Categories: Deux Maudits Anglais

Note to the commenters

First off, calm down. Don’t read that as “please calm down”—we’re not asking anymore….

by Philippe Gohier on Thursday, March 25, 2010 12:31pm - 266 Comments

First off, calm down. Don’t read that as “please calm down”—we’re not asking anymore.

For some reason I’ll generously assume to be a combination of cabin fever and excitement at the onset of spring, things have gotten way too heated and way too personal on the comment boards. It has to stop. You’re driving us nuts.

I understand us web editors may be partly to blame for the confusion over what’s allowed and what isn’t. The truth is there are no hard and fast rules (except, of course, those forbidding content that might get us sued). Sure, we expect civility and good humour and a modicum of intelligence from all of you, but even those rules can be bent a little here and there.

What it comes down to is this: if we think a comment is having a destructive influence on a discussion, we’ll delete it. That’s it, that’s all. This is, of course, an entirely arbitrary rule, and some individual bloggers are bound to have different tolerance thresholds than others. Don’t hold your breath expecting that to change. There’s a reason the overwhelming majority of the discussions here are smart and informative, and we think our (mostly) hands-off approach has a lot to do with it. For the most part, giving everyone the benefit of the doubt has worked well so far and we’re hoping this gentle kick in the behind will set everything straight again. (But don’t kid yourselves: there’s a Plan B if it doesn’t.)

Our other message goes out to those who’ve taken to baiting us into being more aggressive than we’d like to be by overusing the “Report” button every time their feelings get hurt. You know who you are and so do we. Quit it. It’s annoying and we’re not going to tolerate it much longer.

In short, think of the boards as an open-house party—everyone’s welcome and encouraged to mingle, but no one has a right to be there. We will always reserve the right to kick people out of our house when they get too bothersome. You’d do the same at your place.

Sound good?

I’ll be hanging around in the comments if you’ve got any questions.

Tags: Comments

More by Philippe Gohier

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

And that's the thing, I suspect there's a contingent of us who are approaching this project with a somewhat flawed understanding of why it exists (which isn't meant to slight either Maclean's or commenters).
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

I think Macleans has to decide if they are going to allow free speech or are they going to police the comment section.

I have had at least two comments deleted for saying abortion kills babies, because that's actually what happens during the procedure, but some people complained and my comments were deleted. I have pointed out to Macleans comments that are much worse than anything I have written, mainly personal attacks on conservatives or Catholics, but there they remain.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilippeG Philippe Gohier

But this isn't a public space where free speech is guaranteed or protected. It's a curated space for discussion and works like any other private venue.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

I understand and agree. I am just asking for some consistency. There are some vile comments in Frum and Coulter threads but I seem to have my own personal censoring section. Holly Stick doesn't understand what happens during an abortion and I am the one punished for her ignorance but it's ok for Mike T to say my missus is anti-woman because she's conservative and against abortion.

I think the problem is that many liberals write cheap shots into their comments and don't even realize they are doing it anymore and conservatives don't complain because they are used to abuse.

Holly Stick

I understand what happens during an abortion; you do not.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Cheap shots are an equal-opportunity sport, joly; I'm sure I don't have to tell you that.

I think the purpose of this thread is to get everybody back to a place where discussion is productive and civil. And humourous. Purple monkey dishwasher.

Is it possible the problems started because everyone started taking things more personally than we perhaps should have?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I don't agree with jolyon about this being a forum protected by free speech, nor about Macleans deleting various points of view (so far).

However I think it's important to notice that a public forum that allows all points of view to be posted in honest debate is a very, very valuable thing…valuable to society as a whole, I mean. It would be extremely unfortunate if Macleans decided to eliminate that.

Holly Stick

You had at least one post deleted because you were slandering another commenter; at least that was what I reported you for, though others may have done so too.

And your comments that abortion kills babies are false; foetuses are aborted. Get over it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I've said the same thing about abortion – so far as I know my comments were not deleted. I think Macleans has done a pretty good job of not censoring points of view, but rather unjustifiable slurs directed at other commenters.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

You are fortunate. I seem to have Holly Stick, Jack M and presumably others following me around and having many of my comments deleted. I have said abortion was infanticide myself before and the comment remained. However, for the past week or two it has been different. Macleans has started to randomly delete comments.

I think comment board has gotten more spicy the past couple of weeks because we seem to be discussing lots of culture war topics. It is hard to think of more contentious issues than abortion or Palestine/Israel.

Bill Simpson

Indeed. All we need is for Harper to cancel a Canadian grant to build an abortion clinic in the Gaza, refuse to release the accompanying documents to Parliament on the basis of National Security, and then to prorogue parliament to prevent Iggy from asking a question about the appointment of Don Cherry as our ambassador to the UN.

Happy days!

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

hahahahahahaha. Thanks for the laugh.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

' I seem to have Holly Stick, Jack M and presumably others following me around '

I'm sure you will agree that in a free market place of ideas, we often sow what we reap.

Holly Stick

Especially since I don't follow him, I just keep an eye out for him, much like walking in a pasture recently full of cattle.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

(Just for the record; I never have, and never intend to report a Macleans commentor)

Gosh jolyon, maybe it was one of your numerous posts in which you called pro-lifers (or pro-life Liberals and their supporters) racist eugenicists who want to murder Black babies.

I mean, free speechify all you want, but you have to admit that you push the envelope of respectful dialog with such hateful, juvenile bile.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Agreed. I'm wanting and willing to broaden my horizons, but when the envelope is pushed as such, it ends up pissing me off. Plead your case – support it, etc. Just stop shoving it in peoples faces. If people are not playing fair with you, be the bigger man and move on. More ideas – less hissy fits!
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"I mean, free speechify all you want, but you have to admit that you push the envelope of respectful dialog with such hateful, juvenile bile."

I think I talk just like liberals do.

Eugenics is appropriate word when a bunch of white, upper middle class people in Canada demand we perform abortions in third world countries even though the procedure is illegal in most parts of the world. Apparently you don't think it's odd for a bunch of affluent white people to demand we murder poor black and brown babies around the world but it bothers me.

Holly Stick

I have complained in a post about you and others making this false statement; however I did not report any post for that reason. However, it is false to say that abortion is infanticide; and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Bill Simpson

I love the tone of this discussion. It is as if someone has gone to Speaker's Corner, got up on their soapbox to hold forth on some subject, and are now whining to the police about the hecklers! Some of you guys really do need to get your own blog….but of course no-one might read it, which would be disappointing. For you, I mean.
http://intensedebate.com/people/ScottFeschuk ScottFeschuk

Adding my $0.02: I’ve always found the comments on our site to be – for the most part – thoughtful, entertaining and literate (the latter being an especially remarkable achievement in this day and age). You folks add a lot of value. Perhaps I’ve got a thicker skin than most in that I’ve been getting hate mail (mixed in with the fan mail my grandma writes) for more than a decade now, but I’m not wild about those (either blogger or commenter) who take their ball and go home because they’re wounded by an insult or by an attack on their point of view. Let’s toughen up people!

AT1

And besides, if you really want crazy, just walk on over to the G&M comment boards!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

I'm curious in spite of myself.. what on earth might your grandma write as fan mail that gives you a thicker skin? I can't picture it.. but then again I'm not sure I want to try.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Are you being sarcastic, or did you miss the Ha-Ha?
He's poking fun at himself, saying that the only thing he gets other than hate mail is the occasional encouragement from family.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

I think it might be best asked in next week's mailbag thwim!

http://eugeneforseyliberal.blogspot.com EugeneForseyLiberal

I just read this thing, seeing all the comments, and I never before realised people took this stuff so seriously. But I just want to say that Feschuk is awesome, and a perfect example of an idea I've had for awhile (he probably won't come back and check this comment board, but anyway..). There are one year "exchanges" between business and government already, and I've always thought there should be some between academia, political "scientists" in particular, plus political media, and government AND POLITICAL PARTIES. It is striking how much such alterations of positions is positive. Frum, post-government, is a lot more reasonable, for example, as Gherson became. And similarly, pols who try out academia & media become more understanding, openminded, and interesting (cf. Snobelen). Feschuk's response above is the kind of generous, mature response one gets from someone who has been in the wars (and what wars, Martinites vs. Chrétienites & Cons, NDP, Bloc, Greens, Media, well everyone else, really). Would Feschuk have had as cool a response if he had never engaged in politics? Maybe, but I doubt it. If it was an established thing, and like five poltical commentators were in the running, for a one-year term, and assigned to the five parties by random draw (to avoid insinuations of post-exchange bias), to help with press releases and speeches, and see the thing from the inside, I think things would be a lot healthier. Same with political "scientists". And corresponding number of partisan bigshots could go other way, and see things from media and academia viewpoints. Good for all, no? Anyway, I agree with Feschuk's comment, and think it reflects usefulness of my idea.

wsam

I almost got banned here for using metaphor to point out Dot's writing reads somewhat slowly.

I felt like George Galloway. Err … I mean Ann Coulter. I don't want to imply keeping Galloway out of the country was a restriction of free speech. It was the right thing to do because he says mean things.

It's long been a truism that one persons good humour is another's terrrorism.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilippeG Philippe Gohier

Is being "almost banned" like being "almost pregnant"? I don't remember ever trying to ban someone and coming up short.

wsam

My anonymous internet moniker which I use on comment boards was threatened with expulsion. Publically. In front of all the other anonymous internet monikers. Let me repeat. My virtual anonymous identity was threatened. With expulsion.

It was terrible. Really terrible. The firm hand of oppression weighing down on me as if something which weighed a great deal. But virtually. As in not really.

Now I watch what I write, always. Don't want to go through that again.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Clearly the experience left you with a lot of virtual scars. It may take you several milliseconds to recover.

Dot

I thought it was a simile. Actually, I think you were flaming Macleans Reader at the time. But, I'll talk to my writing. It's been slowed down by its reading comprehension.
Eas Coas

Sorry to veer slightly off-topic, but Galloway wasn`t kept out of the country because he said mean things:

a) he wasn`t kept out of the country at all. He pre-applied and was told any applications would be denied. Then he lost it.

b) he was, er, would have been denied because he donated to groups Canada designates as terrorist. You do that, you don`t come here.

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/search?q=hitche… (scroll down to Tuesday, Mar. 31 2009)

Man, am I sick of telling people this.

MacLean's Regular

"Man, am I sick of telling people this."

Well, you'd better stock up on nausea medicine, because you'lll be forever explaining that to people who didn't swallow the official hogwash that was used to keep Galloway out of this country.

Not Anonymous

then why am I still banned?
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

I read about this in high school. It was called Lord of the Flies.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Iccyh Iccyh

Sucks to your azzmar.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Should I report this?

Jan

Due so at your own peril. :-)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Iccyh Iccyh

I don't even know how to reply to this.

http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

My specs, my specs!
richard

Shut up. I got the conch.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I'm curious Gohier, are you the one who writes the Need to Know headlines?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilippeG Philippe Gohier

Sometimes, but not all the time. A bunch of people here write those items and they often write their own. I've noticed you're not always a fan. Some of those were mine and I can admit my attempts at cleverness could be a little off. I'd love to say it's harder than it looks, but it probably isn't.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Fair enough. I probably shouldn't have called for the writer to be fired in that last one ("What is truly ailing the GOP") , but I do still think that it was a gratuitous smear of a lot of good people….which always makes my blood boil.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

"Anyway, I can certainly see how a joke or clever remark that would be fine accompanied by a smile in real life can somtimes be misconstrued in writing. Happens all the time in my email inbox."

I hear ya. And that's why (above) I request explicit sarcasm indicators. Some days, I'm just not that bright. (To which most of you who read this are probably thinking…"SOME days?!?!")

Though smilies would be a fun feature for ID to add, too.

http://intensedebate.com/people/macleans Macleans.ca

That's a worthy idea. Check it out and let me know what you think. :)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Also, is this all precipitated because of Mitchell's comments? If so I can't believe the magazine is taking that seriously.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilippeG Philippe Gohier

No, that wasn't it. Like I said above, it wasn't precipitated by anyone's comments or any specific discussions. And that's not some banal, PR-esque platitude either. What precipitated it is the fact that, over the past few months, a bunch of stupid (and, frankly, embarrassing) flame wars and baiting in the comments have resulted in us getting swamped by comment reports and we were getting sick of them. Think of this as a spring cleaning of sorts.

Jan

Why not just turn off the Report function?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilippeG Philippe Gohier

Because it's handy for keeping spammers and other undesirables at bay. It also allows for a bit more freedom on the comment boards because it's like a built-in second opinion. Rather than just up and delete stuff we find moronic or useless, we leave them up and wait for someone to agree with us.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Also, I've used the report function a couple of times to get Philippe's attention when a paticular post gets stickied to the top of the blog column. Not sure if that's quite the intended use, but it certainly seems to work.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Excellent points sir.

I too see the sense of community here, even though many don't get along. It really is an online conversation. Often a foolish conversation, but often a very profound one. I think of this as an online version of the Cheers bar but with more serious topics at hand for discussion.

Also, PW is removing himself from the commenting world? Why on earth would he do that?
To Wells (if you're bothering to read all this stuff): your comments are generally insightful, if sometimes barbed, and your articles are generally very good with plenty of material for discussion. Why the hell would you let a few silly comments from a disgruntled commenter ruin that aspect of your writing??
Lord Kitchener's Own

In case PW is still following here, or someone would like to mention this to him, I think the nature of online commentary in news sites (comments here, at the G&M and NP, at CBC, SDA, rabble.ca etc…) might make a very interesting point of discussion, and I'd love to hear the comments and opinions of professional pundits around this issue in more detail, so I'd like to suggest it as a topic for a Coyne Vs. Wells vodcast, if that would be of any interest to Coyne and/or Wells of course.

Also, if it is of interest and you might think of doing it, may I also add a plea for comments to be enabled for any post on that particular discussion.

With amateur bloggers becoming professionals, and professional journalists leaving traditional employers to work for blogs, along with the explosion of amateur commentary from "regular people" (for both good and ill) it would make a really fascinating discussion.

At least, I think so.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Seconded. People need to learn how to relax and let bygones be bygones. If you want to scream pro-choice and pro-life rhetoric at each other, go to a rally. Keep it off these comment boards.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

Also, saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any truer. Nor does having the last word bestow any edge to one's argument.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

If you're referring to the abortion discussion, you clearly didn't read it if you think it was merely people repeating themselves at each other. It was a very good discussion for the most part.
Sigh

Amen :-)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Agreed about the screaming, but I think the debate was excellent and was an excellent addition to these comment boards.

Controversial issues (when relevant to the article) are exactly what people should be discussing, unless you think that all debate should be innocuous.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Agreed. I certainly don't have a problem with thoughtful, respectful discussions about controversial issues. I just have a problem when the screaming starts.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Ah, good. Well I hope I haven't contributed to that problem in any way (certainly not for reporting…I think I've only every done that once) but if so then I apologize for the hassle.
wsam

Abortion kills zygotes.

Condoms kill sensation.
knick

"In short, think of the boards as an open-house party—everyone’s welcome and encouraged to mingle, but no one has a right to be there. We will always reserve the right to kick people out of our house when they get too bothersome. You’d do the same at your place."

Absolutely!

