cogmeyer comment-62580 2012-01-21T08:24:48Z 2012-01-21T08:24:48Z Geoff Thanks for taking a stand on this one. The other question that needs to be asked is why the current laws are not sufficient. Megaupload was taken down this week in New Zealand in an FBI coordinated operation, all without these SOPA powers. The bar should be set very high to justify limiting free speech and free commerce. Was good to see all 4 GOP candidates oppose SOPA in the debate Thursday night. Hopefully our president will likewise take a clear position on SOPA as well. cogmeyer 2012-01-21T08:24:48Z Tony Sheppard comment-62491 2012-01-19T06:50:43Z 2012-01-19T06:50:43Z Almost all of those would get an answer that started "it depends,..." and then yield a very long response. This probably isn't the venue for it. Tony Sheppard 2012-01-19T06:50:43Z Ben Ilfeld comment-62489 2012-01-19T06:41:45Z 2012-01-19T06:41:45Z This is a very interesting discussion to me. First, is the overall industry film growing? Are there more or fewer small film-makers? Are there more or fewer of these kinds of films made and are they of better quality? Is there a problem in the industry, or one that hurts just small film-makers? It is a result of piracy? Would legislation or enforcement stop such piracy? Would this specific legislation stop such piracy? And one more thing: is it possible that since distribution in film has traditionally been very hard, digital distribution (including unauthorized file sharing) has helped some film-makers actually make a name for themselves with films that would otherwise gone unnoticed? Ben Ilfeld 2012-01-19T06:41:45Z Tony Sheppard comment-62480 2012-01-19T03:47:42Z 2012-01-19T03:47:42Z There are a great many people who have expertise in this area who have been tackling this problem for years - with some interesting and innovative approaches being tried and developed along the way, including some significant success stories here in Sacramento. And while it is true that it's possible to distribute content with low overhead, the overhead is in the film production and that upfront outlay still needs to get recouped. Whatever your model is, however low your distribution overhead is, free distribution of this kind of content still undermines the ability to recoup production costs (without even getting as far as profit). Frankly, many/most are failing already from a business perspective and any extra hurdle (whether it be lost sales or time spent fighting against copyright infringement that precludes that time being spent in further production or promotion) will cause others to fail. Tony Sheppard 2012-01-19T03:47:42Z Geoff Samek comment-62458 2012-01-19T03:18:15Z 2012-01-19T03:18:15Z Very interesting examples, however I tend to think that the film makers you are working with are not maximizing their digital efforts. I believe the Internet is the perfect platform to offer movies for purchase with next to no overhead. More than just criticizing the possible efforts of these people I would love to hear more about this problem and offer my digital expertise. However I think that conversation is far off topic for this forum. You can reach me via email, which is just my first name at sacramentopress.com. As far as being wrong, I am often wrong, however I never said anything to the effect of there being no harm caused by piracy, I simply question what that harm is and in response to you asked for specific examples. I found the one you provided interesting and worth exploring more. Geoff Samek 2012-01-19T03:18:15Z Tony Sheppard comment-62456 2012-01-19T02:37:21Z 2012-01-19T02:37:21Z As a film festival director, I work with true indie filmmakers, people whose work is likely to only be seen on the festival circuit and through very limited forms of distribution, including self-distribution. These folks don't have any margin of error in their business models, they don't have broad distribution on multiple platforms, and their work isn't always easy to find by legitimate purchasers. They also don't have vast catalogs of work, across which to spread their risk. if you spend three years of your life writing and making a feature film, and then you see it being made more readily available online on free sites than it even is on the limited pay sites you have the means to coordinate with, it's rightfully alarming and threatens your livelihood. I'm engaged in another online discussion with somebody who fits this description exactly - and he would lock doors and throw away keys. He would make the equally strong claim that piracy hurts his income on a daily basis, that SOPA might save it, and that SOPA couldn't hurt your business in practice - you are on diametrically opposite sides of the same issue and you're almost certainly both wrong. He also has horror stories about enforcing his own rights with online outlets. He has had to fight with youtube, for example, to have a feature film removed, only to end up with a message that says (paraphrased) "content removed because person x complained" - which makes him look like an ass - and without any comment about the fact that the user who originally posted it had no right to do so. And that's a legitimate, US-based outlet that's relatively responsive to complaints. It's virtually impossible to do anything to sites overseas that make content available online. The MPAA and RIAA can bring in armies of lawyers but the small, independent content creators simply don't have those resources. Protecting your content aggressively can end up stopping you from creating it as you simply have no time to do so, which also destroys your business model as you end up without content to sell. Enforceable laws are needed to protect intellectual property rights and creative content of all kinds - but SOPA is appallingly broad and, in my opinion, you are right to both fear it and campaign against it. As a festival director, I would be concerned about simple acts like linking to a filmmaker's online film trailer for fear of simultaneously linking to illegal content that might be carried on the same site - or the almost impossible to police risk that the filmmaker themself has included material they don't have rights to in their own work. The downside risks are suddenly alarmingly high, as you have suggested - in that we agree completely. Tony Sheppard 2012-01-19T02:37:21Z Geoff Samek comment-62455 2012-01-19T02:09:20Z 2012-01-19T02:09:20Z Thank you for your comment! I do not agree with your statement that, "Piracy can put small businesses out of business just as easily as this legislation could put you out of business." I have seen no evidence of this and there has been no major independent research, that I am aware of, that has concluded this. I am very open to examples of small business that have failed due primarily to piracy. I am also curious in what ways you feel that copyright laws and protection don't work? Geoff Samek 2012-01-19T02:09:20Z Tony Sheppard comment-62454 2012-01-19T01:51:24Z 2012-01-19T01:51:24Z I think the basic points about doing more harm than good are well made. But I don't think you serve your own ends well by questioning the costs associated with piracy. Piracy can put small businesses out of business just as easily as this legislation could put you out of business, and it's not especially beneficial to simply pit one set of businesses against another. I agree with you about SOPA being bad for assorted reasons, but the "...problem that possibly doesn't exist..." type of comments just leave me with spinning eyeballs. As you mention, there are far more fundamental problems with the legislation, including the stifling of permitted activity in the process of targeting the non-permitted activity - it's a baby with the bathwater approach that also happens to toss in the bathtub, the bathroom, the house, the street,.... Current copyright laws and protection don't work and content creators need protections that do work - but SOPA is like ordering a drone attack with cluster bombs to take out a shoplifter. Tony Sheppard 2012-01-19T01:51:24Z Vicky comment-57941 2011-09-27T19:16:30Z 2011-09-27T19:16:30Z Yay Vicky 2011-09-27T19:16:30Z Geoff Samek comment-57681 2011-09-22T23:31:00Z 2011-09-22T23:31:00Z thanks guys, it's been a long time in the making, but really all the credit goes to the tech team who did a phenomenal job with this project. Geoff Samek 2011-09-22T23:31:00Z Aaron Davis comment-57660 2011-09-22T16:16:57Z 2011-09-22T16:16:57Z Busy week at Sac Press! Mobile site looks great, Geoff! Aaron Davis 2011-09-22T16:16:57Z Stitchify comment-57641 2011-09-22T02:26:18Z 2011-09-22T02:26:18Z Looks great! Stitchify 2011-09-22T02:26:18Z Keith Sharward comment-53213 2011-07-12T16:27:26Z 2011-07-12T16:27:26Z ...not unlike some people I've come to know... ;-) Agreed -- nice enhancement. I can think of a couple of pieces I wrote that I should have been more forthright in my personal affiliation and interest in outcome. The inclusion of this field and the expectation of its use will lead to greater transparency and credibility. Keith Sharward 2011-07-12T16:27:26Z David H. Lukenbill comment-52998 2011-07-07T22:01:35Z 2011-07-07T22:01:35Z I agree with Ali, an awesome enhancement, good work Sacramento Press! David H. Lukenbill 2011-07-07T22:01:35Z Geoff Samek comment-52926 2011-07-06T23:58:21Z 2011-07-06T23:58:21Z Thanks Ali! I do like the majority of what is in the SPJ code however I find other parts rather antiquated and of questionable logical foundation. Geoff Samek 2011-07-06T23:58:21Z Ali Tabatabai comment-52925 2011-07-06T23:18:30Z 2011-07-06T23:18:30Z This is an awesome enhancement.... I love it. If anyone wants more info on honesty, integrity, and accountability in journalism, the society of professional journalists also puts out a great code of ethics (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp). Sometimes I also like to think it applies to everyday life too. :-) Ali Tabatabai 2011-07-06T23:18:30Z Joel Rosenberg comment-49588 2011-04-22T18:34:46Z 2011-04-22T18:34:46Z Thanks, Ben. It's been a group effort: shoutouts to Joe, Artur, Steve, Luke, and Andy. Joel Rosenberg 2011-04-22T18:34:46Z deb belt comment-49555 2011-04-22T02:26:41Z 2011-04-22T02:26:41Z No beta is mo betta. deb belt 2011-04-22T02:26:41Z Mariel Tagg comment-49547 2011-04-21T22:39:29Z 2011-04-21T22:39:29Z I love the no more "107 weeks ago," the new format looks great. Nice work, guys! Mariel Tagg 2011-04-21T22:39:29Z Geoff Samek comment-49545 2011-04-21T21:56:15Z 2011-04-21T21:56:15Z Thanks Cdougherty, it was beginning to feel a little Googlesque around here. Geoff Samek 2011-04-21T21:56:15Z Cdougherty comment-49536 2011-04-21T19:26:58Z 2011-04-21T19:26:58Z And I thought you were going for the whole Google forever Beta thing. Nice work. Cdougherty 2011-04-21T19:26:58Z Ben Ilfeld comment-49534 2011-04-21T19:20:26Z 2011-04-21T19:20:26Z Bravo guys! This has been a sustained effort for over four years to get this thing out of beta. Special thanks to Joel for dedicating an unbelievable amount of his time to this project from start to a robust and feature complete web application. Ben Ilfeld 2011-04-21T19:20:26Z Matthew Keys comment-43974 2011-01-19T12:34:10Z 2011-01-19T12:34:10Z One thing I've noticed about the Sacramento Press: They may lack a few things that other news websites have, like captions and credits, but that doesn't mean they're not thinking about those functions -- they wait to roll them out until they've perfected them for both their own mission and their users. The team continues to lead in hyperlocal innovation in our area. Kudos to the team, and here's to some more cool features launching soon :) Matthew Keys 2011-01-19T12:34:10Z Marc McLaughlin comment-43957 2011-01-19T00:55:56Z 2011-01-19T00:55:56Z Love it Geoff - just waiting for the multiple picture uploads instead one at a time. YOu guys are doing a great job. Marc McLaughlin 2011-01-19T00:55:56Z Geoff Samek comment-43956 2011-01-19T00:50:55Z 2011-01-19T00:50:55Z Glad to hear people like the new slideshow. Feel free to give your critiques of it as well. Geoff Samek 2011-01-19T00:50:55Z Julia Marino comment-43946 2011-01-18T21:10:33Z 2011-01-18T21:10:33Z This is great. I had been wondering about captions, and now we have them. Thanks so much! Julia Marino 2011-01-18T21:10:33Z Cassidy Castleman comment-43896 2011-01-18T18:34:50Z 2011-01-18T18:34:50Z The Sacramento Press is always moving forward!!! Cassidy Castleman 2011-01-18T18:34:50Z Ron Nabity comment-43891 2011-01-18T18:09:22Z 2011-01-18T18:09:22Z Awesome, this will be a great improvement to the format of the slideshow. Ron Nabity 2011-01-18T18:09:22Z Lindol French comment-43889 2011-01-18T17:34:12Z 2011-01-18T17:34:12Z Well played. Lindol French 2011-01-18T17:34:12Z Joel Rosenberg comment-40580 2010-11-13T01:53:44Z 2010-11-13T01:53:44Z Glad to hear Joel Rosenberg 2010-11-13T01:53:44Z Geoff Samek comment-40416 2010-11-11T22:26:15Z 2010-11-11T22:26:15Z Thanks! Geoff Samek 2010-11-11T22:26:15Z Steven Chea comment-40355 2010-11-11T00:50:53Z 2010-11-11T00:50:53Z The changes look great! Steven Chea 2010-11-11T00:50:53Z 2131hstreet comment-34223 2010-08-04T07:41:10Z 2010-08-04T07:41:10Z This is the first time I am going public with my experience taking pictures outside the house in Dec. 09. It is haunted I have proof . I went to the house one early morning on a cold damp day. I took quick random shots fearing the neighbors would call the cops. After every picture I took I looked at the result. The second shot showed a poof of smoke like a circular mist. When I developed it at Walgreens it is plain it is a ghost with five orbs in or around it. You can plainly see a torso and a head with eyes and a nose. Simple as that . It is hovering by the porch and staring at me. Also I have two ghosts looking out the right front window, one appears to be a girl dressed in victorian clothes the other a young boy peeking thru the side of the drapes. I have shown these pics to many people and they mostly agree there spirits. The house is haunted no matter what the owner say's. I am preparing to put the pics online and they will shock everyone. ask me any