tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099921.post114836231183349323..comments2023-05-03T04:30:21.758-07:00Comments on NCFocus: Daring to venture into one's own comments section - or, I Am Not InsaneAnna Hayneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099921.post-1149973423104707402006-06-10T14:03:00.000-07:002006-06-10T14:03:00.000-07:00> > Bottom line, comments unfavorable to the Union...> > Bottom line, comments unfavorable to the Union's image will not be tolerated in the comments.<BR/><BR/>> emailed Pat (The Union's editor) this morning asking him to comment on this; will report back.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://ncfocus.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_ncfocus_archive.html#114921733024439930" REL="nofollow">followup post</A> - in short, I've gotten responses, but not clear answers.Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099921.post-1149211094966875542006-06-01T18:18:00.000-07:002006-06-01T18:18:00.000-07:00> "Bottom line, comments unfavorable to the Union'...> "Bottom line, comments unfavorable to the Union's bottom line will not be tolerated in the comments."<BR/><BR/>I suspect that pretty much wraps it up.<BR/><BR/>(Welcome StS; though I have to say when I saw your name, and the row of question marks in your comment, and the similarity of wording, the first thing that went through my head was "spam". <BR/>(fortunately it was superseded by other Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099921.post-1149181682869618852006-06-01T10:08:00.000-07:002006-06-01T10:08:00.000-07:00"Bottom line, comments unfavorable to the Union's ..."Bottom line, comments unfavorable to the Union's image will not be tolerated in the comments."<BR/><BR/>Could this be rewritten as <BR/><BR/>"Bottom line, comments unfavorable to the Union's bottom line will not be tolerated in the comments."<BR/><BR/>???????????????????????????????????<BR/><BR/>Given the nature of on-line storage, there is no reason why virtually all letters to the editor, etc,SkiTheStarshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17279906357450684526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099921.post-1148617447879555842006-05-25T21:24:00.000-07:002006-05-25T21:24:00.000-07:00Hi Bruce, and welcome back.Do you have copies of a...Hi Bruce, and welcome back.<BR/><BR/>Do you have copies of any of your "unfavorable" (and therefore unpublished) comments, and if so, could you post a sample here?<BR/><BR/>I'm curious to see them, because whether or not a case can be made for deleting an "unfavorable" comment depends largely on its tone - e.g. "you guys are a bunch of bleeping pinheads" vs. "it seems that you run the only Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099921.post-1148590831605947822006-05-25T14:00:00.000-07:002006-05-25T14:00:00.000-07:00I've made several comments the last few weeks. ...I've made several comments the last few weeks. None of the "unfavorable" comments were printed. Really, the paper has become a parody of itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099921.post-1148586449894549902006-05-25T12:47:00.000-07:002006-05-25T12:47:00.000-07:00> Bottom line, comments unfavorable to the Union's...> Bottom line, comments unfavorable to the Union's image will not be tolerated in the comments.<BR/><BR/>Interesting. <BR/>I emailed Pat (The Union's editor) this morning asking him to comment on this; will report back.Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.com