Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Checking my feed reader I thought "how right he is AGAIN!" and clicked to leave a comment to that effect. But then I hit the surprising "Guidelines for commenting," and fell off the track. The new guidelines engender in me the same sort of reaction Clinton's rules did—and you're not some internet-clueless politician.

For Heaven's sake, hide most of the verbiage, or at least put it below the comment box. Besides feeling blocked and bossed around, I have that uneasy "don't make me think!" feeling Steve Krug discovered, when a webite forces someone to read something you don't want to read and later discover you didn't need to know anyway. Of COUSE you reserve the right to delete spam. And the 1% of users who feel you've slighted a legitimate comment will be only to happy to click a "about commenting" link--and the rest of us won't have to wade through the issue.

Sorry to be snippy. I guess rules for civility make some people uncivil. As I said, it wouldn't irk me if you weren't so dead-on so often.

another non-binding resolution? There is no necessity to day or night, for it depends on your point of view. That is you could place yourself on the Earth in such a way that the Sun would never set. Cerebus must sleep to dream of Lassie, regardless. How hard it must be to come into consciousness for this uprighted animal!

Tim has a good point.

A vicar should not berate his congregation for the sins of those godforsaken vandals who come no closer than a stone's throw - through a stained glass window...

Tim, your point is fair. So, I'm changing the template. (Which means, by the way, that future readers won't know what problem you're pointing to...bwahahaha!) I am leaving up a stub of a guideline because in response to the reports of widespread nastiness, particularly against women bloggers, I think in solidarity it's reasonable to assert (some) responsibility for one's comment page. Crosbie, take it as a way of acknowledging that there is a problem, even though this particular chapel (wow, does that metaphor not work!) has largely escaped the stone throws.

A very sensible approach, Dave. :)

I had reduced the quality of metaphor in my comments by way of protest. The utilisation of high fidelity metaphors will now be restored.

Talking of chapels, especially strumpy ones called Amanda who spend their lives trying to control conversations, I was going to recommend you read an excellent book about how corporate minded folk need to 'let go' a tad and engage in conversation with their customers with greater transparency and on an equal footing.

"Companies feel a tremendous urge to control communications; it seems as bred-in-the-bone as wanting to sell products. They create org charts to define who gets to do the talking. They issue policy statements: only PR can talk to the press. Only Investor Relations can talk to financial folk. Only the CEO can talk to The Journal. We can’t afford to muddy our message or dislocate our positioning. God knows what some disgruntled worker might tell valuable customers! So, let’s set up a command hierarchy and station it in a hardened communications bunker."
http://www.cluetrain.com

But, I can see now, that you've already seen the light... ;-)

Cerberus -Κέρβερος (correction)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPMxJROHInM