Comments on: Comment Policy Update

By: Kobayashi Maru

Kobayashi Maru — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:12:16 +0000

Comments on Comments
Rather than re-invent the wheel, I’ll refer anyone who cares to LaShawn Barber’s sane, funny and IMHO eminently fair thoughts on the matter here. (Substitute ‘king’ for ‘queen’ and it pretty much captures my view.) Thank you, LaShawn. “What she …

By: RedBeard

RedBeard — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:46:47 +0000

LaShawn, none of what you ask is unreasonable in the slightest degree. Not being nasty to other commenters and backing up claims of fact with proper source links are things about which people should not need to be reminded.

One question arises. Does it cause you concern that I use an alias? I do so partly by habit and partly for privacy. But my e-mail is real, and you know my IPs are real, so I hope it’s not a problem. I’d really hate for anyone to find out that I’m really Tom Selleck. Ooooops…….

By: Montie

Montie — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:42:27 +0000

La Shawn,

This is why I love your blog, and like using the comments section. Trolls are quickly dispensed with, and civil discourse reigns!

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:58:27 +0000

That’s pretty much what I thought you intended.

But you can never tell these days.

I would go one step further and say that without the much despised concept of “absolute or universal” morality, tolerance is impossible.

Oh gosh, whilst I am using your space, I really appreciate your blog La Shawn. I really appreciate you work.

By: Ernest S.

Ernest S. — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:21:45 +0000

good point about “tolerance”, Pat’s Rick.

“tolerance” does not automatically equal “acceptance”. There’s an awful lot out there that I have to tolerate, but that I’ll NEVER accept.

Keep up the good work, La Shawn. I love your blog!

blessings,
Ernest

By: WNM

WNM — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:54:19 +0000

gotcha,

i didn’t know for sure, but asked my question in case it was “tongue-in-cheek”.

By: Pat'sRick?

Pat'sRick? — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:42:46 +0000

WNM and Michael-
Let me get my tongue out of my cheek so I can speak clearly. Tolerance, when I grew up, meant simply putting up sith something you didn’t like. Maybe even making accomodations for something that you determined to be wrong, but were willing to overlook. That is not the current definition of tolerance. The current definition is pretty much what I said, except for that last sentence. That part is never formally spoken, but is how the “tolerance” crowd works. It is “intolerant” to think that there is some objective moral order. It is “intolerant” to think that some lifestyles are “better” than others. They just won’t tolerate such intolerance! (sorry – that darned tongue again).

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:30:55 +0000

Pat’s Rick

I read you post several times trying to understand.

I can only assume that it was intended as an example of Earth humor

By: WNM

WNM — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:05:08 +0000

Pat’s Rick,

care to expand on that one? What does that have to have to do with people posting improprieties? According to your definition, there should be no laws, rights, property, ownership, etc. Am I reading your post wrong?

By: PoliPundit.com

PoliPundit.com — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:41:15 +0000

An Interesting Connection
I found this story of the Schiavo lawyer, Felos, and his connection to a Florida law passed in 1999 to be an important point not being raised in the MSM. For all the criticism reported by the MSM of the US Congress passing a law to affect Terri’s s…

By: Pat'sRick?

Pat'sRick? — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:36:19 +0000

Tolerance
To accept as equally valid any ideas. There is no objective standard for “right” or “wrong”. There is no heirarchy of ideas. And if you think any different, you are wrong!

By: W.N.M.

W.N.M. — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:05:31 +0000

La Shawn,

I enjoy your post and read it daily. keep up the great work and stay true to your beliefs, you’re on the up and up. tragic that a simple mind has to harass the site and other posters, but hey . . . you have a gift for cutting them off at the kness so nicely and professionally. Give ‘em heck girl!

viva la queen!

WNM

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:04:41 +0000

“I invoke the FA because it protects my right to blog, but it doesn’t protect your right to comment on my blog. No one has such rights on someone else’s blog. Referring to the FA is most appropriate.”

Well, this applies outside the blogsphere as well. I don’t subscribe to expletives in public (and should not use them in private!) but if I choose to express my distaste for a lifestyle, an opinion or a person, no one should be able to tell me to stop (let alone prosecute me for it! ie, Philidelphia and the Christians preaching against Homosexuality).

Seems to Liberals, tolerance actually means accepting something. That’s not tolerance..Tolerance is putting up with something I don’t like. Not accepting it.

But aside from that …LaShawn, this IS your blog, and YOU decide what is on it and what isn’t. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

Dan

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:15:06 +0000

“You have had the patience of Job La Shawn. It was time.”

Amen.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:59:17 +0000

“a very immature boy who claims to be a first year law student (at Penn) is obsessed with this blog”

You have had the patience of Job La Shawn. It was time.