Does LISNews Need A Rule Book For Commentors?

I'd like to read some more comments about comments. Should we have some kind of comment control @ Your LISNews? Recent posts at Lifehacker and The Consumerist (especially This One) make me wonder is there is something we can do @ LISNews to foster an environment open to dialog.

This could be as simple as filtering out words commonly considered to be obscene (something easy to do in Drupal, they call it a "Badwords filter"), or as drastic as instituting some kind of comments policy and then enforcing it by deleting comments. This would require some kind of "comments posse" that will run around deleting comments that don't fit into some kind of rule book we'd need to write, or something like that.

Personally, I don't know if we need to take any drastic steps, but you might be able to convince me to put a Badwords filter in place. I've read just about every comment left on LISNews for the past 9 years, so nothing bothers me any more. BUT, if a vocal minority of potty mouthed folks are scaring people away from LISNews, then maybe we should put some kind of controls in place. This might help bring new voices into our conversations. If new people decide that LISNews is worth their time, it can only make things better.

I don't know the best way to handle this, until now I've been 100% hands off, but I'd like to hear from you if you think something should be done (or not). Would putting rules and controls in place be a good idea, and why? Would be make LISNews a better place? Would it just be a big ugly can of censorship worms?

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Dealing with useless comments

One word, sir:

Disemvowling.

Works on BoingBoing and it's not censoring. It just takes some work to read it.

Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes. Tycho (Jerry Holkins) @ Penny Arcade

Disemvowling

Not a terrible idea I guess, there might even be a drupal module, which would make it easier.

Of course there is

I don't know much about Drupal except that there seems to be a module for EVERYTHING.

http://drupal.org/project/comment_bury_promote

Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes. Tycho (Jerry Holkins) @ Penny Arcade

hate to do it

Can you site specific posts? I'm not exactly sure who or what we are talking about. Name names, pls?

Me, for instance, or . . .

Anyone who calls George Bush jr. a nazi. Of course, since were talking mere words and not concepts, it will be the critical post that gets deleted for using the word ****, but posts by sycophants, and willing dupes and useful idots that laud his holiness and inerrancy, will not be subject to deletion.

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

Uhhhh what? What you just

Uhhhh what?

What you just wrote makes little to no sense at all.

well sure, of course that

Anyone using the word "nazi" for any purpose other than pure identification of the historically and technically agreed upon group called "nazis" should be banned from the Internet for no less than two years and before to enroll in a series of "Get Over Yourselves" classes.

Have you noticed that there is one (1) Bush fan on this board, he gets no enough of grief for it and not even the most inane things you've said (think about what it takes for me to say that: I'm practically a socialist) regarding Bush have ever been futzed with or censored in anyway.

Are we taking about spammers, people who swear, people who go off-topic, too quick on the insult trigger? What?

Yeah, Chuck, except . . .

Once the word nazi is banned you will not be permitted to use the term in even an academic context, will you?

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

ummm

Consider the possibility that you are the most humorless man alive since Jack Webb died.

Just consider it.

Hmmmm.

Sorry, my mind's boggle threshold is not that low at the moment.

Besides, there is still Rush Limburger; Michael Savage, Anne Coulter . . .

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

Naming Names

If I'm not mistaken you were the one that inspired that thread on dirty words, so if I'm naming names, you come to mind, and certainly Fang-Face. There's not really one thread or any one person.

Have you considered some

Have you considered some sort of moderation scheme like Slashdot?

MOderation

Yup, we had it for 3 years, and almost never ever got used. I assume there's a moderation module for Drupal but I also assume that'll never get used either.

Moderated comments

I agree with the above poster. Why not moderated (user rated) comments? Even YouTube has 'em, and YouTube comments are the absolute nadir of internet interaction.

The problem, Blake, is the nature of social interactions

BUT, if a vocal minority of potty mouthed folks are scaring people away from LISNews

Newton's Third Law is: For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Atomic Physics holds that for every particle there is an anti-particle.

The question I would like to ask which addresses the converse to your argument is this: By implementing filtering, aren't you giving in to the small vocal minority of the hypersensitive who will be able to exploit whatever feature you use to shut out the rest of us?

I mean, look at mdoneil's last post to me where he intimated that I do not have the right to criticize the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the U.S. government because I'm in Canada, or that my criticisms of American human rights violations are somehow not valid because of that, even though I am a human being and am as fully qualified as such to comment on the actions of any other human being.

And what about academic discussions involving words that are banned? Where does a word become bannable? And what about context? I'll wager anything that any filter you use will be unable to differentiate between "bag" as in "the taliban outlawed paper bags", and "bag" as slang for scrotum. And if "bag" as slang is going to be banned, why will scrotum be acceptable since both words refer to the same object.

More to the point, why don't the hypersensitive just grow up and accept responsibility for their own hypersensitivity instead of trying to hold us accountable for it?

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

I hate to say it

Crazy McCrazenstein is right.

At the very least look at it this way: there are three kinds of people. People who do write things in a way others don't like, the people who are bothered sufficiently and the people who don't care.

No one will change groups. You can either moderate if the people who complain are worth it to you and they very well may be. Not don't because the freaky freaks and the perception that we are idealistic, 1st amendment types is worth more to you and it very well may be.

That's it. Pick one or the other. But one group is not going to tell you it's ok you decided against them and they still love you, Blake. Even though I do. If you are looking for a solution that makes everyone happy you'll be here a long time.

Please pick one and let's go with it because I am growing weary of this same conversation and having to defend a sacred American institution like the word "fuck."

OMG

Oh My God you said the F-word. It made my bag crawl right up into my stomach. Oh, wait, I'm not easily offended, even by myself (and sometimes I should be)

I do agree with Chuck, Blake. Do what you feel is right. There is no way you're going to make everybody happy, and there are people on here you'll never make happy - even if you do exactly what they want you to do. However... keep on doin' it, 'cause I love you and this site (in a truly platonic manner) - unless you want me to have your children, in which case I'll see what I can work out.

>>By implementing filtering,

>>By implementing filtering, aren't you giving in to the small vocal minority of the
>>hypersensitive who will be able to exploit whatever feature you use to shut out the rest of us?

Maybe, but it's not them I'm worried about. It's that there could be a majority of normal people who are sensitive to what "you" are writing. "you" in the generic sense here, not you in particular, though it's certainly you in particular sometimes.

>>look at mdoneil's last post to me where he intimated that I...

What you 2 idiots scream at each other about doesn't really concern me, I always it's assume not even reading.

>>And what about academic discussions involving words that are banned? Where does a word become bannable? And what about context?

meh. Of course, that's an obvious problem and one that doesn't really concern me. THere is no perfect system, my car doesn't always work, what am I going to do, start walking everywhere?

>>why don't the hypersensitive just grow up and accept responsibility for their own hypersensitivity instead of trying to hold us accountable for it?

Right, when you find that world be sure to give me a call.

I'm an idiot ?!!

I can't believe....

How dare....

I've never....

My mom called me that yesterday.

(The same mom who didn't vote for me when I ran for mayor at 18.)

I'd rather not have a bad

I'd rather not have a bad words type filter. I can't remember where, but I recently read an entertaining article about those...and how it played with words...assess becomes buttess, assassion=buttbuttin. Quite humorous!

assess becomes buttess, assassion=buttbuttin. Quite humorous!

>>assess becomes buttess, assassion=buttbuttin. Quite humorous!

Then mission accomplished, no?

Does LISNews Need A Rule Book For Commentors?

B-o-o-g-e-r!

Then mission accomplished, no?

Then mission accomplished, no?

Well

My views on this have been expressed mostly privately. All I can say is that from the non-librarians encountered by the production team who look at the site we have learned that we do have minor issues arising perhaps. I agree with Blake that something is not right in the air.

While social interactions are one thing, this is not a pit for bulldogs to fight in. Frankly, I have seen lunatics who had better manners than what I have seen as of late here. While "freedom of speech" is not regarded as a right in a pretty big chunk of Canada but rather a quaint American concept according to one Human Rights Commission, it is still a concept that relates to the actions of governments rather than operators of websites. There is only such freedom of speech here insofar as Blake permits. This is much the same as not being able to stand in the middle of a restaurant protesting something and hoping that the restaurant manager does not boot you out. Notwithstanding the usual points coming from anarchist and collectivist perspectives, for most non-librarian purposes this site is owned and operated by Blake and we are his guests here.