question I will answer asap. 2131hstreet 2010-08-04T07:41:10Z Rhonda Erwin comment-31635 2010-06-27T23:40:25Z 2010-06-27T23:40:25Z Also, Mark, it should be obvious I'm not "defending" bbbbmer because he's been supportive of me since he's not here now to support me. I wouldn't have a need to defend bbbbmer if bbbbmer were allowed to defend himself. But he's not here now is he? That's not fair. So maybe I'm more vocal because he couldn't face his accusers. I'm from an environment where many of us are spoken about, judged, stereotyped..... but often not given the same respect to face our accusers or have a voice with some targeting us. Perhaps Mark, it's not personal but business. Perhaps it's just not that simple for some of us to overlook. This has nothing to do with being supported by bbbbmer heck, I've felt supportive by SP, I've felt supportive by you-- and it's insulting to me if you think I'd defend someone merely because they support me. I'm not a sell out. I can't be bought or sold. I stay true to what I believe in regardless of someone’s support. I've admited I respect bbbbmer for staying true to himself along with other reasons I provided in previous comments but first and foremost I don’t agree with how this was handled. This has nothing to do with personal support from bbbbmer. It’s not personal; it’s business. I think now, I've said all I need to say on this subject. Rhonda Erwin 2010-06-27T23:40:25Z Rhonda Erwin comment-31656 2010-06-27T23:28:39Z 2010-06-27T23:28:39Z Naga, I agree with all 10 of your points. Also, I hope the follow up article will be written with more taste so the attention and focus will be on board behavior. In my opinion, many comments would have focused on board behavior if bbbbmer wasn't thrown in the article and kicked off the site prior to SacPress announcing revised rules. Heck, I tried with all my might to just discuss the banning.Heck, I wrote I wouldn’t discuss bbbbmer since I felt it was disrespectful but after reading comments bashing bbbbmer and those in ivory houses throwing stones I couldn’t help myself. I too began discussing bbbbmer; heck that ended up being the discussion tread. Regardless of a follow-up article I have to wonder if it's too little too late, is it damage control, is the damage already done? Heck, if the majority of the comments are on bbbbmer how will that reflect the follow-up article? Will we be right back to 200 comments on bbbbmer? I sure hope not it’s just not fair. Rhonda Erwin 2010-06-27T23:28:39Z naga comment-31649 2010-06-27T22:14:57Z 2010-06-27T22:14:57Z Thanks Geoff. Perhaps the followup article will provide that opportunity for commenters. naga 2010-06-27T22:14:57Z naga comment-31644 2010-06-27T21:32:38Z 2010-06-27T21:32:38Z 10. SacPress announced revised rules for Comments 9. SacPress publicized the banning of "bbbbmer" 8. SacPress announced both at once 7. This shifted the Comments to the topic of "bbbbmer" rather than board behavior in general 6. His antagonists are quite pleased 5. One of them repented and promised to do better in future 4. Those who weren't threatened by his flamboyant style and particular point of view, had no problem with bbbbmer 3. This may or may not have a chilling effect on quality of comments 2. The cast of characters who share responsibility for the climate that bbbbmer is being scapegoated for, remain 1. Those in glass ivory towers shouldn't throw stones naga 2010-06-27T21:32:38Z Geoff Samek comment-31643 2010-06-27T21:31:45Z 2010-06-27T21:31:45Z Naga, indeed they are not the same thing. I appreciate that comment and it is something that was debated internally. Perhaps announcements should have been made separately, it certainly would have allowed the conversation to focus more on our new terms of use. Geoff Samek 2010-06-27T21:31:45Z Geoff Samek comment-31642 2010-06-27T21:29:17Z 2010-06-27T21:29:17Z 200+ actually! Not only do I think it's a great idea, but you read my mind. A follow-up article will be posted next week, both summarizing this conversation and adding some new ideas. Thanks for a great suggestion. Geoff Samek 2010-06-27T21:29:17Z naga comment-31641 2010-06-27T21:26:39Z 2010-06-27T21:26:39Z Questioning the decision to combine the new rules announcement with the banning of bbbbmer is not "defending bbbbmer." naga 2010-06-27T21:26:39Z Oracle comment-31637 2010-06-27T20:56:35Z 2010-06-27T20:56:35Z I don't have the time or inclination to read 100-plus comments. Could somebody compile a Top 10 for me? (insert winking smilie).... Oracle 2010-06-27T20:56:35Z Rhonda Erwin comment-31633 2010-06-27T20:19:42Z 2010-06-27T20:19:42Z I was going by Geoff 6/26 4:09 comment, "Thank you both Tony and naga for chiming in on this concern. At this point I think all that can be said on this particular point has been said...." Would I defend someone who routinely disagreed with me in the same manner I have defended someone who has been so supportive of me?" Ah yeah, that’s insulting but I’ll answer. Yes, I would if I felt what was done was wrong, oh yes, I most certainly would. I would not discriminate. Heck, I’m capable of separating the person from the deed/ action and voice my concerns equally. I didn't think you targeted me. I wasn't just looking at myself. I wasn't just defending myself, or my actions--lol I was and have read all the comments and seen the shades of gray. I read and tried to understand what people wrote on both sides. This is why some of my comments suggest I agree with changes.... For goodness sake I just don't agree with how this was done or when for that matter. If you think my comment reflects a hornet's nest being disturbed lol I don't know what you'd think if I really felt stung by bees--lol. I thought this was mild--lol Heck, previously my feathers were ruffled but no hornet nests lol. I just wanted to make an observation also share my opinion. Opinions are bouncing all around this board since an article to stop abuse opened up an avenue for some to be abused. Peace Rhonda Erwin 2010-06-27T20:19:42Z M Johnson comment-31628 2010-06-27T19:41:13Z 2010-06-27T19:41:13Z Oh I didn't know there was a moratorium on comments..? I commented because there were a ton of new comments since I last checked this board. Again, it's your prerogative to support the person, fine by me. I'm just saying my PERCEPTION is the lion's share (as in the majority--not all) of his supporters are those who stand to benefit from his presence here or people he has not personally slandered. Look, I think your defense of him has been admirable Rhonda. I just wonder (just wondering, not making any judgments, Rhonda) if you would defend someone who routinely disagreed with you in the same manner you have defended someone who has been so supportive of you? Personally I would not defend an abusive person no matter how much they agreed with me. But that's me. As you say we can agree to disagree. Neither one of us has to be right or be wrong, ok? It's all good. I only stated my perception, and I didn't target you. But it seems you think I did. Which could be considered a tell. But again, that's only a PERCEPTION, not reality by any means. It's not gospel or condemnation. It's simply my perception. Sorry if my perception disturbed a hornet's nest :( Not my intent at ALL. I just wanted to make an observation that had not been made as far as I can tell. I think it's a legit observation Peace! mj M Johnson 2010-06-27T19:41:13Z Rhonda Erwin comment-31627 2010-06-27T19:19:54Z 2010-06-27T19:19:54Z Mark, I don't see this as black and white with just those who never been on the receiving end or those who politically benefit from his presence that’s not fair nor accurate and insulting. It’s not that simple. Some of us just view it as wrong, some value free speech or see insults as more than vulgar words, or look at 95% of comments that weren't vulgar, or think it's unfair to remove him for past remarks and then tell us the new policy, or think if you're going to mention and remove one person who resorted to name calling you should mention and remove all the others. Heck, there are many shades of gray we could look at when defending the "banned user"Heck, some could argue perhaps you’re more concerned with the person who personally attacked you since heck Jim and a few others has also put down some colorful comments, personally attacking folks. Heck, I thought this conversation was over and then your comment comes along adding insult to injury and even pouring salt on open wounds. There is a whole lot of things not as concealed or simple as you might think. My mother use to say their are always 3 sides to a story- his, hers and the truth. Rhonda Erwin 2010-06-27T19:19:54Z Rhonda Erwin comment-31626 2010-06-27T19:19:45Z 2010-06-27T19:19:45Z Mark, I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time but it seems the people most vocal approving bbbbmer's removal are the people who felt wounded. If bbbbmer were to ever call me a name vulgar or otherwise I'd feel the same way. I’ve been called MANY names and never wanted the person removed. It's not personal for me especially since I’m comfortable in my skin…. Heck, I wouldn't have flagged SPOA Vice President Tynsdale uncalled for comment towards me I would have left it for all to see, it's his opinion and he's entitled to it, but he removed it himself. (lol and it wasn’t because he felt he was wrong for writing it- it’s not like he apologized but he didn’t want other folks especially the person who called him out on writing it to see it) I'd rather know what I’m dealing with than to be in the dark. At least with bbbbmer what you see is what you get no fake, fraud or phony. Heck, I see many elephants dancing in the room No disrespect but Mark I don't expect you to see anything wrong with this article mentioning bbbbmer since on your own site you opened a forum (with some insults just not vulgar) for people to discuss or attack bbbmer asking people to vote on whether he should reveal himself and listing your reasons which if I were bbbbmer I wouldn’t easily forget either or meet with you when you’re ready to extend an olive branch. Rhonda Erwin 2010-06-27T19:19:45Z naga comment-31625 2010-06-27T19:14:21Z 2010-06-27T19:14:21Z and perhaps those who read bbbbmer's thought provocations with detachment and did not antagonize him, did not end up in wars of personality with him. naga 2010-06-27T19:14:21Z M Johnson comment-31622 2010-06-27T17:55:28Z 2010-06-27T17:55:28Z I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but It SEEMS the only people defending the banned user are those whom have either never been on the receiving end of his vulgarity and profanity, or those who personally or politically benefit from his presence. Mind you , that's fine, that's your prerogative, but the big pink political elephant in the 'room' is not as concealed as you might think.. :) M Johnson 2010-06-27T17:55:28Z naga comment-31608 2010-06-27T09:38:36Z 2010-06-27T09:38:36Z Geoff, that was not enjoyable and not intellectual, it was just sparring. Stupid and boring. SacPress has erred on the side of mediocrity. naga 2010-06-27T09:38:36Z Geoff Samek comment-31598 2010-06-26T23:09:33Z 2010-06-26T23:09:33Z Thank you both Tony and naga for chiming in on this concern. At this point I think all that can be said on this particular point has been said. Tony, I appreciate your defense of our action and I appreciate your disagreement with it naga. Both opinions have been well heard and will be considered strongly when going forward. If either of you have more thoughts on how to maintain a healthy comment system, I would love hear them in further comments at the end of this conversation section. Thank you both for your input so far, I have very much enjoyed your intellectual sparring. Geoff Samek 2010-06-26T23:09:33Z naga comment-31597 2010-06-26T22:24:07Z 2010-06-26T22:24:07Z Tony, you start by saying that "Getting along with somebody is both subjective and a two-way street" and proceed to state that "he only thing that matters here is" is your subjective interpretation of this matter and of bbbbmer who you think "had it coming." It's this kind of dull cognitive dissonance that makes someone like bbbber as refreshing and thought provoking as he is provacative and occasionally obscene. If you missed my points or are trying to counter them and "win" that's not a productive discussion which we might all be pretending these new guidelines will foster. You apparently ignored the fact that I acknowledged your point of view. This tendency online to compete -- rather than communicate -- for no reason is the real problem. I find it boring and pointless. Bbbbmer relished in taking on morons and those who stepped in front of his laser beam wit. The fact that his antagonists are here either smirking and preening or coming clean about their own complicity in duking it out with bbbbmer on the "two-way street" on SacPress , is reason enough that he should not have been scapegoated in this way. IMHO naga 2010-06-26T22:24:07Z Tony Sheppard comment-31596 2010-06-26T21:54:06Z 2010-06-26T21:54:06Z @Naga: Getting along with somebody is both subjective and a two-way street. Some people apparently felt bbbbmer was hard to get along with, and you don't. There are probably others who get along fine with the people you don't like or get along with. As they say, it takes two to tango. The only thing that matters here is that SacPress gave a poster 40-50 chances and then decided to do something more productive by allowing themselves the opportunity to focus their attention elsewhere. And as they have repeatedly said, they banned him based on the old conditions, so why start with a clean slate and invest even more resources on a poster who has failed to listen that many times before? He could be my closest personal friend and I'd still think he had it coming, and it was probably long overdue. Tony Sheppard 2010-06-26T21:54:06Z Rhonda Erwin comment-31594 2010-06-26T21:34:16Z 2010-06-26T21:34:16Z Tom, 5% of the time..... What's laughable is your suggestion I assumed SacPress didn't think he was a valuable contributor. It's obvious, at least to me; they thought