Sad to say, the most interesting and informative comment boards often attract the worst kind of abuse because it's the only way these trolls get to have their say. Some people will say things on a blog that they would never say in the presence of witnesses. Personally, I can think of a number of ways that a requirement for personal identity could be awkward and possibly discourage commenters. Whenever I come across a commenter who resorts to inflammatory rhetoric or personal insult to make his/her point, I just skip over to the next comment because I believe that a response of any kind just encourages more of the same behaviour. That said, I have no problem with the host exercising his prerogative to uninvite bothersome guests.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

One more question. What's Plan B?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilippeG Philippe Gohier

I go home, get drunk, and complain to my wife about all you guys making my life hard. You don't want that to happen—she'll come in here and whip all of you into shape in no time.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

LOL!
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

completely off topic Philippe, but something I have bee curious about: where did yo get that chawesome picture? did you take it? was it a real sign?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilippeG Philippe Gohier

I'm not entirely sure what prompted me to search Flickr using the word "poutine" (either that or I'm embarrassed to admit it—your pick), but that picture was the fruit of my labour.

MacLean's Regular

Bloggers/writers should moderate these discussions more consistently. And be paid for their time. If not, can the whole thing altogether.

The commenters here will just spend more time elsewhere.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Please don't force us out to the CBC boards. Kady notwithstanding, it hurts to read them. I plead mercy!

http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

And yet, Kady gets paid to do what she does over there…

Wait, fair labour practices at the CBC? With taxpayer money? Talk about a wedge issue…

http://intensedebate.com/people/David0M David_M.

Elsewhere? I'm sorry MR, but I have yet to find an elsewhere that provides the kind of commentary I find on these boards. A real pity that a very few could end up spoiling what I consider the best read on Canadian politics/issues on the interwebs.

MacLean's Regular

I think it's a consequence of the fact the writers here do participate in these discussions (just not enough). People are going to care a little more about what they say if they get the sense it actually matters.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Iccyh Iccyh

While I agree that the writers should be compensated for what appears here, what you're saying actually worries me a fair bit. I happen to like the site here as it is, for the most part.

The ads are annoying sometimes (I don't use ad blockers, I like supporting the sites I visit a little bit at least) and the commenters aren't always the best, but there is very good discussion going on and it's free to participate which goes a long way to encouraging participation in the comments. Paying the writers more means the site would have to generate more revenue, which either means more and more intrusive ads, or a paywall. Both of these would be pretty detrimental to the site and to the conversation here, I'd wager.

Moderation is a bit of a slippery slope in terms of the time commitment. If moderators, people will expect and demand that they step in again when they see something that they perceive as breaking the rules. This leads to pointless argument about moderation rather than about whatever else is going on. The best case scenario anywhere is just to remove the worst of the worst and occasionally prod the commenters to behave, while keeping moderation to a minimum. I am actually really appreciative that is the approach taken here so far, as it avoids so much needless drama and forces commenters to be responsible for themselves.

I don't particularly want to go anywhere else; I spend my time here because I honestly think that Macleans.ca is a really rare place. Where else do you get quality reporting and editorials as well as quality comments about Canadian news? Where do you get that about any kind of news? So sure, I agree that the content is great and certainly is worth paying the authors for it, but please leave the site and the moderation policies as they are.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Hear, hear. I was surprised to hear that Macleans doesn't pay its writers for the time they spend blogging.

MacLean's Regular

It's particularly ikrsome that for-profit publications have adopted a model that arose out of regular people writing for the pure love of writing and people interacting because…

a) they have something to add, either in terms of additional information or perspective or simply pure entertainment
b) they have nothing else better to do or
c) they are inchoately-angry loonies with poor impulse control who…well, never mind

…aren't willing to resource the activity sufficiently. I personally would refuse to do this without it counting for something.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

It's really a novel concept that people should get paid more for working more. Where did that
come from ?
It's possible that their compensation comes in the form of steak knives .. a surplus of which
occasionally leads to an earned benefit for some of us.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

The Labour Theory of Value.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

And yet here you are.. :)

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

I was speaking more generally, using the above examples of folks trying to revisit that debate.
wsam

Plan B was what the blogger Andrew Sullivan called the beginnings of the insurgency in Iraq. This was, I believe, in 2005. The invasion of Iraq was not working well at all and its supporters, like Marcus Gee in this country, were casting about for an explanation to explain why the insurgency wasn’t a problem.

