The recent decision by popular comic blogger Valerie D’Orazio to adopt a new comment policy on her Occasional Superheroine blog has led to some discussion in the comic book community about the merits and pitfalls of comment moderation.
In her announcement post, Ms. D’Orazio states:
It happens with a lot of blogs…especially, strangely, a number of blogs run by women.
After a rash over a period of months of being pelted by “overly relentless and negative commenters who occasionally cross the line,” the owner of the blog decides to either
a) Take away comments completely
or
b) Moderate the comments.
At some point, comments might be unmoderated again, but right now this is what suits me. I sacrifice my ever-dwindling free time to write this blog. I get little-to-no compensation for it. To have the comments section resemble the decorum on the Newsarama forums on a bad day both disgusts and discourages me. At least Newsarama can ban or force out users — and apparently, they do.
In a discussion in the comments of one of her recent posts, Johanna Draper Carlson understands:
Pedro, you make good points, and I’m not trying to defend Valerie against all criticism — I disagree with her on several things that it’s not important to get into now — but I do think that moderating comments is a necessary action for ANYone running an active internet site, and it doesn’t mean the moderator can’t take criticism.
I’ve been running fora since 1992 in one format or another, and without moderation (for behavior, not ideas), I’d be insane and/or long gone. Most people are fine, even when disagreeing — but there’s that 1% that are viciously poisonous, and there’s no need to put up with it.
Now, some people do go overboard and use it to silence perfectly polite, well-behaved people because they can’t tolerate being disagreed with (ex. Byrne, Ellis), but I don’t know if Valerie is doing that or not. Based on my own experience, I take the complaints of those booted with a big grain of salt — they can’t all have been the perfect little angels they claim to be.
While Rick of Bent Corner disagrees:
Allowing a free flow of ideas is an important part of the blog equation. When a blogger employs comment moderation and uses it to filter out opinions that differ with their own, they might as well ditch the blogging platform and just write Word documents. It’s dishonest. It gives the false impression that everyone reading and commenting agrees with the author. That very well might not be the case. Bloggers shouldn’t be afraid of people not agreeing with them. Bloggers shouldn’t be afraid of someone pointing out that they are wrong. They shouldn’t use comment moderation to discourage dissenting opinions. In fact, they should be encouraging people to weigh in with contrary opinions.
So what do you think?
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I couldn’t care less who Valerie D’Orazio will or won’t let comment on her blog, but the idea that all blog comments should be unmoderated is ridiculous.
I once got a comment on my blog graphically stating what the anonymous commenter wanted to do to the young woman in the picture I’d included in my post. Should I have just let that stand in respect of free speech and encouraging dissenting opinions?
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I think that is a disingenuous contention, Michael. You’re engaging in a strawman debate.
No one is saying anything of the like should be allowed to stay up on a site. At worst, the contention is that going to fully moderated posts leads to moderating out some genuine dissenting opinions. I think all sides of the debate would say it is perfectly fine to delete the offending post you mentioned. Some suggest that it would be unproductive overkill for you to go to completely moderated comments. The delay AND the filter help discourage open discourse.
In this particular case, however, I think it has been made clear that Valerie is moderating to edit out dissent. She might not agree to that, but I’ve seen plenty of people that asked her to clarify the factual basis for her opinion on an issue, only to be accused of being a troll out to win an argument with a famous blogger, having taken a break from putting up BS on Wiki and insulting creators on the ‘Rama.
That’s not even including my run-ins with her (which some are of the opinion started with her ‘Rama comment as a veiled dig at my Guggenheim dust-up).
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Don’t forget that this all kicked off at Valerie’s site because readers were calling her on misidentifying Black Lightning as Steel in her review of a recent JSA issue. People took issue with her mistake (which was a bad one, given that a) BL was called Jeff three times on the page, and b) Val was assistant editor on books wherein BL appeared). THAT is where this started. She can dress it up however she wants; she just doesn’t want anyone to say that she’s wrong.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Is her misidentification of Black Lightning a big deal, really? Sometimes people get obsessed with things and they really aren’t relevant to the issues being discussed, and I think moderation could be used to get the thread back on topic.
