Site Meter
« Oscar Night | Main | Pop Music Copy »

A Policy For Comments

125835-285235-thumbnail.jpg
Have a Drink and Relax Please
I've been bothered by the tone of some comments in the recent past and so have instituted a comments policy - a link to which can be found in the Navigation area to the right of your screen.

I copy it here to allow you to comment on it:

Comments are welcome, sort of.  This blog is an ongoing cocktail party - or at least with some help it will be.  I host this party. I bought these drinks. And soon you'll see the decorations I bought. John Murphy is a VIP guest.

1) Comments must not dispirit other readers.

Would anyone attend a party at which the guests were humorlessly competing with each other over who could make the most bleak comment possible about the state of civilization? No. You were not invited here to be a drag. You can be angry but you must shape that anger with wit. You can be depressed but not depressing.

2) Comments ought to be interesting, funny or the product of drunkeness.

If they are none of the above and furthermore do not at least constitute "making a scene" they will be deleted.

3) Comments are to conform to standards defined as "Not Crazy"

I do not host this party in order for guests to be uncharitable1, to promote conspiracy theories2 or libertarianism3. There are exceptions and you must read the fine print.

 4) You must also be well dressed or at least have "a look" when you make comments.

My readers and I are such fine connoisseurs of the written word that we can tell almost exactly what you are wearing based on the diction, sonority and lilt of your prose.  Your appearance reflects on mine when you are here. You were not invited here to look shabby. If you do look shabby, you should justify it as a peculiar aesthetic.

1) Uncharitable remarks may be made about Canadians, white people, Muslims, South-east asians, Europeans, "modernists",  Greek gods, the Chinese (a.k.a. Orientals), and neo-conservatives.

2)Conspiracy theories are automatically approved if they involve Freemasons, Odinists.

3) Libertarians may comment freely and may disagree with me. But their only protection is my patience and the quality of their dress.  (See Rule 4)

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (22)

"Uncharitable remarks may be made about white people, Muslims, South-east asians, Europeans, "modernists", Greek gods, the Chinese (a.k.a. Orientals), and neo-conservatives."

Whites and Europeans but not Americans or (especially) Canadians?
3/3/2006 01:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterNicholas G. Moses
The Comments policy will be revised to include the near metaphysical necessity of bashing Canadians and Canada generally.

Americans are fair game as long as they fit into the other specified categories.
3/3/2006 01:42 PM | Registered CommenterMichael Brendan Dougherty
[Start test]

We're all doomed. Doomed, I tells ya. Doooomed!

[End test]
3/3/2006 05:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Michael Grace
Nope- that just barely qualifies as funny or drunk. It will remain.
3/3/2006 06:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Brendan Dougherty
“You were not invited here to look shabby. If you do look shabby, you should justify it as a peculiar aesthetic.”

Hmmm? This could be tricky,

I’m wearing Bean Boots waders, intied with the laces knotted at the eye holes because they are never tied on principle. Izod khakis, with a blue Brooks Brothers cloth belt, white Hanna Andersen turtle neck, with a tattered cutoff gray sweatshirt of my alma mater, and my always present black Ray Ban Wayfarers with prescription lenses. And my father’s old braided gold Rolex watch given to me as a highschool graduation gift.

And I’m holding my four month old son whose wearing a cotton teal blue sweater my wife knit with a white cotton all-in-one diaper.

Which is not exactly eastcoast cocktail party fare, but well within established custom here in Colorado were looking shabby is high art were I was schooled in it from infancy. And were we can always spot the eastcoasters because they overdo it to the point of the absurd.

And of course it goes without saying, so let me say it anyway, so goes the dress, so goes the prose.

And if it helps, I’m slurpping a vodka martini, with no olives, the kiddies ate them all.
3/3/2006 06:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterFRSalzer
From Victoria McCaffrey, president of North Ameican Ronald Knox Society:
"if I had the money, I would gladly raise my kids in New York City. There, there is the advantage that good is plainly good, and evil plainly evil. There is no suburban white-wash to confuse the facts. And it's always said that a great sinner is easier to convert than a petty, self-deluding, run-of-the-mill
exactly what he is." copied from ronaldknox@yahoogrops.com email correspondence.

Victoria is an exception to my eastcoast overdoing it. Victoria is always right where she needs to be.

