Censorship, the last refuge of cowards

I haven’t ever posted an article on this site, but there’s a first and a last for everything.

When a website solicits comments on their articles and then censors them because they don’t agree with the content, one has to wonder what the exchange really is.

The purpose seems to be to generate hits by creating controversy. Since this is a commercial site, that’s to be expected. However, when this gets to be the sole purpose of the site, then it makes itself irrelevant as the goofy positions it takes.

I was banned from this site previously for retorting to a personal attack from another poster. I’m about to be banned (or already have been) for daring to contradict Doug on yet another of his wild-ass stir-the-pot anti-left articles. What could generate more hits to a website that draws lefty visitors than attack pieces on Dennis Kucinich and Keith Olbermann?

This is transparent. It’s not even shilling for the GOP, it’s shilling for hits.

Oooops. The publisher has no clothes.

-Wexler

11 Responses to "Censorship, the last refuge of cowards"

  1. Ted Remington  June 13, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Wexler:

    The attack on Kucinich must not have happened because it appears to be gone. Hunh. I could have sworn I put in a criticism about Doug’s not practicing what he preaches. I must have been dreaming about the last season of Dallas.

    But you will note that Doug made it loud and clear that the attack on Olbermann was political commentary. That’s all to the good, IMHO. But it still disturbs me that it is cataloged as follows:

    Latest Stories

    * With McCain voters should consider odds of Alzheimer’s as they should with any candidate new
    * Olbermann: The mouth that bored
    23 replies 1 new
    * Olbermann: Worst taxpayer in the world? new
    2 replies 2 new

    Note that the box in which the Olbermann screeds appear is labeled “Latest Stories.”

    Of course, neither one of those is a story, it’s an editorial, and truth in journalism requires that editorials be labeled as such and that only in rare instances should they appear on news pages rather than on a page clearly labeled as editorial.

    Blog posts — the same thing. By their very nature they are commentary, though they may be commenting on the news.

    I am, as are you, disturbed that criticism of the man behind the curtain appears to have disappeared. I wonder if the “story” about Senator Clinton’s “stealing super-delegates” has disappeared. I seem to recall that Doug dismissed criticism by saying, “The headline stands.” Maybe it stands in the bit bucket now. I don’t know how to look for old stuff like that but I think I will have a scout about and report back.

    Ted

  2. Publisher  June 14, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    You know Remington, I’m getting about as tired of this bullshit from you as I am from Wexler. Just because a story has cycled off the home page does not mean it has "disappeared." All it means is that you obviously don’t know how to search for a story on out site. Dennis Kucinich is a Congressman. Since the story is about a member of Congress most people might logically think it can be found in our "Capitol Hill" archives, which is a link at the top of the home page. When you click on that link you get this page.

    Wow! There it is, right in the listing of stories. Not "disappeared" as you claim.

    Don’t you just hate it when facts get in the way of your attempts to, like Wexler, put a lie out there and expect that it won’t be answered?

    If you’re going to comment on this site, learn how it operates. That way you won’t make a fool of yourself.

    Doug

  3. Publisher  June 13, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    Wexler:

    You’re a liar. Nobody has censored anything you posted and there is nothing in the moderating queque awaitng action.

     

    Doug

  4. WWWexler  June 13, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Well, now, Doug, you know I can’t prove anything, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    It doesn’t mean that I didn’t post my response to Teresa in the Olbermann thread and it didn’t show up up until an hour or so later… AFTER I started this blog.

    Like I said, I can’t prove it. But I know what I saw, I know when I post something and your site pops up a message saying that I don’t have access to that service… yeah, I know what I saw.

    It was good of you to put the post to Teresa up. Too bad you stopped my response to Pablo. I don’t know why you let this thread start, nor do I care.

    But I’m not lying, that’s what happened.

  5. Publisher  June 13, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    You can’t prove it because it didn’t happen. I suspect your browser was reading from a cache and needed to be refreshed. I did not put a hold on your post nor did I put it in a moderation queque.  If you had a problem reading it it was a problem on your end.

    You appear so determined to prove a point that is not true. Are you so spoilng for a fight that you have to manufacture claims of censorship that does not exist? The time on your reply is the time it went into the system and that was long before your outright lie here that I had "censored" you. I don’t censor posts and I don’t ban posters for disagreeing with me. Claiming that I do so is untrue.

    I also did not "block" any response to Pablo. I suspect you are previewing the post and then not hitting the "publish" button. I’ve seen others make the same mistake.

    Doug

  6. pollchecker  June 13, 2008 at 7:23 pm

    I would like to comment here.

    For the record, as moderator of the blogs, I did not censor or delete any post Wexler made today.

    But I think I have figured out what happened.

    WWWexler, you and I apparently tried to comment at the same time to the same post. I know the time on your’s is 2 minutes after mine. But when I posted mine, yours came up at the same time.

    I suspect that occasionally, when 2 people post at the same time to the same place, the server is not sure what to do so it does something out of the ordinary.

    I can’t prove this and I have no place in this discussion other than Wexler and I posted at the same time to the same article.

    I am a computer person and know that this is possible especially with databases. They are very finiky.

    Also, I would like to point out that on occasion, I have hit the preview button and then forgot to hit the submit button and not had anything published. It happens.

  7. WWWexler  June 14, 2008 at 8:19 am

    “You can’t prove it because it didn’t happen.”

    Thanks, I just won a $10 bet.

    ;-)

  8. Publisher  June 14, 2008 at 8:24 am

    You’re smart to bet on the truth. Too bad you don’t follow the same rule before you shoot off your mouth with wild-eyed accusations that are not true.

    –Doug

  9. WWWexler  June 14, 2008 at 8:27 am

    Have a nice life, Doug.

  10. Ted Remington  June 15, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    You know, Thompson, you are right and you are wrong. I said that it appeared to have disappeared, just as the story about Hillary appeared to have disappeared. I did not claim that either one had disappeared. I will admit that I did not look for it until just before I left to go out of town for the weekend and that I forgot to post a followup. Of course my need to do so is mooted by your showing me the error of my ways.

    If you go back and look at what I wrote I did not try to put a lie out there. Yes, I made a fool out of myself, but I did not try to put a lie out there. I am a careful enough person that I would not have made a definitive statement that the story had been removed until I had actually looked and been unable to find it. I humbly apologize for failure to follow up on my research. But I will not apologize for saying that the articles appeared to have disappeared, because in fact they did not seem evident on a careful examination of the front page of the site. I should have looked further, and I said I intended to do so.

    Now, can we shake hands, agree that I made a fool out of myself, and go on?

    Ted

  11. Publisher  June 15, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    We will move on but your attempt to explain your way out of this is lacking and an apology is owed. That fact that you do not feel so tells me a lot about your motivations.

    What you posted was this:

    The attack on Kucinich must not have happened because it appears to be gone. Hunh. I could have sworn I put in a criticism about Doug’s not practicing what he preaches. I must have been dreaming about the last season of Dallas.

    If that is not a clear suggestion that I eliminated something that was critical of me I don’t know what the hell is. You obviously wanted to leave the impression that I did so. Stores cycle off the home page of this site every day but they remain part of the archives. To suggest otherwise is an outright lie.

    As I said, we will move on but if you, or anyone else, ever pulls another stunt like this, you will be gone from this web site. No warnings, no second chances and no reprieves.

Comments are closed.