If it’s your blog of course you have the right to moderate comments for whatever reason. If people aren’t happy with the moderation, they don’t have to visit that blog anymore.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I have no idea who this Valerie person is so I’ll just get to the question at hand:
There’s dissenting opinion and then there are personal attacks and harassment. One shouldn’t be silenced, but the other shouldn’t be tolerated.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Tim,
Actually, the Black Lightning bit was somewhat relative to the topic at hand. She was condemning Geoff Johns work as being too busy and mired in continuity, if I remember correctly. She then pawned off her mistake on DC’s minority characters being so generic that they were interchangeable, despite the fact that the character was called by name three times.
Sure, part of it was based on the fact that she was making a Herculean effort to avoid admitting a mistake, but it was, also, about her inherently flawed arguments.
While I agree that people can just find another blog, normally the point of having a blog is to engage others in discussion of whatever topic you’re interested in sharing with the world.
If you’re only interested in having sycophants agree with your every thought, it says something about you. Which, of course, the rest of the world is welcome to point out in their own blogs and, if you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it.
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 am
No one was ever really upset with the fact she mistook one character with another, it was the fact she justified it as intentional to show that all black characters at DC are bland.
Some people took notice and questioned the logic. Now they can’t post on her site. It’s really not a huge loss. Moderated comments kind of makes it easier for me to know which blogs to take off my feeds.
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:42 am
Every one of my blogs is moderated -
otherwise they would be filled with spam comments - I;’m impressed that all of you folks have developed some method to keep spam out.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:19 am
What a surprise.
A couple comments by the guy who’s had most of his posts taken down from Val’s blog.
When you consider that a number of his posts needlessly brought up the sexual history of a female comic book writer…
That he repeatedly made sexual comments about Val herself…
And that he’s made bashing her a regular feature on his own blog (over 10 Val centric entries in 2 months)…
I can see why she wouldn’t want him to have a voice on her blog.
BTW, if my sudden and rude appearance in the middle of this civil discourse causes any hurt feelings, here’s a link if he wants to report Val to THE FRIENDS OF LULU:
http://friends-lulu.org/
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Two separate issues:
1. It’s up to each blogger to decide whether they want moderated or unmoderated comments. Both systems have advantages and drawbacks. Someone who disagrees with the blogger’s decision is free to leave if they wish.
2. It seemed pretty clear to me that Valerie was, in fact, attempting to squelch discourse, while at the same time painting any disagreement with her as being rooted in sexism. It’s a shame, IMO, as I have enjoyed her blog in the past and agree with her on more than a few things, but the tendency to paint any dissenting opinion as stupid and/or sexist really detracts from the blog.
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Dan, your comment about Kevin reporting Val to the Friends of Lulu might be relevant if Val was doing something contrary to their stated objectives and when Kevin pointed this out to her, she replied that he lacked the ability to understand the “nuances”.
For your comment to be even slightly relevant, Kevin would have to turn the matter over to Friends of Lulu so they could decide for themselves if one of their own was publicly undermining their efforts.
Val has a tendency to write some provocative stuff. I think that’s a good thing. I respect her for it. What I don’t respect is how she tries to silence opinions that are contrary to her own.
I think that’s unfortunate.
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Actually, Rick, it’s pretty relevant. Since Kevin often questions Val’s qualifications to be President of Lulu in his regular column that’s dedicated to bashing her.
Also I believe the statement you’re referencing (that Kevin “lacked the ability to understand ‘nuances’”) is a case of you paraphrasing someone else’s words.
When Kevin admitted he wasn’t a member of the WGA, the person he was posting with POLITELY responded that they might know a “little more about the nuances of this situation”. It took Kevin himself to rephrase that statement (and add a vulgarity to the mix) to couch it as something that was rude and disrespectful: “Oh…I see I missed a reply of yours. You DID, in fact, try to tell me that I don’t know jack ____ because I’m not in a Hollywood union.”
