Also read Michael dvg’s note on the intent of his post.

So, for what it’s worth, that’s my take on the difference. However, I won’t defend conservative commenters who resort to personal attacks when they have those emotional reactions to some of the bombs that are thrown out in the posts. To some degree I agree with Joe: if you don’t like a particular blogger, skip his posts. I do sometimes skip Shaun’s. Frankly I don’t like doing that (and it affects my readership of TMV altogether, and could lead to my dropping it off of my read list if the trend continues) because I WANT to read viewpoints that challenge my own. However, I want to read those that are phrased in a way that the writer doesn’t dismiss all opposing views as asinine. Reading posts like that is an exercise in self control, and sometimes I’d rather not put myself to that test.

When I do choose to read Shaun’s posts, if I feel I want to be bothered with responding, I just resist the urge to stoop to the level of insults. It’s not really that hard to poke holes in his logic rather than calling him names

As cosmo noted, I feel that I’ve engaged in some very heated, but rational and productive, discussions with bloggers and commenters here and I hope that I will continue to find that more the rule than the exception here. Lately it’s been seeming to be more trouble than it’s worth. But that’s a decision for me to make personally, and then Joe can choose to either react if people move on or to not react if he feels the blog is what he wants it to be.

Anyone is welcome to think that certain posts aren’t moderate (in fact I’ll bet a certain proportion of the readers will think that about virtually EVERY post) but that doesn’t justify making it personal in the comments. I can’t even count the number of times opposition to illegal immigration has been said to just be racism and I don’t take it personally against the poster, though I vigorously disagree.

Oh, and to second cosmo, I’d really like to see the first number of two-digit comments too.

My advice to everyone is to move on to issues.

Michael Stickings and Shaun Mullen have also had similar problems. The problem is that somehow when people write comments on weblogs they say things to someone with a lot more ease then they would say to their faces and become abusive.

If you think I wouldn’t say those things to Mullen’s face, you are gravely mistaken, Joe. I stand by what I said about Mullen, viz. the things Kritter noted in his/her 6:35 comment.

Oh wait – sorry – wrong blog!

casualobserver said,
August 29, 2007 at 6:31 am:
Besides at 40 to 4 here, we can ill afford to lose one.

flyerhawk said,
August 29, 2007 at 6:57 am:
BTW, I really don’t see this overwhelming Left majority here that some on the right are claiming

This is a sophisticated site…..we employ psych-ops tactics as well.

I am mentioning this, by the way, for information, not to debate the point or to debate its application to any specific circumstance.

There is a pretty big difference between calling the President an idiot and calling Shaun, or any other poster here, an idiot.

One is a political statement and one is a personal attack.

The President is a big boy. He can handle the abuse. Just because someone calls President Bush an idiot or Barack Obama an empty suit doesn’t mean we should switch to pitbull mode to defend them.

Attack the argument, not the person.

I agree with Flyer Hawk, but also feel that it is only fair to point out that liberal posters like Shaun Mullen and Michael Stickings also get attacked here regularly by conservative commenters. (Shaun was called an idiot just yesterday, and told that his posts bring disrepute to the entire site.)

Yes, they do. And when I see that, those comments get deleted too. As they should. As a matter of fact, the only actual banning that has occurred here in the last few months was someone who was going after Shaun and lefties generally, not someone who was going after me, Michael, or righties generally. Unfortunately, some misinformation has been spread that ignores this and has led to unnecessary acrimony and abuse. I am hoping that the latest incident will be the last time we have to revisit these issues.

He uses inflammatory and derogatory language in his top-level posts and commentaries, and invites ‘rough-and-tumble’ discourse as a result.

If the rule is no name calling Joe, then it needs to apply to the editors as well, and not just in the comment section, but in their front page work as well. To be fair, they can criticize policy, actions, etc., but they too should have to avoid calling the President (and others) an idiot or worse.

IMHO.