For the discussion of politics, there are other places to take such that is more germane. While Governor Palin is apparently fairly controversial, the discussion of reproductive rights and more blows thing out of proportion to what we discuss here. Sites like DailyKos, MoveOn.org, Democratic Underground, and even Rabble.ca are more appropriate. With the virulent hatred observed here and elsewhere as well as leaps of logic that would more give rise to involuntary commitment rather than debate, it is fair to say that it would not be an unreasonable notion that one's attention could be divided between LISNews and other sites.

Allegations of hypersensitivity are just utter crap. When we're scaring away not only folks from within the profession but from outside it, there is a problem. If nobody visits your site because they're scared of what they'll find, is that necessarily a good thing or a bad thing? LISNews can only live vibrantly if people use the site. Voluntarily being polite to each other has effectively failed which means social interaction has now decayed to where options must be considered.

While there is more I could say, this is the point where I must metaphorically bite my tongue.
________________________
Stephen Michael Kellat, Host, LISTen
PGP KeyID: 899C131F

Huh!

Allegations of hypersensitivity are just utter crap.

I'm sure the woman who challenged Where's Waldo, and the people who challenged The Lorax and The Butter Battle Book, both by Dr. Seuss, will be gratified to hear that.

Mind you, the topic under discussion is LISNewsterz, but librarians are drawn from the general population.

If nobody visits your site because they're scared of what they'll find, is that necessarily a good thing or a bad thing?

For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. This principle holds for sociology as much as for physics. So, is it any better if people stop coming here because it has become insipid and stultifying?

Hmmmm, . . . come to think of it, . . .

You, know, I could probably make an argument that the complainant simply can't stand it here because it is too exciting, and the LISNewsterz who remain are of the passionate hard core who do not fear the rough and tumble of the free market place of ideas so much.

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

[redacted]

As to what Walt mentions below about saying something impolite, I was definitely about to go down that road with something particularly nasty. When it comes to LISNews being a rough and tumble environment, that is not only not for me to decide but is not for you to decide either. Unless the ownership of LISNews changed quietly in the middle of the day, that decision is and always has been Blake's. I leave it to him as to what he feels is the mission and purpose he wants for LISNews and how recent events have played into those considerations.

I beg to differ

When it comes to LISNews being a rough and tumble environment, that is not only not for me to decide but is not for you to decide either.

It is up to us to decide so long as Blake allows us to.

Firstly: this site has been described as a community. A community is owned by the community members. I will admit that this is a rather rough analogy, as LISNews is more akin to a piece of private property that is a limited public forum. Blake has allowed it to develop into a community with his laisser faire approach to moderation. Some of us have been here for years, now, and we have a great deal of time and energy invested in it.

Secondly: We each of us customize this site because we choose to, and conduct ourselves as we see fit at our sole discretion. This is the nature of freedom. What makes you a free person is that you have sole authority over and responsibility for, your own self. If you give authority over what you say to someone else, you are divesting yourself of some of your freedom.

As owner and operator of this mileu, Blake would be perfectly within his right to implement whatever regulations he sees fit. The site will survive, but not as it is. The character of it will change. No one here is knowledgeable enough or wise enough to say how much it will change.

I can pretty much guarantee you one thing, though. Not everybody will be happy with it in its new character, and for some of those it will be because certain concepts will still be allowed.

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

>>I can pretty much

>>I can pretty much guarantee you one thing, though.
>>Not everybody will be happy with it in its new character, and for some of those
>>it will be because certain concepts will still be allowed.

But will more people be happy with the new character? These are the questions I've wondered about for years.

More? I doubt it.

But will more people be happy with the new character?

On a proportional basis? I will give you an unequivocal "No" on that one. There are members here now who are not happy with the way things are, but who tolerate it. That will not change. And I will warrant that the number who leave because they will not be tolerant of the new character, will simply be complemented by an equal number who will be happy with the new character.

In the final analysis, Blake, you are going to have to decide which of those two demographics you want as your target audience. And the decision is simply going to have to be a judgement call. There is no way anyone can possibly get enough information to make an informed choice in the matter. Flip a coin, roll the dice; however you decide neither decision will necessarily be better or worse than the other one. Setting aside my prejudices about pandering to the hypersensitive, I would have to admit that in this case it's not a matter of a good or a bad choice. It's just a choice that takes you down one road instead of the other.

It looks to me as if you are worrying too much about the wrong issue here. I'd say that you've engaged yourself in a philosophical debate that really has no hard and fast resolution. I would say that you need to decide whether you personally will feel better with a wide-open LISNews, or one subject to moderation or filtering, and go with that.

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

re: philosophical debate that really has no hard and fast resolu

>>It looks to me as if you are worrying too much about the wrong issue here.

I guess my primary issue is we're scaring people away for no good reason. And is there something I/we can do about that?

>>I'd say that you've engaged yourself in a philosophical debate that really has no hard and fast resolution.

Yup

>>I would say that you need to decide whether you personally will feel better
>>with a wide-open LISNews, or one subject to moderation or filtering, and go with that.

I'll always feel better with it being open, but if it's "better" with some kind of control then maybe that's the way to go. I'm looking for someone to convince me one way or the other.

Constitutionally firm rules

I say keep it open. Of course that's the direction my prejudices slant.

If you want to implement controls then I would say that in keeping with the philosophy of the U.S. Supreme Court, any controls must be reasonable as to time, place, or manner. And in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Bill of Rights, regulations constraining authority must be paramount.

So, a filter, or regulations as to what words might not be acceptable, should be restricted to only those annotated in the dictionary as "usually considered vulgar", and authority will not consider requests concerning words that are not so annotated. Moreover, constraints will be enacted only against specific words, and authority will be enjoined from attempting to constrain content.

Should this apply only to comments, or to the web journals as well?

And you'll need to identify which dictionary you are going to use. Preferably one that is online so, of course, it can be equally accessible to everyone.

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

If nobody visits your site because they're scared of what they'l

>>If nobody visits your site because they're scared of what they'll find, is that necessarily a good thing or a bad thing?

That's exactly the point I am pondering here.

I welcome

a free-for-all with a twist of civility.

Birdie...

Birdie and I agree on very little - if anything. However Robin has never been anything but civil. This is clear and convincing evidence that we may disagree and yet maintain our decorum.

agreed

If all three of us agree on something we're on to something.

AP, not verified, and vulgarity

I think the proliferation of anonymous and not verified posters has done a disservice to LISNews. I think the rampant vulgarity has done so as well.

If people have to choose a name, and verify that the name actually belongs to someone, some email address, or a person who even if pseduonomyous that has the courage of their convictions I think a lot fewer hit and run comments that lack substance would be made.

As to vulgarity, I cannot endorse a filter, I am not convinced that it will work well. There may be the unusual instance where the word adds meaning that is unable to be expressed in another way - instances in which the 'artistic and theatric value' exceeds the repugnance to the term. However those instances are few and far between. I would hope that we could individually limit our use of those terms only when no alternative exists.

The use of a filter should not be required becuase we can each realize that what we say and how we say it reveals a great deal about ourselves, our command of the language, and our personalities. There will always be people who cannot or will not behave within the bounds of what is acceptable time and time again - not just episodically, but continually. That is just unfortunate as this forum does not allow us to adequately explore the reasons behind those abberant behaviors. It could be an illness, it could be just being an internet tough guy, or it could be short man syndrome manifested not with a sports car and young paramour but rather with vulgarity and an attempt to shock others by their 'edgyness'. It is however most unfortunate.

But I don't pay the bills around here so I matters little what I think, but thanks for asking us all.

A lesson in language

. . . we can each realize that what we say and how we say it reveals a great deal about ourselves, our command of the language, and our personalities.

I'm a writer; words are my tools and my toys. And the use of vulgarites are just as much a part of the command of a language as the polysyllabic gobbledy-gook. Vulgarities in the hands of someone with my command of the language are used to be evocative in cases where they are not mere accurate reflections of reality. Quite frankly, mdoneil, I sometimes use vulgarities because I know you will allow those vulgarities to push your buttons.

Words do not have any power in and of themselves. The only power they have is the power we give them. When you get a bug in your britches over vulgarities or someone calling Bush a nazi, it's because you allow those words to have that power.

Learn the lesson of semantics as voiced by Heinlein:

There is power in words, black magic -- if you know how to invoke it.
--If This Goes On (reprinted in the anthology Revolt in 2100, pg 83

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

re: it's because you allow those words to have that power.

Ah you have certainly mastered the cliche

A Lesson in Language

Being a librarian or other type professional means that you have had an extensive education that the "common" person has not had. The common person looks towards the actions and language of a person who has bettered himself and expects that there be a positive difference in them. To post on a professional web site and constantly use the verbiage of a fifth grader does little to impart a professional image to the general public.
__________________________
Michael J. Kellat, Podcast Audio Production Engineer, LISTen

Anon?

"If people have to choose a name, and verify that the name actually belongs to someone, some email address, or a person who even if pseduonomyous that has the courage of their convictions I think a lot fewer hit and run comments that lack substance would be made. "

First, I've been reading this site for over two years now. I commented rarely in the beginning and only started commenting regularly within the last few months. I don't feel like I should create a name. At some point, I might chose a name; probably only if/when this site requires it. I would respect that decision if it was made.

I know some of the comments without substance and with vulgarity are from anonymous comments. But, in my experience with this site, it is more often those that have created names that are rude and crude. I've read many snide remarks about people who chose to comment anonymously, many vulgarities, many comments that lack substance or veer way off course of the discussion, many personal attacks on another commenter (how many commenters attack Safelibraries, not just his ideas*)...all from commenters with names. There have been many instances that I've tried to join in a discussion and others (with names) have responded rudely.

*Disclaimer: I am not Safelibraries. He was the first example I could think of. I don't agree with his ideas, but have never responsed to him with anything other than respect and politeness. I question; I don't attack. I can't say the same for others on this site who have names. I just know my even invoking Safelibraries' name will draw criticism, again from those with names; therefore I felt the need for this disclaimer. Not that it will do any good.

As for filtering, I'm not for it or against it. Do what you feel you need to do. I'll still be here reading and commenting either way. I just don't want to have my comments deleted because I used one word from the 'naughty word list' or happen to be discussing that pertains to 'naughty words', such as the use of a particular curse word in the latest YA novel.

Anon?

Well I could just sign my posts as "That Pissed Off Audio Guy" or anonymous, but what would the credibility and accountability to the position of my posted comments be? If I am taking the time and effort to make a comment, should I not take credit, or contempt for what I have posted?
__________________________
Michael J. Kellat, Podcast Audio Production Engineer, LISTen

Anon. Replying

I guess my main point I was trying to get across in my comment above is lost. I could care less about taking credit for some comment, good or bad, on a message board. There are way more important things in my life. I could care less if someone on this site thinks less of me or my comments because I post anonymously. I enjoy this site and the wide range of articles. I enjoy the discussions, for the most part. I join in the discussion to bring what I think are relevant thoughts or to ask questions, not to be praised for my intelligence or for whatever motivates trolls.

So what if I don't choose to show my name? I'm a nobody in the library profession, not even a degreed librarian. So what if I don't choose to create some pseudoanonymous name because that's not much different than being anonymous? Sure it would make it easier to follow multiple comments from me, such as this comment thread. But if you can't figure out that the anon. that posted the comment above and the one responding to your response are the same, I'm sorry...can't help you there. Also, should it even matter if it was the same person? I read comments for their content, not for who posted it.

The only thing I was really pointing out is that not all the blame can be shifted to anonymous commenters. (It's obvious mdoneil wasn't doing that, but I just wanted to add my two cents). Blocking anonymous won't solve the problem since there are 'offenders' with already created log-ins. Others will create log-ins, and when asked to leave/kicked off, they will sign under a different name.

Blocking anonymous won't solve the problem since there are 'offe

>>Blocking anonymous won't solve the problem since there are 'offenders' with already created log-ins

I never thought "annon" was much of a problem, ever. I'm surprised to see it brought up, here, and the other times we've discussed this. From what I've seen annon is rarely the problem.
(Blake, not logged in, testing at the same time)

The role of the community manager

For all that Fang-Face has brought up about community, a key problem is that it is incomplete. In an online environment, what defines the norms of a community? What are that community's standards? Having no norms and no standard leads to anarchy.

There are examples on how to handle this. Such involves more work, though. Pownce has a community manager, Ariel Waldman, who helps maintain the cohesion of community there. LibLime and Evergreen have Nicole Engard and K.G. Schneider in similar roles although they hold differing titles. Comparing that to Twitter shows a difference in how things can be maintained. Twitter employs more engineers than any other sort of professional. Pownce and others rarely have to use the services of GetSatisfaction while Twitter is there a lot.
________________________
Stephen Michael Kellat, Host, LISTen
PGP KeyID: 899C131F

I think anon deprives us of context

I posted this from my work computer shortly after the IT department had worked on it. Normally I log on automatically, but after the reimage it was gone. I should have checked before I submitted it, but such is life.

While the story is just dandy, it would have been more amusing - interesting perhaps had it appeared under my name because most people would think I would not post anything like that. I do from time to time post things that I don't agree with because they are worthy of discussion and on topic.

Anon robs us of that context. I don't think that people need to post their real names, some people do, some people don't heck I can figure out most of them if they are pseudonyms in about five minutes. Michael N. knows this as do others - a pseudonym is great too - it allows us to have additional context about the posting should we wish to do so. It allows us to look back and ask is this guy nuts, or reminds us that this woman is brilliant let's read what she has to say, even though I skipped most of the discussion.

I do understand that some people do wish to remain anonymous for personal or professional reasons. Sometimes it is wiser as I know of one participant at LISNews who had his employer contacted by another poster at LISNews, unfortunately I have not seen this poster - who posted on his own time and not his employer's- on here in quite some time, disappointing because we agreed on a number of things although we did disagree on others like gun control. So if one must remain anonymous to avoid attacks that could interfere with their professional or personal lives and they way they make a living, I can certainly understand that.

Perhaps we could have anon1, anon2 and the like. A pre-created anonyomous that is one person's alone. But then again why not just go by fancypants182.

While I'd like the context of being able to add context to a single post, I don't think I could insist that people not be allowed to be anonynmous - especially because of the crazy behavior of which I am familiar. As I said earlier some people just don't know the bounds of accptable behavior. It may be some whaky librarian who will call your employer, rather than some annoyed librarian who will take you to task on the internet - like me.

Anon....

*huge grin* If we're gonna have a debate on the virtues of anonymous posting, can we get Stephen Denney in here too? It's been awhile since I jumped into that one, and I'd like his help.

I know I said it's up to Blake earlier, and I will agree to whatever terms he feels necessary to impose. If, however, Blake is asking what I would prefer, then I would say no filters and no content posse... nor do I think we should get rid of Anonymous posting. Fortunately, I don't have to live with whatever decision is made on a daily basis, nor do I have to read all the complaining emails.

What I would like to see, perhaps, is a little more editing and self-control before the Enter button is pushed. I know that I'm spitting in the wind, but it's OK, I'm wearing a poncho. AND, I know it's fun to nuke someone. God knows it's fun. BUT, it really doesn't serve any purpose and usually derails the conversation.

So hows about we try and not get our undies in a wad when someone takes a cheap shot? When someone starts frothing at the mouth, maybe NOT respond and just shake our heads in sad amusement and feel sorry for them.

Please, join me in my Circle of Pollyanna... take my hand, and sing along with me... "I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony...."

Honestly, if this is a community, lets start acting like it. I don't pull out my bullhorn and start screaming at my neighbor. No matter how big of a fucking idiot she is.

Never thought I'd see Kumbaya as edgy

But compared to that Coke commercial, it's far out, man...(whew: my blood sugar went up just thinking about that song.)

As to the point you're making, I agree. (But I'm more of a Candide than a Pollyanna. Maybe it's the Bernstein fan in me.)

I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony

There is a society that does exactly that.

We call them the Borg.

"I'm sure we can pull together, sir."

Lord Vetinari raised his eyebrows. "Oh, I do hope not, I really do hope not. Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions." He smiled. "It's the only way to make progress. That, and, of course, moving with the times. Good day to you."
--Terry Pratchett, The Truth

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

Ahem.

Just wanted to say that quoting something so apropos from Vetinari made my day. So thanks.

To paraphrase Alice in Wonderland

As the caterpillar said to Alice: "Whooooo arrrree you?"
___________________________
Michael J. Kellat, Podcast Audio Production Engineer, LISTen

Syndicate content