And that became his personal justification for what was seen by most as a petty and vindictive act.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Dan, if that is really you, you’re misrepresenting things, again. You’re trying to spin what was said into something worse than actually happened.
I got banned from her site when I brought up the Devin Grayson rumor that has been around for almost a decade now. Before that, I had done one blog about her Black Lightning/Steel mistake because, well, she had closed comments down regarding the whole thing. I joked at the end of the blog that at least she didn’t go to moderated comments so she could make all dissenting opinion disappear. Oops.
Oh…and in that blog where she made that mistake? She threw a dig at me in telling the commenter to go to Newsarama and pick a fight with a creator. This is before I even posted anything on one of her blogs.
Sexual comments about her, Dan? Way to twist things. When she claimed that I got into my spat with you and Guggenheim in order to make a name for myself, I countered that this was coming from the woman who anonymously dished dirt on DC and used the story of her ripped vagina from an anonymous penciller to get hits. I believe she titled a blog “Broken Vagina Monologues” and I know she teased the coming of that story in the blogs preceding it.
I’ll end, for consistency’s sake, with this: don’t you have some scripts to finish so Brevoort doesn’t throw you under the bus for a third time or need you to bring on a co-writer for your Spidey stuff, too?
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
While I thought Huxford’s comments about the certain female comic writer were excessive and way out of line, he never, from my observation, made inappropriate sexual comments about Ms. D’Orazio.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Rick, for the record, there was something to report Val on.
http://tinyurl.com/29ky69
This is where she did a puff piece on Calvin Ayre’s vanity comic book project. Calvin runs BodogLife.com. One click from http://www.calvinayrelife.com/ (which she linked in her story) gets you to some obviously sexploitation material. A second click gets you to the motherlode: http://tv.bodoglife.net/bodog-girls/
Apparently she or someone who likes her reads my blog, because she deleted the interview sometime after I pointed out the occurrence.
Sorry…I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of comment moderation.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Kevin,
Speaking of misrepresenting things, when you brought up Devin’s sexual history you didn’t refer to it as “rumor” until you were called on it. You treated it as fact.
And Val’s history is Val’s history. If you choose to use it as a cheap shot at the end of an argument, you should accept how it reflects on you.
BTW, good job “taking time off” from Newsarama. Didn’t you say:
“So, rather than let my principles hurt anyone I considered to be a friend, I told Matt Brady that I’d be happy to take some time off so that maybe there could be a change in perception…a realization that I don’t actually work for Newsarama anymore. I felt, in fact, that it was a principled thing to do. Matt begrudgingly accepted this offer.”
For the record, and just to make things very clear, could you please clarify:
Did you ask to be removed from Newsarama?
Or were you told that if you didn’t “ask” to be removed you would be anyway? Do you still want to stick to the wording that Matt Brady “begrudgingly accepted” your “offer”?
Just wondering how “principled” it is to take “time off” from Newsarama, but not the Newsarama Blogs. And what other wiggle room your principles allow yourself but not others.
Apparently it’s okay for you to run a frequent COLUMN designed to specifically bash Val, but an odd “dig” from her gets such a testy response.
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Dan,
Please don’t pretend that you have any knowledge of the conversations that occured between Kevin and Matt, Kevin and me, or me and Matt regarding his departures from Newsarama and ShotgunReviews.com. If you wish to question him about posting, that’s fine. But you weren’t in those conversations; we were.
Kevin quit writing for Newsarama and Shotgun on his own. End of story.
Thanks,
Troy
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm
This is like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in action. The more I look at this kerfluffle the less I have any idea what the Hell is going on.
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Dan,
You don’t need to explain to me what transpired between Kevin and Marc. I was reading it as it happened. That’s how I knew you encouraging Kevin to report Val to Friends of Lulu wasn’t at all similar to what happened between Kevin and Marc.
And as far as Marc not being rude to Kevin, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I thought Marc asking Kevin if he was a member of the WGA — or any of the other Hollywood unions — just so he could dismiss what he had to say was definably rude. Though Kevin wasn’t a member of the WGA, it was obvious he knew a thing or two about organized labor and that the subject of worker solidarity was near and dear to his heart.
