Blogger beware, think before you write

Home » Opinion » Dan Ross

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Comment

By DAN ROSS

Dan Ross articles

October 27th, 2009

High rollers

October 26th, 2009

The play's the thing...

October 24th, 2009

High rollers

October 16th, 2009

Video: 3 Napa elementary schools may close

September 10th, 2009

Murder charge for former BART cop

Talking Points

November 5th, 2009

Who wants to be a political blogger for us?

October 8th, 2009

Is your account here about to be deleted?

August 28th, 2009

Ready to use your real name yet?

August 25th, 2009

Who do you want to replace Wiggins as state senator?

August 20th, 2009

Should marijuana be legalized?

What you post is there for everyone to see, and it stays there for everyone to see.

Jena Cloud learned a tough lesson about that this week, after she went to the Napa Valley Register Web site to post comments on a story about her own arrest for spray-painting graffiti in Napa.

Cloud, using the screen name imajenPeace, wrote four comments in response to the July 29 article, taking credit for the graffiti spree. She explained that her mom is proud of her and countered those who wrote to say they think graffiti is not a welcome sight around town.

A few hours after she posted the comments -- click here to see the comments about halfway down the comments section -- she e-mailed the Register’s online editorial staff, asking that the comments be removed.

We declined.

Flash forward two weeks to Friday, when Cloud appeared in Napa County Superior Court related to her arrest. Her attorney waived Cloud’s right to a pretrial hearing, explaining that Cloud had admitted guilt in her comments on the Register’s Web site.

It appears unlikely that, as Cloud typed in her comments to our Web site, she considered the possible legal ramifications. In the eyes of the law, however, those public statements are not terribly different than an admission made verbally or in writing to a witness. They are evidence.

This is an unusual circumstance that points to a common-sense rule for commenters: Remember, what you put out on the Internet is there for everyone to see. If you don’t want it seen — and potentially interpreted, misinterpreted or used as a call to action — think twice before hitting the “send” button. This applies to comments, videos, photos and more.

How, besides in Ms. Cloud’s unfortunate circumstance, can something like this come to bite you in the backside?

How about going in to apply for a job, only to have the prospective employer do a search for your Facebook or MySpace page, finding photos of — hypothetically — a wild party? Now there’s a good way to make an impression on a future boss.

Maybe the photos, the videos, the thoughts are even racier than that. Would-be employers are not the only ones out there. There are so-called “online predators” and other Web surfers you may not have in mind when you post material for friends to see.

Here’s the flash for you, think before you post anything. You might not want to absorb the stares in public as people recognize you as “that girl from the Internet” mentioned in the TV public service ad. The consequences could be more difficult to handle than simply watching for the critical remarks of others.

Just ask Jena Cloud.

Dan Ross is the Register’s Multimedia Producer. He writes on local, state and national issues when he’s not driving around trying to count how many Starbucks locations there are in Napa. He can be reached at dross@napanews.com or 256.2264.

50 comment(s)

sammy wrote on Aug 15, 2008 5:25 PM:

" I say "nothing" nothing at all ........except this......

ADrk1 probably has a golden globe award of some type :) "

pernodboi wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:32 PM:

" Very good points, Dan. Maybe anonyminity isn't so bad after all (I misspelled that, didn't I?).

So..... The NVR knows who we are, and what our EMail address is. Would you tell the courts if asked? Were you asked in Jena's case? "

John Richards wrote on Aug 16, 2008 12:08 AM:

" Dan Ross, I think you owe us an explanation of how the screen name imajenPeace was connected to her real name (Jena Cloud )? "

ADark1 wrote on Aug 16, 2008 1:00 AM:

" I think the person who could really do this the JUSTICE that it needs would be the great Pink one..Should anyone see the PPF immersed in a bowl of shrimp...Pink may be in a good enough mood to oblige us. As I've stated before...PPF is the King or Queen...Been a while since I've seen the Pinkness! "

ADark1 wrote on Aug 16, 2008 1:00 AM:

" JR? She TOLD us! See there I go for thinking you read EVERYTHING! :) "

Raven wrote on Aug 16, 2008 7:23 AM:

" Just what is the NVR's stand if a court asks the paper for the identity of someone who posts? "

elb wrote on Aug 16, 2008 8:30 AM:

" 'tis true, so true. I read one morning on Livejournal of a girls intent to steal from her retail employer back East. I determined where her regional offices were located based on her profile page and contacted their loss prevention department, forwarding them a link to her livejournal. They staked the place out that evening and once she locked the door behind her and was headed to her car, they stopped her and searched her and that poor dear, being that it was a Friday evening, spent the entire weekend behind bars. And to my surprise, I received a $500.00 gift certificate from that retailer as a thank you.

Also, when my husband and I were facing a horribly costly legal situation, it occurred to me one evening that the person who was trying to do us harm was also the type to boast about her intent on the internet. I asked my husband to, "find her on Myspace," because I knew she was writing about this.

Sure enough, we found her and printed screen and forwarded the links to our attorney who then composed a very nice letter to her attorneys who in turn dropped the entire case against us.

I'm not sure what her employers may or may not have done after that since this whole thing involved them, but I'm guessing they weren't too happy with her since she was now a huge liability to them owing to her having mouthed off on her Myspace.

Point being.... The internet can be good or bad, all depending on how one looks at it and or uses it. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:10 AM:

" John Richards:
Please read the column for the explanation ... as stated in paragraph 4, she e-mailed us, asking that her previous comments be taken down. We had contact with her, we declined to take down her comments.
We to not give any personal information about any individual registered on the site to anyone for any reason. "

Bill wrote on Aug 16, 2008 10:25 AM:

" It does call to question, just how much is big brother watching?

Will a post that is not allowed be deemed dangerous and refered to "the porper authorieties," just who decides what is priviliged and what isnot?

Will a seditious coment wind up in the files of homeland security?

Where is the line drawn and how does the NVR interpret that line if they are the ones who draw it? "

John Richards wrote on Aug 16, 2008 11:38 AM:

" Dan Ross wrote "as stated in paragraph 4, she e-mailed us..."

Dan, I happen to work for a large Internet company (who shall remain nameless), and I specialize in email technology. Just because someone emails you, that is no guarantee that the sender is using her true name, or that her email address is anything but an untraceable 'throw-away' type of address. "

freeport56 wrote on Aug 16, 2008 12:00 PM:

" I guess that makes us the "unidentified source".....

Just to set the record straight...ADark1 did it... "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 16, 2008 8:21 PM:

" John:
Sorry for the delay in replying back, 'tis a day with the kids for me...
Thanks for your conern about a person and what e-mail address they use, and whether that is verification of identity.
The person contacted us, explaining she changed her mind and wanted her posts about her removed. She registered, providing information about herself, just as all who register do ... that was one method of verification...the multiple personal contacts with her was additional verification, and if you want more, her attorney verified it also by waiving her hearing rights because as he stated, she admitted her own guilt in her own comments.
thanks again for the concern
--Dan "

kevin wrote on Aug 16, 2008 10:24 PM:

" I refuse to "think before I write" and will continue to fire "at will".

Be warned... "

plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Aug 16, 2008 10:35 PM:

" Good reminder to be careful of what we say, even in jest.

The flamingo did not eat those shrimp. At the time of their disappearance, the plastic pink flamingo was standing motionless on the front lawn.

No shrimp were harmed in the typing of this post. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Aug 17, 2008 12:13 PM:

" I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I feel we should be careful about what we say. On the other hand, there should be a disclaimer that your posted words on the internet can be used as evidence. In a legal setting, you are read your Miranda rights to inform you that your words will be used for legal purposes. If we're going to allow our written words (without any signed contract which permits their use for other purposes), to be taken from our online interactions and used for legal purposes, we might be opening Pandora's Box. There are some pretty significant legal implications. Do we really want to go there?

Our online interactions might be restricted to the point where people are fearful about every word they say. Then again, if a person has committed a crime and casually admits it to a group of people at a party, their words can be used against them if one of those people reports it to authority. How different is the spoken word from the written one in the legal world? Typically, written words used in a legal setting require a notary or witness. It's quite a leap going from typing words out and claiming to be a certain person and actually proving, beyond a doubt, who the person was who actually wrote those words. Until this issue is resolved, I strongly feel that if someone requests their words be removed, the ethical thing to do is to remove them. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 17, 2008 2:39 PM:

" vocal:
The woman's attorney said he and his client waived the hearing because she admitted in writing that she did this.
What any person writes and posts in a public forum on the Internet is there for anyone to read.
There is nothing to determine here...your words in a public forum are your words in a public forum. If you or anyone posts comments admitting guilt in criminal activity, your own lawyer just might read it and not be very happy.
We are clear at the Register that if you make a comment, it stays unless it violates the comment guidelines. Telling the truth does not violate the guidelines, so the comments remain. "

Sandra wrote on Aug 17, 2008 3:10 PM:

" Earlier on I was hearing an echo in here....anyone else have that problem? ....As for this "On the other hand, there should be a disclaimer that your posted words on the internet can be used as evidence." LOL come on now....must we have disclaimers on everything? Have we no brains? One of my favorite disclaimers is the one on my blow dryer instructing me not to use it while bathing.....Than goodness it was there...I could of fried myself.... "

Rich wrote on Aug 17, 2008 5:37 PM:

" I'm thinking that there is a guy in a tent who is beginning to wish that you had posted this advice earlier.
Why people think the Internet ends on this page has always been interesting to me. "

109823 wrote on Aug 18, 2008 7:11 PM:

" Mr. Ross, your guidelines and how you exercise them are not consistent with all posts. You obviously pick and choose which to allow based solely on your biased oppinons or what will please certain political parties, ethnic communities and of course the wineries/tourism. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:00 PM:

" numerical person:
Thanks for the misguided and inaccurate portrayal of the moderators on this site. I always enjoy when someone makes accusations and assume sbias.
Are there times when a post goes through that should not? ... yep, and that's where people like you come in,. Send me an e-mail with the post and we will review it. With more than 7,000 posts per month, there are some that slip through, but our guidelines for the moderators are the same as for the commenters...
We still prefer to have moderated forums rather than free-for-alls for people to post all sorts of hate speech and personal attacks, then wait for the public to complain.
I'll take our sometimes-imperfect system to unmoderated forums, and enjoying accusations from people like you, no matter how inaccurate. "

funnyme wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:47 PM:

" I am with Sandra and kevin. I pretty much will say what I think and it will be up to Dan to post it or not. A lot of times is not.
I don't do pc very well.
I don't do pc at all! "

109823 wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:23 PM:

" Mr.Ross, I stand by my observation/oppion of your alleged equal moderations. You state "We are clear at the Register that if you make a comment it stays unless it violates the comment guidelines. Telling the truth does "NOT" violate the guidelines", and yet when someone deleberates with themselves for hours (at times) and submits the truth about a subject you remove their 1st Amendment rights with the push of a button. You do not know this feeling for your statements are never edited. Case in point you state in your guidelines "No personal attacks" well read your response to me and tell me if that isn't a personal attack? Good day. "

ADark1 wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:06 PM:

" Wasn't me! LOL!

BTW, Contrary to popular belief, Homeland security as well as other federal authorities have in place several mechanisms that can thwart almost all ways a person who mistakenly thinks they are anonymous....those days are pretty much at an end. When you couple that with a physically siezed computer, if you typed it on your box...your goose is pretty much cooked!

Like kevin and a few others, I pretty much shoot from the hip..At times I even put my foot in my mouth! ~Shrugs stuff happens. Do NOT expect any major privacy lawsuits to come out of this or anything else. EVERYTHING posted somewhere CAN be traced.

