Comments on: A vaguely passive-aggressive post on commenters

By: sharon

sharon — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:35:21 +0000

Commenters who, for reasons I shall never be able to fathom, refuse to use capital letters.

can’t speak for anyone else, but when i do it, it usually means i’m drunk

By: Beryl

Beryl — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:36:13 +0000

Here’s my PayPal number…

http://imgsrv.gocomics.com/dim/?fh=b5b43c8960310b847c53f8d947195d92

By: mollymooly

mollymooly — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:31:33 +0000

Once there are over 100 comments, further comments are pointless. Anybody who reads all preceding comments has no life. Anybody who jumps straight to the last ones is an idiot.

By: Doctor Slack

Doctor Slack — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:08:57 +0000

17. Commenters who begin their comments with the phrase ‘late to the party’…

Oh, shit.

By: stostosto

stostosto — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:34:06 +0000

Chris obviously hadn’t read the comments to his post before he posted.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:07:33 +0000

156: I can.

By: Natilo Paennim

Natilo Paennim — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:38:02 +0000

153.3 It has to be said that this occasionally (if not often) takes the form of enforcing a bourgeois-liberal consensus against any radical position, regardless of facts or actual political realities. I would comment here more often, but it often seems like there’s little point when the weight of opinion falls so heavily in favor of maintaining collegiality over admitting of any difference. Obviously, the preceding does not apply when we’re talking about actual trolling, but the line drawn between trolling and dissidence here is often blurry in the extreme.

By: Salient

Salient — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:03:26 +0000

Didn’t John Emerson comments used to have their own category? (protip: John Emerson is the new Brett Favre) (this analogy works on multiple levels)

By: Dylan

Dylan — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:12:45 +0000

Didn’t John Emerson comments used to have their own category?

By: garymar

garymar — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:39:34 +0000

Who can resist commenting on this thread? I certainly can’t.

By: harold

harold — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:11:08 +0000

Well, I can remember having a little disagreement with C. Bertram about vox populi vox dei and/or the use of the word “populist”, which apparently has a different connotation on the other side of the pond. I am U.S. citizen.

But I ought to also say that I very much admire him and consider him an excellent writer, ever since I happened to read a book he wrote about a subject I was interested in, as well as exceptionally thoughtful and conscientious person who really knows his stuff (as far as I can tell, and as far as I can tell, a lot of other people don’t seem to).

On the other hand we non-academics may like to rag members of the professoriat a little—if nothing else just to get back for all we had to put up with back in the day. And I think its true that comments on a blog are more like a party than a classroom. But, for my part, I generally only bother to read and comment on blogs that I like.

By: iWonder?

iWonder? — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:04:16 +0000

…..it is just a sing along

What would you do if i sang out of tune, would you stand up and walk out on me?

To A vaguely passive-aggressive post on commenters, by the “out of the crooked timber”, not sure if i might pass this way again, none the less, a wonderful read, delightful comments. Daddy sings base, Momma sings tenor, and the rest of us, just join right in…….

By: zhaz

zhaz — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:45:50 +0000

This is a rather silly post. What does the writer assume – that commenters who fall into his/her’s 1 to 10 list are going to pull up their socks and straighten their underwear – very unlikely. It comes off as an exercise in pointless grandstanding.

Truth is, it is most often the comment threads in here that make the best reading. The main posts have become increasingly pedantic and boring.

So what if comments don’t meet someone or other’s correctness criteria. Aside from understandable constraints on the more egregious forms of targeting, effing and blinding etc… requirements for comment-thread-correctness are almost always a way of shutting down criticism in an effort to feather-bed the comfort zone of thin skinned types – a few of them with ivory tower complexes.

How about a 1 to 10 nitpicking exercise on the contributors who post in here? Not that it would make any difference.

Crazy eyes killer’s sarcasm (#30) made me laugh… right on.

By: Maria

Maria — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:19:52 +0000

Late to this thread but I can confirm I get an abundance of comments of types 1, 2, 3 and 5. Especially 5 which can be very wearying. And yes, it is a guy thing.

Chris’s post is valuable, not least because it shows the discrepancy in the experience of the CT writer and the average, decent commenter. It’s a different world when this crap is coming directly for you, as opposed to just being slightly annoying comment pollution in an otherwise interesting thread.

A couple of people have commented that CT is ‘lucky’ that our commenters aren’t like what you find on some other blogs. That’s not luck. It’s a lot of hard work and brass balls kicking out trolls who are forever threatening retribution of one kind or another. (And I can give credit for that work since I don’t actually do a lot of it myself.)

By: Substance McGravitas

Substance McGravitas — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:49:42 +0000

@120:
Actually, I don’t get your point, other than the vague imputation that I’m an irritating commenter, which is likely generally true and I can live with that.

Don’t worry about it: it just made a very funny screenshot when combined with Firefox’s RSS.