[Imc-web] RE: IMC-Web Digest, Vol 33, Issue 13

[Phil Stinard]

I thought about not saying anything more about the hiding of comments, but 
I'll write (hopefully) one last time.  I think it's ridiculous to be hiding 
comments that you think might be by the person you have raised to mythic 
heights--Jack Ryan.  I've had a disturbing number of my own comments hidden 
when I've posted anonymously, and when I've complained about that in the 
past, I've been told, "Oh, we thought you were Jack Ryan."  My reply to that 
is, who cares about Jacky Ryan?  People can make up their own minds about 
whether a post is legitimate, and choose whether to reply to it or ignore 
it.  The only Jack Ryan posts I've seen that were worthy of hiding was when 
he was posting soft-core porn making fun of the Cream City Collective.  
Can't you decide whether to hide something based on whether it is 
pornographic, or whether it advocates violence, or whatever objective 
criteria you apply in such matters, rather than hiding stuff you think fits 
the political or stylistic mindset of a person you're turning into a mythic 
villain/hero?  You're catching too many others in the crossfire.

A second concern I have on hiding comments is your criteria.  When I was 
posting on what the Bible says on homosexuality, there was a repeat 
anonymous poster who kept badgering me with lies and false assumptions about 
me, and they said, among other things, that my Pastor preaches hate.  I know 
that this person does not know my Pastor.  My Pastor is a civil rights 
leader, as are many black church leaders, and making such false blanket 
statements in ignorance is perhaps one reason why some black churches aren't 
more involved in the types of issues that the IMC supports.  If my Pastor 
came to me and asked my opinion about whether to become involved in a 
certain cause, I'd think twice before making a positive recommendation if it 
were something that involved the IMC.  I don't really think you should be 
hiding any of these comments, whether written by an anonymous poison pen, or 
by Jack Ryan, but my point is, you'll hide stuff that you think is from a 
relatively benign and self-evident troll, but you won't hide stuff that is 
not only false, but also damaging to community relations.  It makes no sense 
to me.

--Phil


>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:27:24 -0500
>From: Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
>Subject: [Imc-web] Unpublished Comments
>To: imc-web at ucimc.org
>Message-ID: <45352E9C.3010608 at earthlink.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Several of the comments I unpublished in the thread about the CIW seem
>to have become published again. I have agin unpublished them.
>
>One of the issues with not having a central list on Drupal, at least for
>the editors, is that the genealogy of comment strings and timing is
>unclear to other editors. Thus, when dealing with Jack, as I believe
>these comments were,  it may not be as obvious as before why I've hidden
>them.
>
>I'd just like to ask that we presume that each other is acting within
>policy when we come across something that has been unpublished and leave
>it there. If any of us thinks that a comment should be resurrected,
>please check in here prior to doing so.
>
>Generally, when dealing with such long term, recognizable patterns of
>anonymous posting -- for instance, Ricky gets this same shit every time
>he posts -- I don't bother with notices to this list. If we feel this
>needs to reinstated to deal with the lack of a central page for
>unpublished comments, that is one option.
>Mike Lehman