[Imc-dc-editorial] Disagree with hiding all comments on Rachel Corrie

[Mike Flugennock]

>To whomever is "hiding" comments about Rachel Corrie -
>
>I do not agree with you.  I do not think you are
>following the editorial policy as it stands.  
>
>Comments that are sexist or racist are clearly not in
>line with the editorial policy.  Even current debate
>on editorial list over hiding "personal attacks" is
>just cause to hide "personal attacks".  
>
>But you are now hiding comments from people who
>disagreed with her politics, or her tactics, including
>comments giving her respect while disagreeing with
>her...

Yeah, I read that one, but it was also from some troll who was a) paid by the State, b) a "soldier" who's actually one of those pasty-faced, Tom Clancy-reading, Sun Tzu-quoting, desk-humping junior officers of a type that my father had to deal with regularly when he was serving in Vietnam, or c) just some standar-issue, not paid at all, wank-ass troll from freerepublic.com. Personally, I honestly wouldn't miss the sonofabitch if his posts were hidden, myself. I've seen too much of his like in the nearly fifteen years I've spent on BBi, Usenet, and blogs.

But, as Dennis Miller says, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.


"All over, people changing their roles,
 along with their overcoats;
 if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
 they'd send a limousine anyway!"         --the clash.
_______________________________________________________________
Mike Flugennock, the Sinkers, flugennock at sinkers dot org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, http://www.sinkers.org