3/3/2006 08:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterFRSalzer
opps, I messed up the quote, but that's alright, just go over to ronaldknox to it was just posted. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ronaldknox/
ronaldknox : Ronald Knox

3/3/2006 08:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterFRSalzer
Mr. Salzer's comment about the great sinner is a good one. It brings to mind K-L's zany post-WWIII novel called Moscow 1979. The rather odd setting of the story is neither here nor there. The main character is a Catholic from Baltimore who became enamoured of communism and defected to join the other side, only to have a spiritual (re)awakening after becoming an upper echelon party apparatchik. What the comment reminded me of was the character's statement to the party leaders when they discovered that he was a Christian:
"I would rather be a great sinner than one of those lukewarm believers whom Christ will spew out of His mouth." Or something to that effect. K-L loved the church of the Laodiceans as an example of what he despised most in the world.

This comment was bizarre, I agree, but I hope it remains within the bounds of "not crazy."
3/3/2006 09:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaniel Larison
I suppose this means SwD will never be included among the Pajama Media Network http://pajamasmedia.com/pj-blog-list.php, even in the event it loosed itself from its paleocon moorings. It just wouldn't be proper to show up at a pajama party wearing ... well, you know ... fancy clothes.

So, Michael, what am I wearing? Hmm?

[ED: Cut out HTML code that my comment boxes oddly ignore]
3/3/2006 09:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterJon Luker
Jon Luker askes Michael "what am I wearing? Hmm?"

I guessing David Letterman's pants
3/3/2006 10:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterFRSalzer
"[ED: Cut out HTML code that my comment boxes oddly ignore]"

What is a technically sophisticated commenter to do with comment scripts that interpret HTML appropriately? Surely, that can be rectified, eh? By the way, what does one do to become a "registered" user around here rather than considered a rogue from "anywhere on the internet"?

"I guessing David Letterman's pants"

Ba dum bum
3/3/2006 11:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterJon Luker
... that should read "without comment scripts..."
3/3/2006 11:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterJon Luker
I reckon I generally agree with my fellow Coloradoan FRSalzer on fashion. You parochial New Yorkers and your byzantine dress codes only appear epicene and precious in a region where a polo shirt, dockers, and scuffed dress shoes are relatively formal.

Possibly the closest thing Colorado has to a peculiar aesthetic is the dress and demeanor of a cowboy poet.
3/4/2006 02:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Jones
Here parochial is a term of praise.

The comments policy stays. We shall move on from it on Monday. Have a good weekend gentlemen.
3/4/2006 07:21 AM | Registered CommenterMichael Brendan Dougherty
Mr. Jones,

Colorado did you say? Come down to the Fraternity of St. Peter Our Lady of Mt.Carmel Latin Mass Community. I don't know if we're going to the 9:00 or the 11:00 but it's a party after every mass.

Introduce yourself around, starting of course with the smokers outside, since we're without doubt without any Jansenist tendencies. But if you prefer a bit a Jansenism, we offer that too. A little too much at times. We have a new pastor, Fr. VanVliet and assistant pastor Fr.Dupre sp? who was here as a seminarian when the parish was still over at Colorado Catholic Academy.

You can spot me well enough, although the sweatshirt is a bit to ragged for mass.
3/4/2006 11:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterFRSalzer
"Here parochial is a term of praise."

Indeed. Creeping metropolitanism is a blight.

"Come down to the Fraternity of St. Peter Our Lady of Mt.Carmel Latin Mass Community."

I would love to, but the parish is on the opposite side of Denver. I hope to soon escape the liturgical molestations of suburban Catholicism by attending Holy Ghost's Latin Choral Mass.
3/4/2006 04:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Jones
Crazy paleocons.
3/5/2006 09:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter
Bertram Wooster: "Do we bandy a woman's name in a gentleman's club?"
Stilton: "We ruddy well do now!"

Thank you, Franklin, for inviting me to this cocktail party. Perhaps I should introduce myself to the host?

Delighted to meet you, sir. It is refreshing to find a blog which, in the course of a week, mentions Coen Brothers movies, broken hearts, Feragamo, St Francis de Sales (although what can one say about French spirituality?) and my own beloved City.

I would like to comment on each of these posts but will confine myself to consoling you on your broken heart. I, too, have recently suffered such heartache. Only this week, my husband of 25 years cruelly informed me that my decades old attraction to Tom Jones' chest hair was a misplaced one. He boldly asserts that not only is it really a chest toupe, but that Tom is actually only 5'3" tall. I am devastated.

Victoria

(previously posted in the wrong place; my apologies to the co-host; delighted to meet you, too)
3/6/2006 10:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterVictoria
Lovely to meet you Victoria. We will delete that extra comment.
3/6/2006 10:58 AM | Registered CommenterMichael Brendan Dougherty
"The Comments policy will be revised to include the near metaphysical necessity of bashing Canadians and Canada generally."

This is all because I laughed at that Crunchy Con thing, isn't it?
3/11/2006 12:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterAndrew Cunningham

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.