A sad commentary on blogging life | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Dan Ross

A sad commentary on blogging life

Monday, April 27, 2009

Comment

By DAN ROSS

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?

Once again there is a large rise in what I find to be very disappointing comments being submitted to a number of NapaValleyRegister.com articles.

The comments are exposing how some people in our online community cannot resist turning so many issues into ones of illegal immigration, and using those comments to fire out racist comments and ones containing hate speech.

A NapaValleyRegister.com article explaining what Swine Flu precautions to take resulted in a large number of deleted comments because the commenters are trying to claim illegal immigrants are the cause of this flu outbreak or are dramatically spreading this flu.

Enough of the hate speech and racist comments, folks.

Are people frustrated with illegal immigration into the U.S. and Napa county specifically. Oh yeah they are, just look at the Register.com comments to any article dealing with illegal immigration-type issues.

Turning any possible article, however, into an illegal immigrant debate just doesn't work. The comment guidelines posted here includes as the very first guideline, "Stay on topic," while three of the first six items listed in what causes comments to be deleted include, going off-topic, hate speech, and racially-insensitive comments."

People sending through such comments are receiving replies from here stating that any further racist or hate speech-like comments submitted shall result in an automatic seven day suspension of their accounts.

The same messages are going out to commenters who routinely include personal attacks in the comments they provide, as there is (once again) a huge increase in personal attacks in comment submissions to this Web site.

Are there times the comments get through? Yep. We receive about 500 comments daily and try to post them as quick as possible so you can have as close to a real-time discussion as possible. We do mistakenly let some through in our haste to keep the dialogue going, so when so see something you deem inappropriate, send a comment along through the comments section on via e-mail to me.

As we state in the preamble to the 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." We go through periods of time where the commenters accelerate attempts to push comment guidelines as far as possible. Each time we send out e-mail requests to these individuals asking them to change their behaviors. This time, we've abandoned the requests and are informing commenters it is change now or be suspended.

Enough is enough. Play by the rules or be banned from playing the game.

106 comment(s)

bv wrote on Apr 27, 2009 4:37 PM:

" Thank you Dan. I have mostly stopped reading the comments because many of them are so sickening. It saddens me to think that even a few people in our community can believe such hateful things.

So thanks for shutting it down. "

MP wrote on Apr 27, 2009 4:40 PM:

" Thank you for monitoring the comments Dan. I can't imagine how much hatred would spill out if you didn't watch over them. "

Paddy wrote on Apr 28, 2009 8:06 AM:

" It sounds like censorship to me. It's your paper so you can do as you please but I've found that anything that is disparaging to the NVR agenda, and I've lately detected an agenda, will be excluded from the comments even though they meet the "Comment Guidelines".

My guess is that many of the comments you're referring to regariding immigration concern and swine flu were just that: concerns. It doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal immigration (though illegal immigration is uncontrolled immigration) it only makes sense to consider closing all borders until this potential pandemic is under control.

Is this hateful. No. It's sad how thin-skinned our society has become. "

JimClark wrote on Apr 28, 2009 8:42 AM:

" Hatred? Some realities are not from hate but from a rational and realistc consideration of current issues.

Discussing a crisis that can become a tragedy to humankind is now considered "hate" because its origin is a simple fact?

“Maximum in eo vitium est,qui non melioribus vult placere, sed pluribus” Seneca the Younger.

His greatest fault was his desire was not to please the best people, but to please the most people.
Some may mistakenly see certain things as “hate” when it is expedient.
When words come from history and a serious concern regarding what freedom means is challenged by deletion and defined as something all too broadly referred to as hatred. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Apr 28, 2009 12:01 PM:

" "I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." -- Bart Simpson.

As suspendee-emeritus and multiple near-suspendee, I believe NVR-Dan does try his best to re-balance our unbalanced comments.

I found this new set of suspenders and I've been on the suspender wagon for awhile now.

;o)

I'm kind of the Cool Hand Luke of bull-goose lefty LIBRULZ now.

'I got my mind right!'

How'ma'doin' now boss?

~Ruff "

sickothis wrote on Apr 28, 2009 12:49 PM:

" Right on. "

pharper wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:46 PM:

" Anyone who's ever said anything racist thinks they're not racist.

It's true. The most racist person in the world will tell you s/he is not racist, and that YOU are racist for suggesting so.

I'm sorry, but it IS racist to imply that the swine flu problem is caused by illegal immigrants. It just is. It's racist to want to close the borders to just one nation. People who are proponents of that will tell you that it's because we have too many immigrants already. No more immigration? Fine, but that means no more immigration from ANYWHERE.

Think carefully before you speak, because people are the most biased judges of themselves. You may think it's not racist, but that doesn't mean it isn't. "

krusty wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:54 PM:

" I agree, Dan. Some people want to blame illegal immigration for every problem that comes our way.

The economy-Illegal immigrants fault
Swine flu-Illegal immigrants fault
Apartment complex fire-Illegal immigrants fault

Enough already! Last time I checked, bad things happen once in awhile. And it's not always the fault of a person here illegally.

It makes me angry when people assume someone is an illegal immigrant when they have no proof that is the case. They go on to treat them like a lower form of human based on their assumption. I don't promote illegal immigration but I can understand it. Put yourself in their shoes before you automatically assume they're here because their determined to destroy our country. "

Raven wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:56 PM:

" an agenda, paddy? "

JustMy$.02 wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:35 PM:

" Welcome to the Temples of Syrinx "

sicksense wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:49 PM:

" I don't even know what "hate speech" is. Can someone give me a definition please? Does "hate speech" have to have the word "hate" in it or can it just be someone calling someone a hater because they don't agree with them? "

Bill wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:58 PM:

" Most of the long running blogs or threads have nothing to do with the original article, letter or statement.

At some point a few posters are able to morph it to their own concerns to the exclusion of others. At that point you should consider turning it into a thread of its own.

Conversation does take strange twists but most often the original thrust of the debate gets hijacked by a very few bloggers at the expense of others.

I.E. how are tax tea parties, Fidel Castro's Cuba, China, Melissa Huckabee, or a homeland security report relate?

They all might have some merit on their own but if that is the turn shouldn't it be divided or sub divided some how?

As for the current Flu crisis and peoples response to it, I am afraid you have only seen the small side of the bigotry that will ensue. "

misfit wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:02 PM:

" When a potential swine flu epidemic somehow becomes a vehicle to bash Hispanics, something is wrong. I new it would only be a matter of time and when it was brought up by a 13 year old quoting Michael Savage....something is very, very wrong with that type of prejudice and hatred. Why should the paper accomodate that? Maybe some things are better left unsaid or, saved for the dinner table. "

Raven wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:32 PM:

" maybe what we are seeing is a new corollary of Godwin's law....only using illegal immigrants instead of nazi's. "

antipc wrote on Apr 28, 2009 6:37 PM:

" Pharper, are you racist? Based on your last post you can't answer the question can you? "

antipc wrote on Apr 28, 2009 7:14 PM:

" So misfit, we know that the current country the flu is originating from is Mexico, right?

So shall we suspend all air traffic from Australia?

Common sense is not profiling. "

winewoman wrote on Apr 28, 2009 7:24 PM:

" Sad, indeed. Censorship. Thought Police. Why are we so afraid to debate and discuss controversial issues? People think, believe and behave on a wide and varied spectrum. Because other people believe differently than you doesn't make them/their ideas wrong or bad. This (blogging) is an opportunity to learn about and from our fellow man/woman, share thoughts and ideas, educate, inspire and work through issues that concern us, frighten us, enrich our lives. Shutting people down becuase they believe differently than you do is wrong. These people who believe differently than you do still exist. They are in your community. You work with them. Live next to them. Spend time with them. I certainly feel more enlightened, aware and empowered when I dialogue with others - especially and particularly when their beliefs and attitudes are different than mine. What an amazing opportunity we have - and one that is now taken from us.

Oh, why don't you apply your rules universally. There is name calling going on right now in the AmCan blog.

Why not change the format of the blogs? Instead of having bloggers able to reply to each article (some comments ARE stupid), set up an area (where people have to log into) where issues are freely discussed and debated. That way, Mr. & Mrs. Read-the-Articles-Online aren't exposed to "controversial" comments made by some bloggers, but those issues can still be discussed freely by those who choose to participate. "

pharper wrote on Apr 28, 2009 8:06 PM:

" I'd like to think I'm not. I don't believe in stereotypes, I don't listen to racist jokes, I don't call names or make assumptions based on race, and I think everyone is created equal.

I don't mean to generalize; there are exceptions to everything.

But it's a lot like driving. No one will admit to being a bad driver. Ask anyone, and they'll tell you they're the best driver in the world - and we all know there are plenty of bad drivers! "

misfit wrote on Apr 28, 2009 8:12 PM:

" antipc...I haven't commented on whether or not to close off to air traffic from Mexico. My post referred to the fact that the very first post, in response to the swine flu epidemic story, referred to Michael Savage's website and what he had to say about illegals and Mexicans bringing the swine flu here. This was inflammatory and not in line with the article. It was only going to set up another vehicle for hate speech, derogatory remarks, racially insensitive comments and it was going off topic. All of which are prohibited in the comment guidelines. Ironically, this commentary opened up the topic again so, what was the point you were making? "

sicksense wrote on Apr 28, 2009 10:10 PM:

" What is "hate speech"? "

alucawanza wrote on Apr 28, 2009 10:28 PM:

" sicksense:

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.
www.historycentral.com/civics/H.html "

wildflower wrote on Apr 28, 2009 11:03 PM:

" Ah, I get it. Hate is such a strong word.

How can I express my 'extreme dislike' for certain kind of people without making them feel bad?

Ah, I get it now... If I don't say I am angry it means I don't feel angry.

You are all so smart and helpful. Thank you. "

napablogger wrote on Apr 29, 2009 1:15 AM:

" Dan, I think you should go to real names only. It would clear up a lot of the problem, and improve the discussions. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Apr 29, 2009 5:14 AM:

" misfit- Lighten up just a bit, would'ja? Everybody makes mistakes.

I'm content to cut our young blogger friend some slack.

I'm sure things have been explained ad nauseum, and some good blogs have come from that source. Let's not poison the well overmuch.

Time to let the little one breathe again. There's a good heart there and while I'm

We have pretty much all lost our cool at one time or another.

~Ruff "

JimClark wrote on Apr 29, 2009 5:59 AM:

" Hate speech is often used as a method of demeaning The right to offer categories to consider. It is often an excuse to "name=call one who is not in agreement with a "mainstream", politically correct indoctrnate.

Truth as with the lie is often misrepresented by current agenda. "

aknra wrote on Apr 29, 2009 6:35 AM:

" But it is NOT hate speech when you call a person a right wing extremist gun nut who clings to his religion, right? "

wildflower wrote on Apr 29, 2009 7:09 AM:

" How can the truth be considered 'hate speech' aknra?
Is DHS 'hate speeching'? How could they? "

sandra wrote on Apr 29, 2009 7:27 AM:

" regarding:
"winewoman wrote on Apr 28, 2009 7:24 PM:"

I ditto that. "

sicksense wrote on Apr 29, 2009 7:37 AM:

" "Hate speech" seems to be a term created by the left to squelch some people's freedom of speech. I hate that!