I still believe Kevin knows more about organized labor and unions then Marc.
I was reading the exchange between Kevin and Marc as a neutral third-party. You on the other hand had an existing personal issue with Kevin. I believe it had something to do with a negative review he once wrote about one of your funny books. He then refused your offer to talk about it on the telephone. I’m paraphrasing from memory, so I might have some of the details wrong.
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Beyond the whole thing with Kevin (which, for the sake of full disclosure, I did comment on on Valerie’s blog, which Kevin himself made a point to, in a very mature gesture, thank me for expressing), I have to say that, even though I’m a regular reader and I respect her for her opinions, I’m with matches in that
“It seemed pretty clear to me that Valerie was, in fact, attempting to squelch discourse, while at the same time painting any disagreement with her as being rooted in sexism. It’s a shame, IMO, as I have enjoyed her blog in the past and agree with her on more than a few things, but the tendency to paint any dissenting opinion as stupid and/or sexist really detracts from the blog.”
She has done and continues to do great work in a medium that is very unforgiving of strong, female-centric opinions, and I hope moderating the comments will lead to her being able to focus exclusively on her sharp critique.
While I do take issue with her coloring of certain comments and commenters as “overly relentless and negative” when I feel she is just as guilty if not more so in response, the fact is, it is HER blog and no matter what reason she uses to justify it, I feel she is well within her right to do so and doesn’t significantly impede the free exchange of ideas.
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Dan, just don’t read Huxford’s comments. I’ve seen several conversations where people ignored him and the conversation continued in a productive manner. Since I’ve stopped reading his comments, my forehead has received much fewer wall-bruises.
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Dan, in all honesty, I don’t think you understand any of the issues at hand.
I know Val is a close friend of yours, but the reason that the comments were taking down on her blog have to do more with comments that David Brothers and Myself had to say on her opinion in regards to race within comics.
Lisa Fortuner goes in more detail - http://blog.newsarama.com/2008/02/15/just-past-the-horizon-bland.
Huxford didn’t even post in the thread that caused her to shut down comments at all.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I really wish that Kevin Huxford wasn’t going all Ahab on this issue, because it’s really sort of muddying the issue.
Maybe he just poisoned the well, but I got called a troll who was out to make a name for myself because I disagreed with her position on a Marvel continuity reboot using Skrulls. I’ve since had pretty much all of my polite (even supportive) comments deleted rather than posted to her blog.
I understand it is her right to moderate her comments, delete comments, to do whatever she would like to do on her blog. But it’s disingenuous to try to boil this down to “scary dudes making scary sexual comments send her to moderation out of fear.” She pretty obviously didn’t like having any sort of disagreement at all.
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
am i the only one who thinks she is starting to come off all john byrne about this? i mean her whole mark david chapman thing is exactly simialair to something a byrne bot said about those who criticise byrne.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
also on another tangent doesn’t this all seem like a whole covertly done fight over brand new day. think about it val’s friends with dan slott (so much so he comes here to defend her) and she mentions gugenheim. who is the one she doesn’t like? kevin huxford an admitedly anti-bnd person. and it also seems that some of kevin’s supporters are anti-bnd. just looking at it as if it has nothing to do with blogs and moreso just brand new day. but i could be wrong.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
As a completely unbiased observer of this whole thing–and after commenting above I went through and read ALL of the relevant message board and blog posts (and comments) to see what the fuss was about, and I hate to even set myself up for possible backlash by throwing my two cents in, I see Kevin and company coming off as more than a bit aggressive (inappropriately so) in relation to the whole Guggenheim thing and then in regards to Valerie’s moderation decisions.
Even if Kevin had the best intentions, his tone sometimes came off as rude, and that’s true for some others as well.
I don’t know Valerie or Marc Guggenheim or Dan Slott at all, but they come off as more than patient compared to the vitriol and personal attacks on the other side.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Tim,
This has nothing to do with Guggenheim and Kevin Huxford. Huxford didn’t even post in the 2 threads that caused her to moderate comments. He wasn’t even the person that she locked down the threads about.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Okay, maybe calling Dan Slott “patient” wasn’t totally accurate. Righteously indignant, maybe. Maybe fairly so.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Wait, didn’t it all start (sort of) because of the comment she made about Kevin’s threat to Guggenheim? That was my interpretation. I thought that the “security at conventions” post was one of the ones that stirred stuff up, no?
That, and the people who attacked her for not knowing that there were two generic black DC heroes who had teenage superhero daughters.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Once again, I’m just an observer, and wasn’t caught up in the discussion as it happened, so I am not really familiar with the order of events.
But, to me, it looks like someone who started moderating because people were being unnecessarily aggressive in their comments. I don’t really see that as silencing “discourse.”
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
I kind of wish this thread hadn’t devolved into Val vs Khux vs Slott, because that’s entirely beside the point here. That’s an issue of its own, and one that I kind of feel like should stay personal, in part because it’s completely ridiculous.
Regarding moderated comments– I think part of the disagreement comes from the fact that there are two kinds of moderated comments. There are those moderated comments that require approval first, as on Val’s blog, and moderated comments that are just open comments where the blog’s owner is free to delete posts, as on most of the blogs on the internet.
Blogs that require approval absolutely kill the flow of conversation. You read a post, you comment, and then you have to wait hours to see the next comment. You can’t reply to anyone until the first wave of approved comments hit, which means you get a lot of redundant responses.
In addition to that, like Rick says above, it encourages intellectual dishonesty. If someone disagrees with you or says something you don’t like, you don’t have to post that comment. You’re given the temptation to pick and choose, and no one likes to be told that they’re wrong.
So, time lapsed conversation + screening = pointless. You have to wait too long and you might even waste your time writing out a thorough comment and have it lost to the ether at the whim of the blog’s owner.
Blog@’s method, like most comics blogs, is by far superior. Just have someone ready to delete inappropriate comments or lock comics threads when things get out of line. Either that or go with no comments at all. Anything else seems like you’re just paying lip service to the idea of conversation.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Hey, y’know, I went back and looked it up. With his first post above and his first post in the Guggenheim thread, Dan Slott DOES seem to come in and start shit where Kevin Huxford is concerned. Let him prove otherwise.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
@Tim:
Wait, didn’t it all start (sort of) because of the comment she made about Kevin’s threat to Guggenheim? That was my interpretation. I thought that the “security at conventions” post was one of the ones that stirred stuff up, no?
The Huxford thing is separate, but related. It didn’t start everything up, though.
The last thread before the lock was the one about the Susan Storm skrull. Valerie made a post talking about how Secret Invasion could be used as a continuity reboot ala Crisis. Commenters pointed out that no, it wasn’t going to be used as a reboot. Val answered back snarkily, they answered back with equal amounts of snark, she responded, they responded and said “see how useless this is?” and hey, bam, closed comments.
Could things have been less heated? Yeah, on both sides. Val gave as good as she got and the commenters gave as good as they got. It isn’t quite as easy as Val getting jumped on or commenters getting zinged and flipping out. It was more like both sides were practicing that age old internet snark style of discourse.
That, and the people who attacked her for not knowing that there were two generic black DC heroes who had teenage superhero daughters.
I guess full disclosure here– I was involved in that conversation. It wasn’t that she didn’t know that there were two generic black DC heroes, it was the way she reacted after being called on mixing them up. She first said that she meant that the story would have been better if it featured John Henry, then she played the “all these minority heroes are tokens anyway” card, and the “where is the black superman?” gambit, which was where I came in. She was moving the goal posts in her argument and was rightfully called on it.
I honestly feel like the entire situation isn’t worthy of all the attention it’s getting. A blogger didn’t like the response she was getting, so she took steps to correct that. It happens all the time.
The only good thing to come out of it is the conversation about moderated comments. Everything has been stupid snark and e-beef.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Tim -
The Security at convention post was after the moderation lockdown. In fact it was one of the first post.
Also, I don’t know what’s the deal with calling John Henry Irons and Jefferson Pierce bland characters? Have people not been reading their comics closely?
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I think in the case of it was her trying to ill advisidly defend a misread of an issue of jsa. Her reaction being that she felt that all black characters at dc are written the same and then trying to defend it by saying its the writers fault not the fact that she really wasn’t paying attention. I wouldn’t call her racist but her defensivness does seem to show some latent unconcious racism if not then mere stupidity and the snarkiness not to appologize for her inattention.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
But then again i could be misreading the whole thing very badly so.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I feel that i should take back the idea that val was being racist but her reaction didn’t help people discern from her reaction.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
By people i mean myself.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:26 am
I totally solved the moderated/unmoderated comments thing on my blog by not writing about things in the comic industry that piss me off and just started posting naughty pictures instead.
Now nobody ever comments and I’m much more relaxed as a result.
(Though it still pisses me off that Big Gay Obsidian is just JSA wallpaper these days.)
March 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Here we go again.
“Oh…and in that blog where she made that mistake? She threw a dig at me in telling the commenter to go to Newsarama and pick a fight with a creator. This is before I even posted anything on one of her blogs.”
1) You don’t know for a fact she was talking about you. People fight with Liefeld all the time. Fans and creators used to fight all the time on Newsarama. That’s why there are hardly any creators left posting here.
2) So even though she made one little general statement about Newsarama you decide to get on your soapbox and THRASH her on your blog and anywhere else you post? Just be the bigger man and let it go.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
From limited reading, it seems that Huxford is clinically incapable of being “the bigger man.”
March 24th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
As a professional critic, I’ll share something I’ve learned from years of experience: If you’ve got strong and/or potentially controversial opinions, and you’re in a position to deliver those opinions to a sizable audience (as many popular bloggers are–D’Orazio arguably among them), you NEED to have thick skin, because people are going to disagree with you, sometimes vehemently so.
There’s a fine line between moderation and outright censorship. Of course, the owner of a website is free to do as they wish–but if I were in a similar position, I’d be very mindful of NOT John Byrne-ing my discussions up.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
“From limited reading, it seems that Huxford is clinically incapable of being “the bigger man.””
Kevin Huxford has a small penis?
March 24th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
So i’m not the only one getting a byrnish feeling from all of this?
March 24th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Can we stop talking about Kevin Huxford and actually talk about the topic of Melissa’s column?
No one cares about their stupid internet slap fight.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Meh, comments are part of the blog, so it’s up to the blogger whether they should appear. They should delete anything that’s boring.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I used to read and comment on Val’s blog every day. I rarely agreed with her and we had no problems at all. I also regularly read and comment on FunnyBook Babylon, so I’m familiar with the writing of Pedro, David, and Chris. I remember very well the comment thread that started the whole thing, when Pedro and David took exception to Val’s comments about token minority characters. I ended up posting a few times myself, talking to Pedro about his comments and coming in with my own perspective. Pedro and I agreed and we were both in disagreement with Val.
At the same time, Chris was posting on the Susan Storm Skrull thread.
At the end of the day, when I returned to read the new comments on a very interesting thread on race in comics, I saw comments were now moderated and it felt like everyone who disagreed with Val was being called a troll engaging in personal and sexist attacks.
I don’t need senseless name calling in my life, so I’ve stopped reading her blog. I also don’t have any interest in comments that only agree with the blogger. I don’t really even care what most bloggers have to say, I just read them because it passes the time at work. I like FunnyBook Babylon and Journalista a lot, so I’m going to keep reading those.
But this had *nothing* to do with Kevin Huxford. To paint it as such is just to confuse the issue.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
so was dan slott confusing the issue?
March 27th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
I’m late to this party, so I’ll say nothing about the underlying subject…
But on the main subject of moderated comments, you might as well not have any comments. Just accept email responses and post-and-respond to those you select.
You know, like letter pages.