Also, contrary to popular belief..Dan Ross nails me everytime I post something..:) Just Joking...heh....LOL gonna take another 15 posts till he takes a break before this one slips by!.....Nice to see all the NEW folks posting! "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:10 PM:

" Numerical person:
Thanks for your opinion. Your First Amendment rights are not violated because you choose to participate in a moderated forum where you have specific guidelines to follow for your comments to appear.
This is not a free-for-all chatroom where people flame one another and post untruths at will.
As for being edited, I've had dozens of editors in my 20+ years in journalism, watched some of what I thought was my best work end up on the cutting room floor, and debated seriously about a three-martini lunch to get over it "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:12 PM:

" kevin, funnyme,
fire away, and when your posts violate the guidelines, off they go into the deleted pile.
Sometimes it just feels good to vent, eh, knowing the posts are being deleted? "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:17 PM:

" For everyone:
The moderators had a talk the other day about whether to allow all comments, pulling down comments only when someone objected.
This is a tried-and-failed concept with numerous newspapers as the "debate" becomes primarily hate speech and obscenities. People quickly becomes dissilusioned with the lack of content in the comments, moving on to a site where they can have conversations about the topics of the day.
If hate speech, attacks and name-calling is the desire, find a chatroom or start a blog of your own and comment at will about how much you hate one group of people, one business, one person or whatever you hate that day.
Here, the goal is rational debate that can lead to resolutions. Is the goal reached every time? Nope, but the goal remains. "

Bill wrote on Aug 20, 2008 2:45 PM:

" To have a “rational Debate” is a lofty goal but its really about entertainment. The moderators do a bang-up job for the most part. I think they are better than the software that filters out some very commonly used words as possibly offensive when they are only offensive in the context of use. Intent, humor and many other areas that are difficult to master in the written word make their job very difficult. Still some times they must be challenged.

El Darko uno sets forth that all our fears may be for naught big brother is here at our elbow. I feel fortunate to have escaped both Ashcroft and Gonzales but time may be running out. I may need to change my avatar to Violator or Offensive one and make an escape from the clutches of ICE should El Darko be proved correct.

In such a humorless world (a world in which only our personal humor is correct), who wouda thunk someone would write something and be accountable for their words. Maybe the poster of note should post again with the post rejoinder of “what I really meant was” explaining away all the things she really did do with her iron clad logic. There may yet be room at the top for many bloggerites.

I am still looking for the goal to be reached any time not every time. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 20, 2008 3:40 PM:

" Bill:
Moderators need to be challenged when you don't understand why a post was killed. There is a difference, though, between being challenged and the wide array of obscenities that are directed at the moderators when posts are killed ... not by you or most responding here, mind you.
We have added more moderators to keep up with the fact the weekly number of comments has almost doubled in the past 4 months.
Some deleted posts may be due to a new moderator learning the guideline ropes, and some may be from me moderating comments from my smartphone while out at my son's cross country meet and my hitting the wrong button by mistake ... damned buttons on the phone are TINY! "

elb wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:15 PM:

" For the record, there have been posts where I spoke/wrote in haste with nothing but emotionalism as my motivation behind almost every typed word...

Looking back, I am grateful that there was a moderator that had sense enough to save me from myself and keep me from looking like my uncles donkey.

Thank you, moderators for doing what our mothers and fathers tried (Or should have tried) to do; --teach us all how to be nice to one another in spite of our differences.

Oh, and no, I don't really have an uncle who owns a donkey. "

steph wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:31 AM:

" The only comments we are allowed to read are those that pass by the moderators.
When you get your comment rejected, it hurts, and it's easy to believe you're being picked on or censored, but I bet there isn't a single person here who hasn't had their comments rejected at least once.
It happens to me all the time, and it's frustrating, because I try to put a lot of thought into what I say.
But sometimes, for whatever reason, my comments don't get posted, and I have to try again. Many times Brian or Dan will e-mail a comment back to me if I request it, explaining why it was rejected, and it's not because they disagree with me. Usually it's because they think I'm being mean! :)

Anyway, I think this is a great story! I think it speaks to just how impulsive young people are. Taggers are by nature vain--that's the motivation behind the wall-scrawls AND it's a risk factor for seeking notoriety on a message board. Ooh, it's a lethal combination, isn't it? Some people just can't help themselves! "

cathyodom wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:59 AM:

" funnyme, ADark1, I always enjoy your posts, they are enlightening, funny, and to the point.
Dan Ross- thanks for allowing the posts here. It keeps me in touch with the local community here in Napa. I believe in honesty and openness. my screen name is cathyodom, and my real name is Cathy Odom. My friends see my posts and know it's me. I fix computers for a living, and have taken Computer Forensics. It's easier for me to just own up to what I post- it's not hard to figure out through forensics.
Also, Dan, looks like there is someone perhaps creating several different accounts and then posting back and forth on some blogs to look like it's different people? Appears they are trying to be misleading, but looks like same person. "

Sandra wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:24 PM:

" cathyodem, Really, is someone doing that? I am just curious...are they arguing with themselves, or expousing the same view point? Putting forth numerous examples of the same view point is just sad....but I would love to see someone have a good argument with themselves....Pray tell...who do you think the culprit is? "

ADark1 wrote on Aug 22, 2008 3:21 PM:

" Cathy O. I want to take forsnics but cant afford it at the time drop me a line @ Dark1@writeme.com Its the same addy I use for bloggermania! I need to talk to you!

Thanks

Dan!

When do we start the countdown! and I need to speak to kevin and funnyme as well "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 24, 2008 11:00 PM:

" cathyodom
Send me your suspicions to dross@napanews.com

ADark1, lets start the countdown on the 1st .. I'll get a blog that will run for the whole month to drive people to The Sequel "

funnyme wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:25 PM:

" Thank you Cathy.

Let the countdown begin...

Dan,
Touching "raw nerves" is what makes life interesting and fun!

...all the possibilities :) "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:14 PM:

" funnyme:
There is, however, a very clear and distinct difference between trying to touch raw nerves, and people issuing personal attacks, resorting to name-calling and blatant hate speech.
Basic debate skills can be applied when making comments to touch those nerves without having to call people names and be degrading. That only turns rational debate into a sad excuse for what could pass for communication.
The moderators are watching even closer now that election season is here to get rid of all the name-calling. "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Aug 27, 2008 12:44 AM:

" NVR-Dan Ross:
I'd like to point out that publishing an article or comment that portays an individual (especially a candidate) as idylic and perfect, without flaws, is just as bad as articles and comments that completely attack the individual.

Some people are a little better, some are a little worse, but no one is absolutely angelic or demonic.

And yet, the NVR moderators will continue to publish the sweet fluffy stuff shining upon individuals while deleting non-profanity attacks. I know it's not an easy task, but could moderators try to pick something closer to the middle? "

funnyme wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:29 AM:

" Dan,

...unless the comment that has followed "NVR Comment Guidelines" is specifically talking about a "public figure", and the "public figure" has picked up the red phone to call and ask that the comment be removed after being posted for a couple of hours and having their phone ringing off the hook...

Your Honor, I know I am not wrong. I could quote and produce such "evidence" for the public to see if the Prosecution allows me...:)

MarshaMarsha,
Great point! "

funnyme wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:35 AM:

" What would be consider "name calling" when it comes to election season?

Sticky. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:25 PM:

" MarshaMarsha and funnyme, and everyone else:
The answer here is very simple, and I will give it by posting examples of civil debate, and the same debate with the name-calling included.

1) Obama should not win because his stance on the surge in Iraq shows he does not understand the military or the war or terror.

2) Obama is an idiot because because his stance on the surge in Iraq shows he does not understand the military or the war or terror.

Comment 1 stays, comment 2 is deleted

Every individual can clearly and emphatically state their case without resorting to name-calling.
Previously, we've given more leeway when it comes to elected officials, leaving them more vulnerable to personal attack and name-calling.
Here and now, we're pulling in the reins and requiring all individuals to treat elected officials with the same civility they would give to any other individual.

clear enough, everyone? "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Aug 28, 2008 9:14 AM:

" Yes, Dan, absolutely clear enough. Except three days ago the NVR published something that completely glorified a local candidate into some kind of angelic, God-sent, hero without a single flaw or mistake.

To me, that's just as bad as calling someone an idiot.

If your above example read
"Obama is as close to a savior that the U.S. will ever see, a man who refuses to brag that he understands everything about Iraq, a man who will use his superior intelligence to resolve the war on terror without using violence."
Would you print that? Of course you would, even though it barely resembles your comment #1.