A source close to the Bush administration explained to Andrew, he reported, that insurgency was actually advantageous because it meant American soldiers could fight radical Muslims in the Iraqi heartland, instead of on the streets of Chicago, or New York. This was also referred to as the flypaper theory: invading Iraq would attract all the Muslim crazies in the world to that benighted country, where the US would be able to fight, defeat and destroy them.

Shortly after Andrew posted this theory, Iraqi insurgents blew up the UN headquarters in Baghdad, killing 30+ people. I stopped reading him then as his ridiculous inanities no longer seemed funny.

Was that off topic?

http://intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

Yes, and scattered too.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Ah. In that case, agreed. Let's keep the comments relevant to the article in question rather than constantly rehashing previous unrelated ones.
Sally

Good for Macleans. If you disagree with a particular article feel free to explain in a thoughtful and intelligent manner why your opinion is worth taking the time to read. If you can't manage to write your thoughts without personal attacks maybe you can keep them as a gift to yourself. Nobody else will appreciate them more then you do.
Dot

Been there. Done that.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I second your comments and suggestions and add one of my own:

For those of us who don't drink humour coffee in the morning, can we find a universal way to communicate sarcasm? Some of the posters here have a wit dry enough that even I can't read into the cracks.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Just use the [sarcasm] HTML tags.

For example:

[sarcasm] That was a delightful pun, Dot! [/sarcasm]

(Note: You need to replace the square brackets with pointy brackets for this to work.)

Dot

Are you finished blushing yet? [snark]I was thinking of adding the epic Ode to Toad to my Sociology Game Theory Thesis.[/snark]

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

You forgot to use pointy brackets on your [snark] tags.

Dot

No formatting error on my part. That means they were inserted by a sympathetic editor.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Heh. Can't say I blame him.

On a completely serious note, I enjoy lighthearted banter from time to time, and I'm glad that we rarely manage to offend one another. ;-)
Dot

Yeah, I'm not much for flame wars. Mind you, if I knew your real name, I would have had you and your dog egged in Nose Hill Park ages ago. Unless it is anything bigger than a chihuahua.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I have two dogs – a border collie and a blue heeler.
Dot

Two dogs? Time to scramble.
Jan

And you find time for the internet, CR.? I'm impressed with your time management skills.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Thanks. I'm a really good multitasker.

Alan

I gave up posting on all the politics stories here about a year ago because of the comments. It's fairly common on the Internet, so I hope you guys can get it under control here.
Patchouli

Wanna go on record here saying I love the MacLeans blogs and genuinely like and admire many of the posters here. I also admire the writing and high quality journalism. I miss Kady and her blog isn't the same at CBC. I don't want Paul Wells to disappear because he's smart, witty and a terrific writer, and I also am going to miss Jack's participation because he was a gentleman. I love that intensedebate allows us to respond to each other and almost converse. Even the views I disagree with are usually well written and give me pause for thought or a laugh. This place offers so much more than CBC or G&M. For the most part, I think we're a fairly civilized bunch here, and I acknowledge that I have been sarcastic to dissenting views occasionally, but rarely dismissive and only once reported a post (can't remember why but it must have been egregious because I tend to think the masses will deal with the really innappropriate ones).

http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

I agree with you about Kady she is missed and CBC well, even though I watch the Nationa,l I love my Peter Mansbridge, the rest not so good in my opinion she needs to get back here! I will miss Jack too, you are right he was a gentleman and I also like that we can almost converse and get a feeling the know each other a little.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

Couldn't agree more.