Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Interesting comment method has started on the blog.

I have been writing a whole lot of text into the blog for 6 months or so, and my essay style entries have been of some interest to readers. I have had people complain about what I have written, but they always complained in full paragraphs and with real ideas. My recent series of posts analyzing Sheila Simon's lightweight mayor platform has brought a new sequence of comments that is interesting and I thought I would share it with you.

So, I write a couple of page essay about some topic that I think is interesting. There is a comment that has paragraphs that I write another page of stuff in response. Then I start getting comments from the language lawyers. They pull out one sentence from the 4 pages (or so) I have written and complain that I'm wrong because of that one sentence.

The interesting thing is that with the exception of nitpicking, the pro-Sheila commenter's don't seem to be able to defend her platform very well. Facts, details and meaningful analysis seem to be lost. I'm sure at some point these people wrote paragraphs with details, but they seem to have lost the ability to here.

I will grant you that my posts about Sheila's ideas are direct and hard, but people who run on a platform of attacks and usurping their opponent's accomplishments, while trying to frame themselves as ethical, should be expecting a little flack.

I suppose one of the reasons that John Kerry and Paul Simon before him, lost their run at the White House is because Senators have no real accomplishments. The main problem that Sheila has is just that, she has done nothing so far beyond being one of seven voting on Brad's accomplishments. Four years ago, Brad and Maggie had the same problem, but because they weren't running against a sitting mayor it balanced out. Today, we have one person with accomplishments and one person who wished they had some in the mayor's race. Makes for an interesting problem for Ms. Simon doesn't it?

I have decided answering one line "snips" of my blog entries is a waste of my time, so I'm going to stop publishing them. Of course, if they have a point that is interesting I will put them up. I like the idea that to appear here you have to write paragraphs and I think that is why people choose to spend their time reading my rants.

Your comments are welcome, assuming that you can do something better then quote one line I wrote and complain about it.


Peter in Carbondale said...

As a special offer - if you post with your real name and I'll let you do your one line out of context game.

Saluki87 said...

Peter, I would continue to allow these types of posts. If a post is mean spirited or offensive then I can understand keeping it off. However, I think you respond well to the "snips" and the more dialog the merrier, imho. Sometimes you do a little snipping as well which I have no problem with (although you also publish the entire comment you are responding to for context, the fair thing to do).

This Brad vs. Shelia debate is fun. I will add one comment about this from a Carbondale banker friend of mine. He said that the business climate in Carbondale is several orders of magnitude better since Brad took over. I quote, "whether you like him personally or not, the abillity to do business in Carbondale is so much better I would hate to see us go back to where we were." Will we go backwards with Shelia as far as business goes? I don't know but it's a good question to ask yourself as a voter.

Peter in Carbondale said...

If I had unlimited time I would allow them and respond to each one. I don't have that time though and I feel it is wasting my time.

I wrote a long entry about dealing with the EE Chairman a while back. Dave wrote a comment or pointed to it from his blog and wrote something like look at Peter take the bull by the horns and that Peter clearly didn't like having the EE Chairman waste his time. I'm not sure that I had seen it that way before, but I thought that Dave hit the nail on the head.

I got a comments from a person about eminent domain recently, where they wanted to argue about if I knew the law or not. I knew that Illinois law is different then Federal and that even with the new Federal ruling you still couldn't take the Tap. Do I need to post another silly comment and insult from someone that doesn't do their homework? It would be OK, but I have to waste my time to get things right again.

I will err on the side of publishing and I think it is fun to get comments too. If you like I will send you the comments I'm thinking about not publishing and let you decide if they are a waste of my time or not.

Thanks for the good thoughts.