Two fields: One full of dirt, the other full of lush grass, with a fence seperating the two. You can't say you're on the fence if you have grass stains on your pants. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 28, 2008 9:45 AM:

" MarshaMarsha:
That was a letter to the editor on support of Gary Simpson. People do have the right to express their opinion of a candidate without saying anything bad about anyone. There is a major difference, however, between something a Register staffer writes and an opinion item from a reader. Brace yourself, this is election season so a LOT of those are coming.
Here's the link to that letter is case anyone else seems confused.
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2008/08/26/opinion/commentary/doc48b37dd78c15f943088319.txt
Would that survive as a story comment? Yep, absolutely, so would one saying "Simpson lacks credentials to be due to (insert objection here)." "

funnyme wrote on Aug 28, 2008 10:10 AM:

" The candidates have the same right to access the NVR comments section, and so those who send letters to the editor.
Imagine BO, JMC and all of them posting comments here...8P

Why not invite them and allow them to fend for themselves?

If they do what Wiggins did they'll be dropping like flies in a heart beat and we could start a new election process all over again...that could be fun.

MarshaMarsha~You are funny and right on it. I am roflol! "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 28, 2008 10:15 AM:

" funnyme:
Each candidate is receiving a letter next week inviting them to have a weekly blog on this site, from local school board candidates to opponents/proponents on each Proposition to the presidential camps.
let's see who chooses to paly "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Aug 28, 2008 11:20 AM:

" Yes, Dan Ross, that's the letter I was refering to. My response, which contained no profanity or words like "idiot", was deleted and unpublished.

I tried to compose a response that would counter the angelic opinion of the letter writer, since I think it's only fair to balance things out. Did I attack Mr. Simpson? Absolutely, and I apologize if it went beyond your guidlines for civil debate.

I'll try to keep my future responses to letters about angelic candidates more civil, within the guidlines you have expressed in your comments. I'll be throwing things at the wall in frustration, but my comments will be more civil. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 28, 2008 11:44 AM:

" MarshaMarsha:
I went back and looked for your deleted post and found it. You state in your first sentence you did not read the letter, therefore my belief is it was deleted because the moderated felt your comments were off-topic. Hard to be on topic without reading the topic, isn't it? That said, there wasn't anything in the comment that violated the guidelines, so I moved it through.
The moderators here are working hard to keep the debates civil AN on-topic, maybe admitting you don't now the topic isn't the best move!

damned image verification kicked out my comment!. Hopefully one of these days the new fix getting rid of I, Q, L, and 1 will take place. "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Aug 28, 2008 2:40 PM:

" Thanks, Dan Ross. As the saying goes: "You're a good man, Charlie Brown!"

Of course I read the letter before I commented, I was being humorously foolish when I said I didn't. You have a very valid point and I have a lesson learned that not all people (including moderators) will get my humor in print.

By the way... Welcome to our world of I,Q, L, and 1. The REAL frustration is when you spend more than 24 minutes composing a comment, get the image verification wrong, and the system logs you out AND erases your comment. Thank Gawd for copy and paste! "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 28, 2008 3:22 PM:

" MarshaMarsha:
One thing we've earned is the image verification changes every 5 minutes, so if it takes you longer than that to write, try using word or notepad, then cut-and-paste into the comment window and you'll be OK. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 30, 2008 1:09 PM:

" I often have to do three tries before I pass your CAPTCHA verification system. I don't think it's a matter of timing out, except perhaps for the first try. Dan, do your techs have any stats on what percent of the attempts fail? I don't have this problem on other websites that use similar systems. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Aug 30, 2008 1:25 PM:

" John:
There are two issues with the system we are using, both being resolved in some future upgrade of the system.
1) It is difficult for users to figure out the differences betwenn 1 and l, q and g, and others when displayed.
2) The system times out in 5 or so minutes from the time you log on to the page, not the time you start writing.
Both are extremely frustating and we'd like it fixed fast, but it will be fixed once the programmers get to that item.
As for figures on how frequent this happens, it is in single-digit percentages. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: