For your information

|
(104)
policemancartoon.jpeg


ATTENTION

 

I have been getting too many emails and IMs from readers that tell me that they'd like to weigh in on my blog posts but can't because the thread had degenerated into a shit-flinging contest. So let me remind you of sfbg.com’s policy on comments.

 

Comments that have nothing to do with the topic, that are nothing but ad hominem attacks, or that include offensive language or hate speech, are subject to being deleted. We want this to be an open forum, but we also want to keep it (relatively) civil (and relevant).

 

Unless the topic of my blog post is "does Johnny Angel Wendell (or Tim Redmond/Bruce Brugmann/The SFBG/Another poster) suck or do they rule?" your irrelevant comments are going to go.

 

We wouldn't converse with each other in person this way. That is the rule of thumb.

 

Tear the premise of the blog post to pits, praise it to the skies, be indifferent, fine. I'm personally fair game as well (good or bad), as long as the topic is the subject. This isn't that hard. I don't wanna be an Internet cop. But because a few allegedly adult readers are driving off an awful lot of would-be participants, I’m going to have to use the “delete” key. 

Comments

You mean, the demand that corporations and wealthy individuals pay their fair share of taxes? Or the excellent coverage of corporate giveaways like the Twitter deal? Is that what's got you call "mindless" and "kneejerk"? I call it good journalism.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 2:32 pm

the successful are paying their "fair" share of taxes already.

Posted by anon on May. 29, 2013 @ 2:51 pm

That's who pays the most federal income tax, not who pays the most in taxes overall.

"A recent report [PDF] from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy suggests that the opposite is true: While Americans in lower income brackets pay less in federal income tax, they pay a greater share of their income overall once other federal and state taxes—including sales and excise taxes—are factored in."

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/15/report-the-47-pay-more-of-their-income-in...

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 3:09 pm
Posted by anonymous on May. 29, 2013 @ 3:16 pm

Try coming up with some evidence to prove me wrong.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 3:37 pm

actually spend more than people with no money to spend?

Seriously?

Posted by Anon on May. 29, 2013 @ 3:47 pm

What did you offer? I hate to inform you, but a tone of ridicule does not pass for valid argument, bud. Sorry, I'm not going to debate someone this weak any further. Waste of time.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 4:12 pm

Your theory depends on the idea that people with no money somehow miraculously spend more than people who have money?

Er, OK . .

Posted by Anonymous on May. 29, 2013 @ 4:35 pm

Yes, four-letter words are okay in certain contextuals.

Posted by Fred on May. 29, 2013 @ 11:09 am

Restrict the comments too much and they get dull. Don't require e-mail addresses

Posted by Hafez Assad on May. 29, 2013 @ 11:11 am

I think he just wants to see a modicum of civility. Right now, it's a cesspool of hate, and it turns many people off from the site. But I suppose that's what the trolls want.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 12:09 pm

If you even dare to question their one-dimensional class warfare rhetoric, you immediately start to receive death wishes, if not death threats.

They love the idea of SF being diverse and tolerant as long as they don't have to tolerate diverse opinions.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 12:15 pm
Posted by JohnnyW on May. 29, 2013 @ 12:19 pm

I've had folks here wish me dead here on at least half a dozen occasions.

The intolerance of the left continues to stun me.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 12:49 pm

It's like this--you claim to have seen death threats, well, where are they?

Or people wishing death on you, fine--produce some evidence.

"Half a dozen times"? OK, let's see at least six examples.

Take your time. 

Posted by JohnnyW on May. 29, 2013 @ 1:00 pm

That said, the most recent example was just yesterday.

So look for yourself. And take your time.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 1:12 pm

You made the claim, prove it.

Not really familiar with how this works, maybe spend a day in court. When the DA asks you to produce evidence to back up an accusation and you tell him "you find it", the response from the judge will be one of the most incredible statements you've ever heard, climaxing in "get out of my courtroom".

Put up or shut up. 

Posted by JohnnyW on May. 29, 2013 @ 1:21 pm

Not sure why you'd call anyone here a liar anyhow.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 1:40 pm

what do you do for an encore?

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 3:00 pm

It was a question.

Posted by Anon on May. 29, 2013 @ 3:06 pm

How is that a question? Regardless, it's pretty weak.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 3:19 pm
Posted by Anon on May. 29, 2013 @ 3:24 pm

Never. Looks like you just lost this debate, and by your own admission.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 3:49 pm

I think you got different posters mixed up there.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 4:01 pm

He uses this ploy a lot, without realizing how he outs himself with his own rhetoric.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 4:13 pm
Posted by Anonymous on May. 29, 2013 @ 4:29 pm

But I wonder if he'll be exercising any civility himself. Most of the hate here seems to come from the angry left, especially when the rudiments of economics (or even basic math) don't match up with their rigid worldview.

Posted by Chromefields on May. 29, 2013 @ 1:26 pm

"Basic math" says that "most" means over 50%--right?

Which is a numerical benchmark--right?

That means that you, Chromefields, should be able to easily prove this is so with hard evidence.

Take your time. 

Posted by JohnnyW on May. 29, 2013 @ 1:34 pm

So do your own research, John-John. Take your time -- it seems to be something you have a lot of.

Posted by Chromefields on May. 30, 2013 @ 6:50 am

You're always civil, of course.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 1:39 pm

They hate whites, males, older folks, straights, the successful, Republicans, bankers, realtors, hedge fund managers, Christians, cops, Asians and so on.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 1:43 pm

The people you mention are within the mainstream of the good, old conservative U.S.A. Give us one instance where SFBG is "hating" on them. They don't need protecting because they enjoy all the power. The folks YOU are hating on are those who have the most to lose -- poor folks, people of color, Gays, women, undocumented immigrants. You trolls spend (waste) all your time ranting about them in the most racist and vitriolic terms, and you don't even see your own penchant for hate. Really, it's pathetic.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 1:55 pm
Posted by Anon on May. 29, 2013 @ 3:26 pm

and you can't do it, can you? QED indeed.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 3:53 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 4:02 pm

Not all Americans are mega-meddlers....

Posted by JohnnyW on May. 29, 2013 @ 11:18 am

piece, but I've said before that if it were necessary to solve a simple rebus every time you wanted to post something, it would cut out at least some of the stupid crap.

(Midler's first name) + (early Ford Model) + (not less, but...)

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 29, 2013 @ 11:21 am

shoulda written "Porgy's mate"... anyhow, the point being to put up just a low barrier to the incessant drivel...

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 29, 2013 @ 11:26 am

I think you've summed it up well for a change.

Posted by Chromefields on May. 29, 2013 @ 12:05 pm

I see little reason for any participant here to complain if the staff does put their feet down on malarkey now and then. I've been poofed other places just for asking questions. Still, I think this site has been TOO damn tolerant of bullflop in the past.

Posted by NLE on May. 29, 2013 @ 12:47 pm

1) They claim that SF is "tolerant" and so cannot afford to be seen as otherwise.

2) SFBG has no funds to implement complex software and, even then, it's quite easy to bypass editing filters and censorship.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 1:06 pm

Leave Johnny Angel alone! Stop the madness!

Posted by Zac on May. 29, 2013 @ 2:07 pm

One of the two, for sure.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 2:19 pm

What part of ad hominem attack without a real argument don't you understand. Review the comment policy, or better yet, STFU!

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

"comments policy" was actually enforced.

That includes comments like "STFU", of course.

Posted by Anon on May. 29, 2013 @ 2:53 pm

Johnny Angel is almost the only rational person here in a field of Troll-bait. Thank you for your prescient blogposts, Johnny.

Posted by Bert on May. 29, 2013 @ 3:21 pm

Too bad we all see thru your sock puppets, huh?

Posted by Anon on May. 29, 2013 @ 3:27 pm

"We wouldn't converse with each other in person this way. That is the rule of thumb."

Damn straight. in real life I would just slap you stupid.

You get the benefit here of mouthing off without being slapped. Don't abuse it.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2013 @ 4:39 pm

...if the comment threads above are any indication.

Posted by sfmike on May. 29, 2013 @ 10:08 pm

...if the comment threads above are any indication.

Posted by sfmike on May. 29, 2013 @ 10:09 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.