If I say I hate someone or something someone does, is that "hate speech" of just my opinion?

I can honestly say I don't hate anyone but I do hate many behaviors that people display, including some of my own.

We need to drop this label of "hate speech." It's a ridiculous term. "

Raven wrote on Apr 29, 2009 8:30 AM:

" nope "

Paddy wrote on Apr 29, 2009 8:50 AM:

" The article states: "The comments are exposing how some people in our online community cannot resist turning so many issues into ones of illegal immigration, and using those comments to fire out racist comments and ones containing hate speech."

It's obvious to me that many, many people are frustrated, angry, fed up with the steady decline of Napa, CA and our country. The reasons are apparent to most and obvious to many and the comments that are made are indicative of the level of outrage that has simmered for decades.

Hate speech? How about outrage speech... frustration speech... indignation speech? I know the NVR doesn't want to hear it. They're goal is to paint a rosey picture of contentment and splendor. Anything that contradicts this opinion is unacceptable and 'hateful'.

I don't believe most of the 'hate speech' is that at all. There are no klansmen left in town as far as I know. Too many are tired with the direction this country is going, this state is going and this county is going.

If you don't want to hear about it stop allowing comments. The real hate speech is obvious and easy to address but you've begun to eliminate comments that are simply contrary to those of the reviewer it seems to me. There is no balance of opinion, it's the maudlin quagmire of idealism that is killing the spirit of a once great country, state and city. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:01 AM:

" Everybody boos the umpire. It's a thankless job. However, you can be proud of doing it well. "

Napagrrl wrote on Apr 29, 2009 11:56 AM:

" Paddy says, "Hate speech? How about outrage speech... frustration speech... indignation speech? I know the NVR doesn't want to hear it."

Maybe not. But how about balancing those comments about undocumented aliens who are using up all our resources with talk of the "white" families whose five or six kids have five or six different last names and yet there is still no father/male figure in the home? Or the families with grandparents (some of whom are in their 30's) who were on welfare after having kids in high school and who then dropped out. And their daughters who did the same? These families are usually on welfare, often on drugs and the kids get in trouble because there's no one really taking care of them. Combine this with those who smoke and have numerous tattoos and you'll see that "our" tax dollars are not spent on "illegals" only. "

AKNRA wrote on Apr 29, 2009 12:45 PM:

" Here I am, a tax paying American parent of two children in not one, but two different Napa Unified School District Schools and yet, during this important and serious time of an increasing pandemic of a disease which we KNOW has originated in Mexico, I cannot, in these blogs, even bring up the mention of there possibly being children in those schools that MAY not be documented, NOR their possible relatives who MAY have bought back the disease from a visit to Mexico? HOW am I breaking the Comment Guidelines? "

Winewoman wrote on Apr 29, 2009 12:50 PM:

" Napagirl - so there's the opportunity to educate others. Your turn to provide data, information, statistics - and balance those comments that you feel are uninformed. Without information from both sides, ignorance prevails. But the NVR has decided to take away the opportunity to debate, discuss and provide balance - that's censorship and thought police. "

reader wrote on Apr 29, 2009 12:51 PM:

" Paddy: If you don't want censureship then join a "flame" blog and go at it. The rest of us here are interested in the news and the respectful thoughts of the readers.

Thank you, Dan, for your diligence. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Apr 29, 2009 1:36 PM:

" Gave everyone a few days to vent about being asked to play by the ruiles or don't play the game ... now for a few responses.

AKNRA:
Comments such as what you just sent are posted. When people make statements that illegal immigrants are the cause of swine flu and then expand on the hatred of the individuals in very graphic terms, those comments get deleted.
Questions about various groups are one thing, blatantly racist comments get deleted.

Winewoman:
This site offers moderated forums with very clear comment guidelines. The opportunity to conduct civil debates absolutely exists. The opportunity to espouse racist beliefs does not exist in these forums. If anyone wants unmoderated commentary, they can start their own blog on a site and invite anyone to comment. Here, the comment guidelines are clear for every individual. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Apr 29, 2009 1:40 PM:

" Paddy:
Open civil dialogue takes place here on a daily basis.
People make comments daily about frustration and outrage, and when those comments are within the guidelines, those comments are posted.
Your false accusations that we only allow comments that we personally agree with is ridiculous. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Apr 29, 2009 1:44 PM:

" sicksense:
A person's opinion can clearly violate the comment guidelines when the opinion espouses racist statements, derogatory remarks, personal attacks, etc.

People are most definitely allowed to state their opinions in these moderated forums. They are required to maintain the decorum laid out in the comment guidelines.

Moderated forums can and do allow for civil dialogue.

Many people online, however, are accustomed to flame wars taking place on unmoderated sites where civil debate rapidly degrades into personal attacks where the topic becomes irrelevant.

Our goal is for this online community to stay on topic and debate civilly, without stooping so low as to attack the messenger in order to try and win the debate. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Apr 29, 2009 1:47 PM:

" JimCLark:
You and I met two months ago, and out talk went onto a variety of topics. We talked about inviting groups who make comments to meet and talk together on topics and hear from moderators on what we see on a daily basis.

Hate is openly expressed in many deleted comments. Hate is prevalent among many when posting anonymously from a computer keyboard.

Those same comments of hate do not come across when people are face-to-face, so it is clear civil debate is possible. Let's try and get together again in May, invite others along, and see what happens. "

Rob C wrote on Apr 29, 2009 2:25 PM:

" Just because you can type words to a computer screen doesn't mean the world needs to see them.

The Register is well within their purview to moderate as they see fit. Their policy is a good one.

I do find, though, Dan's hand-wringing over the dross a bit overwrought. That blog submissions are often more akin to restroom wall writing than dignified letters to the editor should be of no surprise to students of human nature as well versed as a submissions editor. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 2:29 PM:

" here's the heart of the arguement;

"A person's opinion can clearly violate the comment guidelines when the opinion espouses racist statements, derogatory remarks, personal attacks, etc".

What are the guidelines\definitions used to determine what is racist? All stereotype have some basis in fact... "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Apr 29, 2009 2:33 PM:

" freeport56:
Rational individuals, even moderators for this site, can easily determine clear and blatant racist comments.

Whereas a commentary of 300 words may have 294 words that meet comment guidelines, the 1, 2 or 6-word-long racist comment requires the entire comment to be deleted.

We do not edit comments. They are posted or deleted. "

AKNRA wrote on Apr 29, 2009 2:37 PM:

" Thanks for responding to and even posting my last input, and also for discussing the similar thoughts coming from other frequent contributors. Perhaps it may be a cultural point, but your definition of what constitutes a so-called “racist” comment and even “hate” speech are solar systems away from mine. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 3:25 PM:

" Thank you Dan.

The only reason I asked was that the term "Racist" has been loosely used to shut people who are speaking down. It is\has been used to intimidate an individual and make them seem irrelevant. In the same way a personal belief system returns the moniker "h8". As seen several times in other blogs. "

winewoman wrote on Apr 29, 2009 3:29 PM:

" Dan said, "Here, the comment guidelines are clear for every individual." Then enforce the guidelines equally. There were comments deleted this week that don't come close to the name calling and hatred currently being expressed in the same sex marriage forum. "gay brigade", "gay mafia". There exists an appearance of separate rules for race discussions and sexual orientation discussions. "

Rob C wrote on Apr 29, 2009 3:36 PM:

" Mr. Ross touches on the final arbiter in his response to freeport56.

Spend some time reviewing the legal definition and mechanics of the "reasonable person" approach for adjudicating issues of degree or interpretation.

You'll find it applies here. "

misfit wrote on Apr 29, 2009 4:27 PM:

" Pardon me if I don't have this exactly right but, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...It's a DUCK! "

JimClark wrote on Apr 29, 2009 5:04 PM:

" Dan: I'd love to meet with you again. I sincerely hope others may join in. I am reticent to identify your other guest as he/she may not desire to be mentioned.

I do believe that some of the guidelines in the NVR are of question in regard to the freedom of expression.

That being said, I also witness laws being violated that the citizen expects to see enforced.

I also see dangers in certain conditiions that the law is not enforcing and THAT IS unconstitutional and is now a serious danger to us all.

Anytime after May 21 will be fine with me. I wonder what happened to March and April?

Cordially, Jim "

antipc wrote on Apr 29, 2009 7:13 PM:

" Misfit, I wasn't attacking you, I was merely trying to point out that ignoring the source of the flu would be a mistake. Hasn't our open-border policies created enough problems in this country? Admission of the facts would allow us to make more intelligent decisions, right? Or has PCism become the beginning of our downfall by suppressing common sense? "

delphi wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:08 PM:

" If people here want to participate in free speach blogs they should got to the Times Herald or the SF Chronicle. Dan and his buddy Kennedy have agendas. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:36 PM:

" pharper wrote: "It's racist to want to close the borders to just one nation."

No, it's not, because those concerns are based on cold/hard scientific facts. One nation was the ground zero of the swine flu outbreak, and as of today it still has most of the contagious carriers. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:48 PM:

" napablogger wrote: " Dan, I think you should go to real names only. It would clear up a lot of the problem, and improve the discussions."

What an impractical suggestion! How in heavens would you police that? Dan would have to visit each of us in person and inspect our photo IDs?
It would put a huge damper on honest expression since many of us have political opinions that differ from our employer's. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:56 PM:

" "What are the guidelines\definitions used to determine what is racist?"

The basic guideline seems to be that if it isn't 'politically correct' it gets deleted.

Other guidelines seem to have spotty enforcement. For example, although "name-calling" is nominally off-limits, anti-8 posters were allowed to call the pro-8 folks bigots, haters, and homophobes. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 29, 2009 10:07 PM:

" "Let's try and get together again in May, invite others along, and see what happens."

Not sure what a face-to-face meeting would benefit, other than it being human nature to be more cordial in person. Also, some of us are skilled at smithing the written word, but not so good at off-the-cuff speaking. You would not get the real flavor or sense of the person. "

Raven wrote on Apr 29, 2009 11:15 PM:

" And what are those cold hard facts JR...why not close the borders to everywhere that has had a case reported? "

orual wrote on Apr 30, 2009 1:47 AM:

" krusty wrote:
" I agree, Dan. Some people want to blame illegal immigration for every problem that comes our way.

The economy-Illegal immigrants fault
Swine flu-Illegal immigrants fault
Apartment complex fire-Illegal immigrants fault"

I complety agree.
You could substitue the word "teachers" for "illegal immigrants" in this comment and accurately describe much of what is written by regular posters as well. "

hoozcryinow wrote on Apr 30, 2009 2:30 AM:

" THANK YOU, Dan! I am another reader who chose to stop reading the comments for a long while because of the racist & judgemental remarks flying about. It's a shame that these rules of discussion (actually common courtesy if you ask me) have to be forced on some of us. Why do you call it censorship, Paddy? I was beginning to think that the avg. Napa commenter was simply not literate enough to express their opinion or back it up without attacking someone else. I agree with some of what Winewoman says -"Because other people believe differently than you doesn't make them/their ideas wrong or bad." So people - stop attacking people! Stop the name calling & profiling. Attack the actions of the people that are ticking you off rather than attacking the individual or you are no further evolved than the kids on the playground shooting back & forth their 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' littanies. Don't like the rules here? You are free to go comment somewhere else. Now THAT's free speech! "

wildflower wrote on Apr 30, 2009 6:05 AM:

" " And what are those cold hard facts JR...why not close the borders to everywhere that has had a case reported? "

That IS a good solution! "

a teacher wrote on Apr 30, 2009 6:56 AM:

" I will say this, meeting Mr. Clark in the flesh and seeing what nice guy he is, did make it harder for me to be mean to him in print. Even when the things he writes irritate me...

I don't think that will work for everyone though. "

JimClark wrote on Apr 30, 2009 8:09 AM:

" aTeacher, what Mr. Ross has done is create conditions where people of differing opinion can cordially discuss their position on issues as well as actually look into the eyes of one we agree or disagree with. No monsters we.
I look forward to our next meeting and hope others will take the time to come to and enjoy the debate as well as sisiting with others who have the honor to speak out.

Most of us are capable of disagreeing without being disagreeable face to face where the written word can be misinterpreted as objectionable, “hate”, etc.

it was an honor to meet both of you at our Jamba Juice visit.

Anytime after May 18th is fine with me. Your turn name the place Dan? "

Paddy wrote on Apr 30, 2009 8:25 AM:

" I for one have not stopped reading comments. You're welcome Dan. In fact I read with relish and enjoy the back and forth. I've always believed that was the point here. If immigration, be it legal or illegal, is a factor in any article or discussion it's up to the author of the comment to modulate as appropriate and stay 'between the lines'.

hoozcryinow - I call it censorship because I have had more than one comment not posted that was addressing the flip-side of an article in the NVR that was completely within guidelines but certainly took to task the NVR apparent agenda of supporting Keith Rogals push to bury Napa as well as pro-taxation and pro-Obama articles without a whiff of an opposing article or opinion. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

So Dan, I'm not sure my 'accusations' are 'false' unless you alone 'censor' all comments that come through this forum. If you are then perhaps you need to be open to criticism about what I consider unfair exclusion of comments for reasons other than guideline infractions. If you're not the sole 'censor' than maybe my 'accusation' is not off base. "

winewoman wrote on Apr 30, 2009 8:55 AM:

" John Richards wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:48 PM:

" napablogger wrote: " Dan, I think you should go to real names only. It would clear up a lot of the problem, and improve the discussions."

What an impractical suggestion! How in heavens would you police that? Dan would have to visit each of us in person and inspect our photo IDs?
It would put a huge damper on honest expression since many of us have political opinions that differ from our employer's. "

I considered creating a new ID with my real name, but earlier this week I interacted with someone in these blogs that made me realize that there are people in society that don't have your best interest in mind (that's my pc way of implying something else and not getting censored). With your real name, they can find your address, etc. I'd rather not expose myself to those people. JR, that isn't your real name? "

misfit wrote on Apr 30, 2009 9:57 AM:

" Attacking the actions or words, has not been acceptable either. The only accountability has been to have the comments deleted by the NVR staff. "

Napagrrl wrote on Apr 30, 2009 11:27 AM:

" Seriously, Winewoman? I have no data nor statistics, merely life experience. But of course you know that. Asking for data based on a comment like mine is really just a ploy to cause others to discount my opinion. For the record, I could easily name names, but if such a comment WERE allowed (and it wouldn't be), I can only imagine the humiliation the children would feel when classmates ridiculed them. I am a much kinder person than that. I think we all know people similar to those I described; heck, I have them in my own family! The point is that there is little if any "white-bashing" in these blogs but there are plenty of opportunities if we are honest with ourselves. It's not just Hispanics who who use our resources. "

thoughtank wrote on Apr 30, 2009 11:38 AM:

" I hate hate speech. I hate people who hate hate speech. I hate it most when people who hate hate speech hate haters. Then there are those whose hate speech is so hated that the hatred spawns a hate speech subculture of hated hated speakers. I hate it when that happens!

On a serious and non-hateful note, good for The Register and Dan Ross! It's so easy to be a hate-monger. Civil discourse is imperative in these trying times. "

JimClark wrote on Apr 30, 2009 11:54 AM:

" Napagirl? How did you manage to get past being deleted from this page. Kudos to you. "

JimClark wrote on Apr 30, 2009 12:00 PM:

" Krusty: Might I suggest you remove those pink glasses before what you believe kills you? "

Winewoman wrote on Apr 30, 2009 12:16 PM:

" Napagirl, Wow. All of that from my suggestion that you have an opportunity to balance uneducated and misinformed comments with facts, data, and information. Without information from both sides, ignorance prevails. Unfortunately, as we see here, people speak from their "life experience". One persons life experience may not (and I think often does not) provide a balanced and macro level perspective of a particular situation or issue. I really have no idea what the rest of your post was about. "

sicksense wrote on Apr 30, 2009 2:37 PM:

" Data and statistics can be as misleading if not more misleading than personal experience. The reason people have beliefs is not normally because they've seen the data but because that have experiences relating to the issue that have formed their position.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics! "

sicksense wrote on Apr 30, 2009 2:39 PM:

" And the reason I believe that is based on the experiences I've had with some people who, when presented with concrete evidence that the sky is blue, will argue that it's only my opinion. "

Napagrrl wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:36 PM:

" Winewoman, I doubt there are statistics for tattooed women in Napa who are parents of multiple kids with multiple men who are on welfare. The simple point I was trying to make is that when comments are made blaming our Hispanic population for Napa's woes, including the use of social services, it is only fair to "balance" those comments with factual statements about other segments of our population - such as the type of people I
mentioned. There have been comments about how the "illegals" wear designer clothing but get free or reduced-price lunches at school. Maybe. But they have Caucasian counterparts as well. "

Bill wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:37 PM:

" Statistical references to support a fact in an argument are perhaps more persuasive on a blog where the blogger can claim to be any expert he or she wishes with the claim of “life experience. The fact of a life experience may make a certain “fact” true but another’s life experience claim can make it false.

If there is to be an expression of a proven fact it must be either a priori as in a mathematical truth or definition. 2+2=4, all bachelors are men. Or a posteriori as in a statistical fact we think we can prove statistically that the sun rises every day and predict that it will rise tomorrow, however there is always a measure of doubt in this prediction while in the previous there is not, at least not to serious minds.

I will leave synthetic a priori alone and point you to Kant for further enlighten.

Even misleading arguments using statistical methods are valuable when they quote their sources. You can actually check it out.

Example: current urban or Internet myth autoworkers pay (UAW) vs. Toyota, Nissan hourly compensation. One blogger will have us believe that UAW average pay is pegged at a $70+ range while the two other are in the neighborhood of $30- range. Yet a simple comparison of his statistic reveals that this disparity involves the lumping of average overtime, all hospital, surgical, dental, and vision benefits, group life insurance, disability, supplemental unemployment, pension payments, unemployment compensation, and the employer’s share of payroll taxes.

The actual comparable range should be $30- for the Japanese companies and $40- for the (UAW). This would be honest and let the arguments flow from there. "

steph wrote on Apr 30, 2009 5:15 PM:

" Dan, something I found quite disturbing was my experience with the story about the out-of-town strong-armed robbers who pistol whipped a man outside a bank in Napa--what, a week ago?
There were comments made on that message board about Napans being tired of people from high crime areas coming here to commit crime against law-abiding Napans.
And, on cue, because you all had posted pictures of the alleged perpetrators, wouldn't you know, other posters started throwing accusations around of racism and even accused some posters of being pro lynching.
What an outrage! No mention of race except by the race-baiters who couldn't wait to call someone a racist!

And when I tried twice to raise objections to frivolous and baseless accusations, twice I was censored!

Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if someone at the NVR does have an agenda. "

steph wrote on Apr 30, 2009 5:19 PM:

" Bill, your last post is off-topic, and while I would love to reply to it with a story I got off the AP that shows the UAW workers cost a LOT more than the Toyota workers, I'm afraid I'll be censored for being off topic. "

Bill wrote on Apr 30, 2009 8:18 PM:

" Off topic Steph? How we talk to each other and attempt to reason is a big part of this thread.
Napagirl, sicksense and winewoman appear to be concerned in their responses on the subject of what should determine an acceptable argument and each make reasonable points. This is what I think an argument should be about. Not the attempt to batter someone into submission and prove oneself superior through accusation or innuendo.

I think Dan wishes to up grade the responses by calling for an inner responsibility on all subjects not merely immigration and the current out break of blame layers connected to the influenza topic and possible racial overtones in their responses.

It is difficult not to try and advance ones argument at the expense of offending someone but it happens. It happens specifically when viewed as a contest of one up-manship. I would be interested in seeing your reference.

Mine was taken directly from the Heritage foundation an article I had read previously and now being directed on another thread as comparison. I looked into this quite a while back and believe my example to be accurate. I would appreciate it if you would share your references in a reasonable manner. Where we diverge is when we escalate to a demeaning accusatory point of gaming.

I will admit to no personal expertise even thought I do have baggage as do we all. Rather attempt to make my point and stay "on topic" as much as possible. However, I am human all too human. Incendiary statements are also meant to spark comment so please view my being off topic as being provocative as it appears to have pried a response from you. "

Littlered56 wrote on Apr 30, 2009 9:14 PM:

" Thank You Dan.! I also agree tht people should be required to use their real name.

Back here in the mid west the news tell us the cause of this virus was located in rural Mexica on a Pig farm. It has been reported they found a 5 year old child who had been ill to still have the active virus. It has nothing to do with immagrations.

I wonder why it is if people are so upset about illegal immagrants they do not turn all the letter wtitting to their electerd officials. Offer some constructive suggestions to improve the situation.
Years ago you had to have a 5 year visa. You had 5 years to take your citizenship classes to be come a citizsen or get deported. You had to have a viable sponsor, and a job in order to get that visa. Migrant Farm workers could have a temporary visa for the harvest season. I do not understand why this can not be worked out and implamented for the good for all.
There are some very intelligent and articulate writtens in these blogs I feel sure they could form some litle writting campagne to REP Thompson and others seeking help to write an viaable applicable solutoin to the problem. I hope you think about it and give it a try
just a thought "

dellasumbrella wrote on May 1, 2009 11:10 AM:

" I thought this was an interesting comment in an MSNBC article on "racism goes viral" as a response to swine flu epidemic:

"Fearmongering and blame are almost a natural part of infectious disease epidemics, experts say.
....

"During the medieval Black Plague, Europeans blamed Jews, saying they poisoned the wells. In an 1892 cholera pandemic, the U.S. blamed immigrant European Jews. In the flu of 1918, Markel said, “Italians blamed the Spanish. The Spanish blamed the Italians. For HIV it was gay men and Haitians.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30467300/ "

JimClark wrote on May 1, 2009 11:40 AM:

" I find it difficult to believe someone's REAL name is Littlered56. My Real name is right here.

Should I not be offended by my Image Verification. (mrdmh), ((different cases))? Just kidding. But, the question is, how far will controlling people go to lay on a guilt trip? "

winewoman wrote on May 1, 2009 11:41 AM:

" I know someone who uses their real name here on the NVR blogs. His opinions are controversial to some people. NVR bloggers have googled him, named his employer in these blogs, threatened to boycot his employer, called him at work, called his employer and threatened him personally. We'd like to think that people are reasonable and stable, but that is not always the case. Last week I interacted with someone using their real name in the NVR blog. The comments in the blog were ultimately deleted, but he challenged me to use my real name. I recognized his name, googled him and realized that it would not have been a good thing for this person to know my real identify. You need to think very carefully if you plan to use your real name. Once your identity is out there, it's out there for good. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on May 1, 2009 11:46 AM:

" This is starting to go on to a theme of whether to use real names when posting comments.

I have brought this topic up before, and I will do so again in a new blog for Monday. I'd do it for now but I am not going to be monitoring/moderating the site this weekend.

All Napa Valley Publishing staff HAVE to use their real names when they post in the story comments section. This is our way of making certain readers understand we put our names out there on a daily basis with our article and column/blog bylines, so we maintain that exposure in the comments section.

If you can, folks, hold on to those Real Name/Screen Name thoughts until Monday. I will use some of these comments as the basis for the blog commentary.

Thanks
--Dan "

napaisburning wrote on May 1, 2009 3:01 PM:

" BOO!!!! If you are scared, then go to church!!! The truth is the light, let it shine, it is healthy. As someone who has never spend a minute in jail, I can say that: There is nothing to fear.......I am all for names having to be used to post a comment at the NVR. This is a small town, and folks will find out who you are whether you use a fake name or not, besides, with today's technology, it is oh so easy to access servers and such to find background data from virtually any website. Jarvis William Peay "

littlered56 wrote on May 1, 2009 4:02 PM:

" Your right Mr. Clark. Actually my Real name is Little Boo Peep. . .have a nice week end! "

winewoman wrote on May 1, 2009 6:37 PM:

" Need I say more. "

littlered56 wrote on May 1, 2009 7:11 PM:

" Actually Mr. Clark I received an email from my bank On Wed. telling me of an unauthroizsed person trying to access my account. I looked into this and they asked me if I logged off when I use internet chatting etc etc. I found that indeed I did forget to log off this site and one other. I had no idea this could happen. I am not that computer wise. I assure you I have changed my mind and will not longer post if required to list my correct name. I love coming here and putting in my comments but I can ill afford any one tampering with my bank account or my identy. I think we need to protect our selves, sorry! "

Fire Mike wrote on May 1, 2009 9:39 PM:

" Dan -
I think the moderators do a commendable job sorting through all our comments - kudos to you all. I know I've unintentionally pushed the limit a couple times and had comments not posted. But that simply makes me go back, look at my comment from another perspective and see where I've been offensive. I've always been able to re-evaluate, do a quick edit and re-submit. To be honest, the process tends to make the new submission better than the original. Keep it up, and we might have to give you credit as an editor. Oh, wait a second . . . you are. Nice job then.

By the way, I'm also interested in a casual meeting of the participants. "

John Richards wrote on May 2, 2009 12:17 AM:

" Raven wrote: " And what are those cold hard facts JR...why not close the borders to everywhere that has had a case reported? "

Because closing all borders everywhere would kill the world economy and cause a bigger hardship than what the flu would cause. We have to start small and see if that is sufficient. Closing our border with the one nation that has the most swine flu cases is a reasonable first step. Why don't I see the libs criticizing Castro for having done just that? "

jimtub wrote on May 2, 2009 9:26 AM:

" Couldn't agree with you more Dan. Let's be sure this covers extreme comments from both ends of the spectrum, however.

Hey $.02, thanks for the Rush reference! "Attention all planets..." "

Raven wrote on May 2, 2009 2:29 PM:

" Because Castro is in Cuba and we are talking about closing our border, and there is the fact that Cuba being an island it is easier to secure than our borders, but it was a stupid move that sounds good but accomplishes little ..... Only closing part of the borders is the same as doing nothing - people just move to the parts of the border still open; but I am glad to see you agree that closing our borders not the answer and would do more long-term harm to the country. "

winewoman wrote on May 2, 2009 4:04 PM:

" " Let's be sure this covers extreme comments from both ends of the spectrum, however"

Huh? Who gets to decide what is considered extreme? Whose standard? What standard? Compared to what? What is fair and balanced if you remove the ends and only allow the middle? Oh, I get it. If we pretend they're not here, maybe they don't really exist. "

eischeid wrote on May 3, 2009 8:25 AM:

" isn't publishing the names of accused, not convicted persons hate speech? posting the name can give rise to prejudice.
stating a fact like: murder is illegal or crossing the border without documentation is illegal, is not hate speech.
oh and by the way, this is not a blog, and the participants are not bloggers...please familiarize yourself with the actual definition. "

Raven wrote on May 3, 2009 1:23 PM:

" eischeid....a blog is defined at Webster's as a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer, so i would this meets that definition. And the only part of the site here that is labeled as a blog are the online columnists...the rest of the site merely allows comments on stories published.

Just publishing the name of the accused is merely printing public record, not hate speech (and not all names of accused individuals are published). Are you saying no names should ever be published because using your standard, any story about any individual who is named in any story could give the rise to prejudice. "

eischeid wrote on May 3, 2009 5:28 PM:

" blogging life is the title of the article. i was trying to make the point that commenting on columns online is not blogging...it's commenting.
as for the second issue i was merely taking the wiki definition of hate speak used above to protect the innocent....thats what we should be concerned with right? protecting the innocent??
so to answer the question, no i don't think we should publish names of accused criminals.....but i see your point also. "

Hear Ye wrote on May 4, 2009 11:50 AM:

" This is interesting to read:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/04/MNUT17CCM3.DTL&tsp=1 "

Ruff Limblog wrote on May 5, 2009 9:41 AM:

" I followed your link, "Hear Ye".

By the standards of the last paragraph in that article, I am a big success!

It's a bit of an inverse though, because I am a LIBRUL in a sea of red.

;o)

LOTS'A people respond to my scribblings!

~Ruff "

College Student 86 wrote on May 5, 2009 4:58 PM:

" Good Job dude "

shareathought wrote on May 5, 2009 5:11 PM:

" Thank you Dan for the article (and I agree, anyone can start their own blog that anything-goes) & hoozcryinow for your comments (I too go through periods of time that I've found too much of the underlying hatred or "placing the blame" on others)

I agree with a poster in hoping that we could have a balance of thought here but
other comments such as this... "I can only imagine the humiliation the children would feel when classmates ridiculed them... I think we all know people similar to those I described; heck, I have them in my own family!" ...that make no sense to me and do not seem to have anything to do with the topic.

I believe data and personal experience are a part of the over-all balance (and references as to where the expert statistics come from).

(Meanwhile, I know that when I have typed too many words, return to insert within the body of the letter, other words may have been automatically deleted from the end of my writing, and it doesn't make sense).

(I become very frustrated because after using the case sensitive verification, the NVR may automatically lose my response or tell me I have too many words, though, I'd checked with a word program).

I'm against using our real names as I feel we have more freedom of thought, or flow of thought within this forum, as is.

Otherwise, if we write our ideas as if anyone might know who we are or read it (someone we respect, consider a friend, or perhaps family), we might use better manners. "

shareathought wrote on May 5, 2009 5:31 PM:

" Thank you Bill and dellas... I think you are trying to tell us that what one might consider expert information can be questioned depending on the source (and I too took a logic class), and that there are extremes of thought & we need balance.

Wildflower, you have some re-fresh-ing comments.

Winewoman, I think that it is fine to have guidelines and for NVR to delete as they feel you (it is their forum). You have brought up some good points about protecting ones identity (I have had over 6 phone calls/hang-ups in two days, I would prefer to believe it is tele-marketers but one never knows); there are still prejudices that are directed at "groups" of people and women are a group.

We can all avoid placing blame or causing fear by avoiding the use of phrases like "you people".
With this forum, if you don't follow along with all of the comments, you might make an innocent comment, which, has essentially been written several different ways, you're posted in the middle of a big disagreement, or responded to something that has since been deleted, then, you get blasted.

And I have only read to May 1!!! "

misfit wrote on May 5, 2009 7:26 PM:

" I once responded to someone who referred to kids in public schools as "Future Socialists". So, I responded by asking her if she too was a socialist, being a product of a public school herself? I got deleted for asking her that question.
My complaint is that the moderator doesn't always follow the thread when they make their judgments. The system is out of whack but, it's the best they got. "

shareathought wrote on May 5, 2009 10:05 PM:

" misfit,
"Future Socialists" is vaguely familiar.
Sometimes, responding here is difficult; the way you read something once might in part be due to your mood of the moment or give completely different thoughts another.
You might not have the time you need to respond or you might not want to respond in haste.
Yet, if you wait subtle changes of the subject may have occurred.
And I agree, that the moderator doesn't always follow the thread and that there are times I really think people are only writing to purposefully anger others, not for constructive dialogue & wish their comments were deleted. "

native74 wrote on May 6, 2009 10:44 AM:

" And here I thought NVR did a good job with censorship compared to other commenting sites. Ever check out The Press Democrat or Petaluma 360 online? I mean the personal attacks and looseness in language are quite the eye opener. I'm not saying I approve, but just wanted to show that it's quite worse elsewhere. We're just a tad sensitive in Napa...

I also grew up here, isn't that shelter enough from the real world? ;) "

shareathought wrote on May 7, 2009 9:37 AM:

" "I also grew up here, isn't that shelter enough from the real world? ;)"

Oh yea, that is "shelter from the real world"; get out and see more of it!

;-) "

rage against wrote on May 7, 2009 10:36 AM:

" Awwww,

Well, I really think this one is black and white. Either delete the comments you don't want, and ban people who break the rules, or let everyone say whatever they want.

Is there really a need to go any further than that? This "balance" I keep hearing everyone talk about is unrealistic. The act of moderating, however equal you try to make it, is censorship, and will always be impartial. Either come to terms with that or don't. "

wildflower wrote on May 7, 2009 12:30 PM:

" Per se...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/edwest/blog/2009/05/07/not_all_brits_are_whiny_liberals_michael_savage

Read the first two paragraphs and then reach for your prescription as long as you disagree. "

Angelina Gervasio wrote on May 7, 2009 4:29 PM:

" wildflower-
I didn't know the meaning of "per se" (Besides the NYC restaurant), so I googled it... How appropiate.

"In the law of defamation, slander per se refers to certain language that is actionable as slander in and of itself without proof of special damages, such as the situation in which a person is falsely accused of having committed a crime. Defamation per se is in contradistinction to defamation per quod, which requires proof of special damages.

Basically meaning that some of us have been wrongly accused of being "racist". "

Raven wrote on May 7, 2009 9:59 PM:

" It is only slander if it isn't true, angelina - the basic defense against slander or libel, is the truth of the statement. BTW, if it shows up here it would most likely considered to be libelous (for printed words), not slanderous (that is reserved for spoken words). "

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: