DOES matter... and I think you know that as well.

    Chicken Blogger, I understand the point you are trying to make. However, I think you may be making the problem much greater than it really is.

    I am fairly sure that having a 24/7 moderator is not an option. However, I hope that it is feasible to set some parameters and judge the totality of individual commentators as a basis to pull the plug on the most flagrant abusers.

    In my limited experience the abusers (and yes I have abused too) are rarely exhibiting only one bad behavior. Just scroll up the comments on this short thread alone and there are ample examples of how not to behave.

    The more I think about the question Mr Cox posed the more I support some effort to make changes.

    Grammie

    Cecelia sez:

    >Got any ideas why tin-pot dictators in Central and South America would have been worth supporting in an era where the Soviets were funding Castro sending troops and supplies into the area?

    Yes, the old "Cold War" and "Domino Theory"

    It is always interesting the discussion of these facts with someone well informed, who drops any pretense of "defense of freedom" and explains the circumstances plainly and simply: Self-interest.

    On the Middle East, "who cares who Saddam is or either these mujahideen are, as long as the Ruskys don't set a foothold"

    On Central America, same, "who cares what vile characters the tin-pot dictators are, as long as the Ruskys don't set a foothold"

    Odd enough, given the current state of Iraq, similarly crude but realistic suggestions have surfaced:
    "Freedom and Democracy be damned, let's find them another dictator... let them kill each other... as long as they don't come after us, and if they do, NUKE! NUKE! NUUUUUUKE!... "

    Remember, Boys and Girls!
    If a Democrat wins, the terrorists will come to get ya!
    Only a repentant BU$HWIPE, dressed in full Reagan Regalia, can keep us safe!

    Posted by: Average American Patriot at May 6, 2007 10:44 AM


    AAP, haven't you contradicted yourself enough for one thread?

    "At the time, our biggest enemy was the USSR, and their advance into the Middle East via afghanistan was ....a bit problematic..."

    Actually, I think it was probably how we "won" the cold war. The history of the cold war was that the shooters always lost. Thus the SU pretty much came to it's height through our entry into Vietnam, and brought itself to it's knees in attempted expansion into Angola, Afghanistan, and Central America.

    The wars we fight now are over ideology, and it is almost always counterproductive to an ideology to associate itself with force. It bolsters the opposition. When facing a corrupt ideology, you have to give it enough rope to hang itself. Sometimes it can only stand up for as long as there is opposition to lean against. Something to think about in these idealistic days.

    "Barney and Friends treacle"

    Treacle? You mean molassas? I don't think anyone in this country uses the term "treacle" unless they are trying to handcraft brittish style ales. You wouldn't happen to be a little old lady from North London, would you Grammie?

    "PS Johnny is coming back! I can feel myself swoooooning already."

    That's probably the blood pressure medication.

    No VOK, I meant Barney and Friends treacle, as in an overwhelmingly sweet and cloying manner or style. Although it is also British for molasses I don't think that using 'Barney and Friends molasses' would constitute a cogent sentence.

    If you are going to picayunishly correct my vocabulary do try to spell at least the key words correctly. It would also help if you knew the definition of the words you are critiquing.

    I say, old boy, bad form, eh, what?

    Grammie

    I understood your intended useage, from it's literal root, which is Brittish molassas sugar syrup stuff. I think it is hardly ever used in the U.S. at all, either literally or figuratively. Here, you would generally say something was sacharrine, not treacle, unless you wanted most eveyone else to say "huh?"

    I don't deny the useage, and I'm sure it was more vigorously promoted back when our institutions of higher learning had more of a Brittish flavour. But then they used to fake Brittish accents too. It could be that regular American type people used this back in your day, and if so, I apologize for once again referencing your crabbed old age. After the "peel/pinch the tail" fiasco you can hardly blame me from thinking you were some kind of alien.

    Yes VOK.....an 'alien' groupie who swoons at the mere mention of Johnny's name.

    bear up against public opinion and push back its hurrying stream dot
    http://prodotti-tipico.blogspot.com/ >prodotti tipico*
    majestic phantom stood the gray statue of Louis with his venerable

    that the time which comes to all menthe time to suffer and be
    http://gerard-butler-gay.blogspot.com/ >chicos gerard butler gay*
    was the case with those that Flemming was now leaving dot No wonder he

    Leave a new comment