he was or why go through so much trouble explaining this?? I understand wanting to get feedback and a clearer direction but if they didn't think he was a valuable contributor I don't think it would have been repeatedly written he could come back..... It was someone else who wrote that he wasn't a valuable contributor so I was going by several comments made by several who posted and not the article in general or SacPress. I did write I understand why they'd do what they did.... (I don't agree with how they did it but it's their paper and they have a right to do it however they like....) I don't see any point in continuing a discussion with you on this subject; it is what it is we're all entitled to our opinions. Have a great day Rhonda Erwin 2010-06-26T21:34:16Z naga comment-31588 2010-06-26T21:06:12Z 2010-06-26T21:06:12Z Good points, Tony. Also, Bbbbmer just wasn't as hard to get along with as some here think. And as someone else suggested, SacPress could have made the announcement of changes in policy and given all a "clean slate" -- or a fresh start. All of us could go forward with what's been learned so far. SacPress could have given bbbbmer the opportunity to participate under new guidelines or flame himself out. As it is, bbbbmer has been "made an example" of, which is questionable in itself. While acknowledging his excellent contributions, SP has hung him out on a rail. This altered the potential of the announcement and of the site's future dynamic. This discussion has focused on one individual and "taking sides," rather than a more balanced conversation among interested commenters about the topic of community civility. Another question is whether bbbbmer's antagonists ought to be patting themselves on the back and smugly suggesting that they've already clocked his new handle. Bbbbmer gave as good as he got (and occasionally worse, fueled by his legendary wit, wisdom and disgust with arrogant ignorance). These commenters know they're not consistently civil or respectful or kind on this site. They have sharp elbows and elitist or faux populist obnoxiousness. One of the more vocal of them doesn't even try to be. HE is one of the reasons that some folks don't comment here -- who wants to spar with boneheads and bullies? The political phonies are bad enough. Will SacPress get more of that and less of the incisive and insightful qualities of posters like bbbbmer? Edit to answer the Question: " -- who wants to spar with boneheads and bullies?" A. bbbbmer. naga 2010-06-26T21:06:12Z Tony Sheppard comment-31589 2010-06-26T21:04:40Z 2010-06-26T21:04:40Z The ghostbuster articles are mostly just spam, with a huge list of personal websites and self-promoting content. Tony Sheppard 2010-06-26T21:04:40Z JoshFernandez comment-31586 2010-06-26T20:22:10Z 2010-06-26T20:22:10Z Man, the only good part of this site was reading the comment fights between bbbmer and the teabaggers. So, now we have to read stories written by fifth graders about local events or about poltergeists by the poor man's Ghostbuster? JoshFernandez 2010-06-26T20:22:10Z Tony Sheppard comment-31585 2010-06-26T20:19:05Z 2010-06-26T20:19:05Z Fear is subjective. One shouldn't have to worry, while posting in a purely political discussion, whether or not somebody else will start referring to your personal life in an open forum. Having seen that happen, I don't think it's remotely "laughable" that people would be anxious or get put off posting as a result. What is laughable, it to suggest he/she's being portrayed "in just a negative light." The people who own the site and who banned him have been saying repeatedly that they thought he was a valuable contributor with a lot of good things to say. Unfortunately he/she was also sufficiently rude/inappropriate about 5% of the time to require 40 emails and ongoing supervision. You can't run a site like this if you have to take that kind of time to deal with just one poster. You either have to get rid of them or you allow them to make a mockery of your own rules (that they agreed to abide by) and you end up with no ability to fairly ban anybody else either, including those who might NOT be such good contributors the rest of the time. Tony Sheppard 2010-06-26T20:19:05Z suntzuofsac comment-31570 2010-06-26T09:58:42Z 2010-06-26T09:58:42Z Great Job Sacramento Press. This is your house. Thumbs up for the piss in the mash potatoes-These guys are giving us an accomodation to be on here-let us be repectful and courteous. Some of us like to take advantage of our freedoms, not respecting the fact someone is allowing us a forum. Sac Press don't let anyone tell you how to run your paper. It is YOUR PAPER. Good Job, just look for copycats and look at every flag and email and take it with the utmost seriousness. You'll know what's offensive and harsh and what's political. You have every right to run your paper freely. Thumbs up to showing everyone that your paper is paper is going to take the TOS very seriously. I am with you 100%. Regarding this person "political thinker" that took up half of this page defending this Bmmmer he or she-please ban this person. They are obviously using up your bandwith-- Limit the comments to 300 words-not half a page-Thinker-if you were thinking properly-you would not spend half your day defending Bmmer- Geoff Samek says it best-- I would to clarify that we welcome strong critique and severe criticism of public figures and that alone should never warrant a comment being removed. We should all thank Geoff,ben and the team for doing an awesome job suntzuofsac 2010-06-26T09:58:42Z Rhonda Erwin comment-31567 2010-06-26T09:05:18Z 2010-06-26T09:05:18Z And yes, I forgot to add and I sooo agree--- all of what you wrote are FAR scarier!! Rhonda Erwin 2010-06-26T09:05:18Z Rhonda Erwin comment-31566 2010-06-26T08:56:04Z 2010-06-26T08:56:04Z I absolutely agree and some of his actions were a reaction of attacks also made towards him. bbbbmer never disrespected me and he didn't always agree with me. I noticed some of what I would write or comment on he wouldn't comment; so there were times when if he didn't have something good to say he wouldn't say anything--lol . He gave me respect and I believe it was because I always gave him respect. some people tried to give him respect late in the game but for some of us you can't turn emotions off and on and expect people to forgive or forget because you are ready. That's not fair. Why does it have to be on your terms, when you're ready? Maybe I'm not ready yet but in time will be. Heck, look on SN&R someone who posts here and knows that bbbbmer can no longer post on this site because of personal attacks goes on SN&R and personally attacks bbbbmer writing for him to kiss his hinny (and that's not the word he wrote) Seems like bbb,er is also provoked elsewhere. it's unfair to portray him in just a negative light when obviously their is far more to him. I didn't want to comment further on him because I felt it was disrespectful since so many were and he could not respond. But heck, I felt in my heart to do so and bless you for the perspective you gave me through your posts. And now that I have shared my 2 cents I am finished and I feel a weight is lifted and whether people agree or disagree I'm okay it is what it is- my opinion and I value mine just as they value theirs and everyone all of us are entitled to our opinions. See ya on another story. Take care and many blessings Rhonda Erwin 2010-06-26T08:56:04Z naga comment-31565 2010-06-26T08:17:26Z 2010-06-26T08:17:26Z Bless you Rhonda thanks for the perspective. Bbbbmer just wasn't as hard to get along with as some here think and the notion that people were "afraid" to comment is laughable. The political plants, phonies, poseurs, prigs and half brothers are far scarier. naga 2010-06-26T08:17:26Z naga comment-31564 2010-06-26T08:11:38Z 2010-06-26T08:11:38Z The contest shouldn't be in a cage but a closed room, televised, to see who sucks all the air out of the space first. naga 2010-06-26T08:11:38Z Rhonda Erwin comment-31563 2010-06-26T07:27:20Z 2010-06-26T07:27:20Z naga- cont'd-- Heck, at some point people get tired of warning people and I have to respect that too ( I know I get tired of giving warnings at city hall--lol) but I think of myself as a strong person and if this happened to me I wouldn't want anyone pleading for me or taking up for me (don't get me wrong I'd want to defend myself against any of my accusers) but I'd want to go out with dignity and the strength I showed not backing down, not taking no mess, not begging for anything and not changing who I am. I see bbbbmer the same way. Heck, should bbbbmer come back by changing who he is? I think that's insulting. Bbbbmer has stated he isn’t fighting a battle but just being himself… He has no reason to compromise. He can be who he is, this isn’t his livelihood it’s one on-line paper. If I can't be who I am then I wouldn't want to be there. I think bbbbmer is the same way, heck he had warnings but he insisted on being who he was. I Gotta respect that and I wouldn't change who I am if it's not what I believe I should be. I gotta respect that! And I gotta respect Sac Press for staying true to what they want in their paper. Heck, everyone isn't going to like everyone. I know there are people on the site who don't like me. I can say it's 102 degrees outside on a day when it is 102 degrees and I'll get a thumbs down--lol. When I write I don't write to get thumbs up or approval and if I don’t get a thumbs down I didn’t do something right, I wasn’t true to myself--lol. I write what I believe, feel, see right or wrong it's what I believe and if it's voted down that's okay people have a right to their opinion. I only shared mine. That’s how bbbbmer was. He wasn’t trying to get a thumbs up heck, if he was he wouldn’t call it like he seen it. -lol I was mad at some of what I was reading but if bbbbmer was here he wouldn't give a hoot what people said about him nor would it have changed the way he would respond so why should I give a hoot what some others are saying? lol. I think my doing so would disrespect the bbbbmer I came to know and respect. It is what it is and the beat goes on not looking back but looking forward. Again thank you and much respect to you Rhonda Erwin 2010-06-26T07:27:20Z Rhonda Erwin comment-31562 2010-06-26T07:26:54Z 2010-06-26T07:26:54Z naga, You're welcome. Heck, there is a reason for every season, a time and place for everything, and when it no longer fits we don't have to force it, we simply move on (or kicked off) and continue to grow in understanding...... Heck, bbbbmer's time here wasn't a job well done but a job well begun, he’s still going strong. He reached out and touched many people (some of us fondly and some it appears by reading many comments not so fondly) but it is what it is he touched folks and heck not everyone can do that. I know when I first came on the site and throughout my time on the site I came to love, respect and admire bbbbmer. Heck, I learned, from bbbbmer, to stay true to myself, believe in myself, no matter what and it’s okay to go against the grain. Bbbbmer and I may not go about things the same way but that's okay to each its own. We get in where we fit in and we do our best where ever it takes us. Everything happens for a reason and I don't believe the glass is half empty I believe it is half full. I learned from many people on this site and bbbbmer was one of them and my life and heart is enriched from having cross paths. Heck when I need him I know now where to find him-lol. Heck, if I'm not welcomed somewhere I move on and continue on and get it where I fit in without looking back but by looking forward. I understand why SacPress did what they did; while I do not agree with the way it was done heck I no it's not the end of a person who is full of life and living life to the fullest going against the grain and doing so with all they have. Heck, bbbbmer wouldn't have done things any other way and I respect that, numerous warnings and bbbbmer kept being bbbbmer and heck I have to respect that. Rhonda Erwin 2010-06-26T07:26:54Z naga comment-31559 2010-06-26T06:14:35Z 2010-06-26T06:14:35Z Thank you Rhonda. naga 2010-06-26T06:14:35Z The Parrhesiac comment-31556 2010-06-26T05:52:48Z 2010-06-26T05:52:48Z Geoff, it would be great for the community - There is a huge need for public discourse and differing opinions in this town - partner with KFBK and 1380 KTKZ or others. God I would love to debate any City Council member The Parrhesiac 2010-06-26T05:52:48Z Tony Sheppard comment-31557 2010-06-26T05:52:21Z 2010-06-26T05:52:21Z You haven't seen my lawn. Tony Sheppard 2010-06-26T05:52:21Z Rhonda Erwin comment-31554 2010-06-26T05:17:06Z 2010-06-26T05:17:06Z naga; (in case you miss it in the flow of comments please see my above reply to a previous comment of yours-- Again, I want to thank you for all the love you are giving to a person who deserves much love. Also, In regards to your writing Bon voyage---bbbbmer hasn't left the building-- He just left this site.- not the discussion. Heck he lays his foundation- lively spiriit and passion everywhere he goes. He's going strong on SN&R and I caught up on lots of his "timely, astute, cogent, informed, lucid, passionate, reasonable, informative, funny, well written comments" Rhonda Erwin 2010-06-26T05:17:06Z Rhonda Erwin comment-31550 2010-06-26T04:28:58Z 2010-06-26T04:28:58Z naga; I really appreciate and value your comment not to mention I absolutely agree. Thank you for being here and providing that much needed balance. I don't think it's fair that bbbbmer can not be here to speak for himself so I didn’t want to speak of bbbbmer. But I will write bbbbmer is genuine, truthful and stays true to himself . I don't think being kicked off a site for being true to him beliefs will hurt bbbbmer one bit. I started to think maybe I was madder than bbbbmer--lol. I didn't give this much more concern because having thought about it bbbbmer is a proud person- and he has every right to be- and I won't plead a case for bbbbmer because the bbbbmer I came to know on this site wouldn't make a plea to anyone for anything.... So I’m not here to plead a case for bbbbmer but to say thank you for the kind words and truthful comments you made towards bbbbmer. Heck, I know we haven't heard the end of bbbbmer, perhaps on this particular site, but the beat goes on and on and I'll look for bbbbmer on other sites to continue to learn and grow from the insightful information he will always provide. Heck, the bbbbmer I came to know on this site can’t be silenced! Lol Again, Thanks again for your posts they are, as always, thought-provoking, genuine and true. Rhonda Erwin 2010-06-26T04:28:58Z Ken White comment-31549 2010-06-26T04:27:56Z 2010-06-26T04:27:56Z Fine, go to a place in a park where there is a public picnic and pee in the mashed potatoes. Ken White 2010-06-26T04:27:56Z Ken White comment-31548 2010-06-26T04:13:53Z 2010-06-26T04:13:53Z Agreed x10. This is precisely what I meant. Ken White 2010-06-26T04:13:53Z naga comment-31542 2010-06-26T03:12:54Z 2010-06-26T03:12:54Z bbbbmer, i apologize, i was so busy reading your timely, astute, cogent, informed, lucid, passionate, reasonable, informative, funny, well written comments, I never noticed what a scary, powerful, intimidating, arbitrary hater you were. Bon voyage. naga 2010-06-26T03:12:54Z naga comment-31540 2010-06-26T03:09:10Z 2010-06-26T03:09:10Z If Jim's debating, better get Judge Judy to moderate. naga 2010-06-26T03:09:10Z naga comment-31539 2010-06-26T03:04:09Z 2010-06-26T03:04:09Z Tony, the fact that you would even imagine "peeing in the mashed potatoes" is reason to call the Thought Police. "If the government was stepping in and demanding that certain posts written by SacPress staff writers be removed, then you'd have a point." "The government" doesn't have to demand that certain posts be removed if SacPress does it first. naga 2010-06-26T03:04:09Z naga comment-31538 2010-06-26T02:57:56Z 2010-06-26T02:57:56Z PW what a great comment. And endorsement. Of bbbbmer. "I then started taking note of the substance of his, and MANY other's arguments and positions on various topics. The experience has inspired me to be more involved in my community, local politics, and engagement with other citizens." Mark: "I would LOVE IT if I could have a respectful conversation with Bbbmer.... His wit and intellect are off the charts" It wasn't that hard to do. Just don't get up his nose and don't let him get up yours. I must not have seen the worst of the worst (and only just above did Geoff allude to threats" made by him). Bbbbmer's "wit and intellect" balanced the unpleasantries, for those who were not threatened by his TOPICS. naga 2010-06-26T02:57:56Z naga comment-31536 2010-06-26T02:53:02Z 2010-06-26T02:53:02Z "I amongst many others did not feel safe commenting on the site after being abused by bbbmer...." And the hits just keep on comin. naga 2010-06-26T02:53:02Z naga comment-31535 2010-06-26T02:24:22Z 2010-06-26T02:24:22Z Tom, to your comment at the top: Yup. Ben, Tom pointed out: "If you change the TOS then I think everyone should get a a clean slate and a chance to participate under the new rules." naga 2010-06-26T02:24:22Z naga comment-31533 2010-06-26T02:21:43Z 2010-06-26T02:21:43Z Mark, you think "Rich E." is a "real name"? naga 2010-06-26T02:21:43Z naga comment-31532 2010-06-26T02:18:20Z 2010-06-26T02:18:20Z it hurts to think naga 2010-06-26T02:18:20Z naga comment-31531 2010-06-26T02:17:06Z 2010-06-26T02:17:06Z Geoff is not the scapegoat here -- bbbbmer is. Reading through the entire Comments proves that he is the topic, not the new guidelines, not anyone else, not anything else. This whole thread is about bbbbmer. naga 2010-06-26T02:17:06Z naga comment-31530 2010-06-26T02:14:30Z 2010-06-26T02:14:30Z rediculous naga 2010-06-26T02:14:30Z bldrbuz comment-31529 2010-06-26T02:05:21Z 2010-06-26T02:05:21Z I am offended by the word "pee." Just kidding LOL bldrbuz 2010-06-26T02:05:21Z naga comment-31528 2010-06-26T02:02:49Z 2010-06-26T02:02:49Z bbbbmer hated ignorance, that's true naga 2010-06-26T02:02:49Z naga comment-31527 2010-06-26T02:02:04Z 2010-06-26T02:02:04Z Yeah it's like John Lennon died and we get left with Paul McCartney naga 2010-06-26T02:02:04Z naga comment-31526 2010-06-26T01:58:39Z 2010-06-26T01:58:39Z Tom, the term is "scapegoat." "On the contrary I often found his comments to be excellent." Geoff, did the decisionmakers on bbbbmer's public banishment consider the chilling affect on excellent comments that resemble bbbbmer's polnt of view, sans impoliteness? Is it possible to completely separate message from manners, in terms of the reaction he got -- and gave -- in Comments? naga 2010-06-26T01:58:39Z Robert McKeown comment-31517 2010-06-25T22:36:21Z 2010-06-25T22:36:21Z "As for whether that comment would be removed under the current TOU, it is very debatable. That comment doesn't actually defame the business as much as speak to a movement that has the same name. If anything the comment is simply off-topic." Hm. Seemed to me that this was stated: "LRGP are racist socialists who support Al Qaeda over the United States...who they claim stole their lands." - where LRGP = La Raza Galeria Posada - the local art gallery, and in many other ways attempted to indicate that La Raza Galeria Posada was a racist group. And all because of an article that a series of El Santo films were being shown there. Editing comment to add: So I have to wonder how the TOU will be applied if this is not applicable to the "defaming a business" portion of it. Could you further explain the definition of "defaming a business" as far as the TOU goes? Thanks! ---end edit If you do plan on posting banned user's ids, that will quite possibly encourage use of anonymous user ids, rather than encouraging people to use their real names. Just a thought. Robert McKeown 2010-06-25T22:36:21Z Geoff Samek comment-31516 2010-06-25T21:59:28Z 2010-06-25T21:59:28Z Cage fights, Jim, now you're cooking with gas. I can't imagine there would be any liability issues, maybe we can start them this weekend. But seriously folks... I really do like the idea of sponsoring public debates on issues, I think it's a great idea. Geoff Samek 2010-06-25T21:59:28Z Robert McKeown comment-31515 2010-06-25T21:57:55Z 2010-06-25T21:57:55Z Ok - it's unanimous (enough). Someone *has* to add "don't pee in the mashed potatoes" to the SP terms of use! Robert McKeown 2010-06-25T21:57:55Z Geoff Samek comment-31514 2010-06-25T21:57:30Z 2010-06-25T21:57:30Z bbbbmer was a very unique case. I'm not sure if other users if and when we ban them will be made public. It is a distinct possibility. At present we are not planning to go through an retroactively apply the new terms of use to content that was created under the old terms of use. As for whether that comment would be removed under the current TOU, it is very debatable. That comment doesn't actually defame the business as much as speak to a movement that has the same name. If anything the comment is simply off-topic. Geoff Samek 2010-06-25T21:57:30Z Stella M. comment-31512 2010-06-25T21:54:09Z 2010-06-25T21:54:09Z Wow. I missed that exchange. A perfect example of why it is futile to use logic and facts to counter insanity (ah, but you gotta love Collett and Burg for at least giving it a heckofa try). This is also a perfect example of the libelous comments that I sincerely wish SP would consider deleting. Not to silence some "unpopular" speech, but because such flagrant, unsubtantiated allegations are thrown about with utter irresponsibility. Local businesses and residents should not have to tolerate--or waste their time defending themselves against--these types of specious attacks. And I second (third?) the mashed potatoes rule. Stella M. 2010-06-25T21:54:09Z The Parrhesiac comment-31509 2010-06-25T21:28:20Z 2010-06-25T21:28:20Z Geez Thinker I'm flattered that you've given my posts so much attention. None of my comments were racist - screaming racism is always the last vestige for those who have nothing else to say. And the Greek Developer Mob does still control this town - even though the unions won the recent SMI fight. The Parrhesiac 2010-06-25T21:28:20Z The Parrhesiac comment-31508 2010-06-25T21:19:23Z 2010-06-25T21:19:23Z Sac Press should sponsor public debates on issues - or better yet cage fights. The Parrhesiac 2010-06-25T21:19:23Z Robert McKeown comment-31501 2010-06-25T20:57:42Z 2010-06-25T20:57:42Z I'm truly curious about this - under the new TOS, would comments on the El Santo film series article, found here: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/16294/A_week_of_El_Santo_films_at_La_Raza_Galeria_Posada be in violation (ie, defaming a business)? I'd really like to know. Also, will SP be publicly posting each user id which is banned as was done here? "a 'don't pee in the mashed potatoes' rule" is the best part of all of these comments! Robert McKeown 2010-06-25T20:57:42Z Geoff Samek comment-31479 2010-06-25T20:42:18Z 2010-06-25T20:42:18Z Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your differing opinion. I know you are on this site because you value it, and though we may not completely agree on this issue I value your input immensely as it will help make this site better, a goal on which I think we can both agree. Geoff Samek 2010-06-25T20:42:18Z Geoff Samek comment-31477 2010-06-25T20:30:25Z 2010-06-25T20:30:25Z Thanks for all the recommendations and ideas. Your comments along with many of the suggestions in this conversation will weigh heavily in how we proceed in improving our site and the commenting system in particular. Geoff Samek 2010-06-25T20:30:25Z Matt McGuire comment-31453 2010-06-25T20:14:41Z 2010-06-25T20:14:41Z I applaud your efforts. I know firsthand that it is a challenge to maintain a civil, and at the same time, a censorship free site. There is no perfect solution. No matter what you do some people will feel you went too far and others will feel you did not go far enough. Here are a couple of ideas that I have used that seem to help. 1> Temporary bans. Violate the TOS and start with a one week ban. Next time it’s a permanent ban. 2> Comment moderation. Problem users’ comments are held in moderation until a moderator or admin can approve them. 3> Allow users to ignore or hide a particular users’ comments. Some people just do not interact well. 4> Word filter. Ensure comment with blatantly flagrant words do not get posted until a moderator reviews them. 5> Limit the number of comments per day for problem users. 6> Comment sparing area. Some people love to fight. Give them an area to battle it out. A location not visible to others unless access is requested. I appreciate SacPress trying to address this issue openly. As one of your readers I am happy to help in any way that I can. Matt McGuire 2010-06-25T20:14:41Z Jimmy Valoria comment-31474 2010-06-25T19:44:38Z 2010-06-25T19:44:38Z Geoff & SP, I appreciate your decision to ban a user for the reasons you described. I even more-so appreciate your the on-going discussion about your decision, along with some great comments from SP users. Keep up the good work. Everyone have a great rest of the day and enjoy the weekend. Jimmy Valoria 2010-06-25T19:44:38Z TomRunge comment-31450 2010-06-25T19:43:37Z 2010-06-25T19:43:37Z GameFAQ is pretty comprehensive: http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/tou.html You could probably find a good framework in there and tailor it to meet the needs of Sac Press users. And you need to think about what is the ultimate goal of having TOU agreements: To keep members of your community safe while fostering an environment that allows lively debate. I'm a bit more of a hard-ass than others, but I think threats of violence should constitute an automatic ban. Outing someone should also be dealt with severely. Lesser offenses like name calling, trolling, or off-topic conversations should start with a warning that leads to time outs of increasing length of time to and an outright ban for repeated offenders. I'd say 3 warnings are plenty, but I understand if you all want give folks a bit more leeway to improve their behavior. Whatever you decide, you need to make the rules clear so you don't open yourself up to charges of bias. I know I've been hard on the staff of Sac Press over the past few weeks, but that is because I really do appreciate what you're trying to accomplish with this site. I have said repeatedly that you are a tremendous resource for the people of Sacramento. I think once you get a clear set of rules in place you're going to find healthier debate on your site and a lot less headaches for yourselves. TomRunge 2010-06-25T19:43:37Z naga comment-31464 2010-06-25T18:25:30Z 2010-06-25T18:25:30Z Ben, thank you for your comment. The use of "strong personalities" was intended as a civil way to avoid the term "jerks," which there are plenty of, with far less astute qualities than bbbbmer. And boy, don't they love to pick on him for that. His "extravagant jibes" were balanced and backed up with cogent information and inconvenient truths. His misbehaviors helped some here dis/miss his points and close their minds to his cogent comments. Now, unfortunately, his insightful and thought provoking comments won't be available here at all. naga 2010-06-25T18:25:30Z thsas comment-31456 2010-06-25T17:39:51Z 2010-06-25T17:39:51Z Much of it was incredibly hateful and mean spirited, intended to insult and demean others. thsas 2010-06-25T17:39:51Z bldrbuz comment-31444 2010-06-25T16:20:31Z 2010-06-25T16:20:31Z This is my last comment on this subject. Those whose comments are lewd, who blatantly lie, or use racial slurs, etc. only demean themselves. They effectively demonstrate that they are not to be taken seriously by the rest of the community. I take note of who posts in this manner and skip over their comments, as well as the comments of those who chose to engage them. They are not worth my time because they have nothing of substance to say. SacPress can choose to delete individual comments that violate their use agreement. This is their site. But beware the slippery slope. I would not have chosen to ban bbbmr. We will just agree to disagree on this issue. bldrbuz 2010-06-25T16:20:31Z