<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blogger code of conduct</title>
	<atom:link href="http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2007/04/09/blogger-code-of-conduct/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2007/04/09/blogger-code-of-conduct/</link>
	<description>The journal of Paul M. Watson</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:48:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-beta1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Shog9</title>
		<link>http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2007/04/09/blogger-code-of-conduct/comment-page-1/#comment-8630</link>
		<dc:creator>Shog9</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:06:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2007/04/09/blogger-code-of-conduct/#comment-8630</guid>
		<description>&#38;gt; I am on the side of anarchy in this. It comes down to the individual how&lt;br&gt;&#38;gt; they run their domain. So long as it is legal I don’t want interference from&lt;br&gt;&#38;gt; any party. It is the readership that decides what they read.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Uh-huh.&lt;br&gt;Look, the whole thing's reactionary. Someone got scared by a bunch of assholes, and the "leaders" are looking for some way to wield the power that they don't have so as to avoid being accused of complacency. Meanwhile, all the usual suspects are screaming "censorship!".&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;IMHO, all the shrillness just hides the obvious: it's *your* blog, it's *your* site, BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT'S ON IT!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If you don't mind vulgar comments, then let 'em be - but when someone gets offended, don't loose your backbone: it was your decision to leave 'em open, and you ARE responsible, morally if not legally, for what others posted. This isn't USENET, or an open message board - it's a web page that allows limited kibitzing, nothing more - and you ARE the defacto moderator, and if you choose not to moderate, then you've given your implicit approval to whatever is posted.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You can make all the comparisons to "Real Life" that you want, but there's only one that's apt: the network TV show. This is Paul Live, Paul Coast-to-Coast, The Paul Show. You may not get to pick the guests, but you sure as hell are responsible for what they do on your stage, and how much of that gets broadcast.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So don't wear a star. Don't wear a ribbon. Don't posture.&lt;br&gt;Just open up that admin page that only you have access to, _and do your damn job_.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#38;gt; I am on the side of anarchy in this. It comes down to the individual how<br />&#38;gt; they run their domain. So long as it is legal I don’t want interference from<br />&#38;gt; any party. It is the readership that decides what they read.</p>
<p>Uh-huh.<br />Look, the whole thing&#8217;s reactionary. Someone got scared by a bunch of assholes, and the &#8220;leaders&#8221; are looking for some way to wield the power that they don&#8217;t have so as to avoid being accused of complacency. Meanwhile, all the usual suspects are screaming &#8220;censorship!&#8221;.</p>
<p>IMHO, all the shrillness just hides the obvious: it&#8217;s *your* blog, it&#8217;s *your* site, BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT&#8217;S ON IT!</p>
<p>If you don&#8217;t mind vulgar comments, then let &#8216;em be - but when someone gets offended, don&#8217;t loose your backbone: it was your decision to leave &#8216;em open, and you ARE responsible, morally if not legally, for what others posted. This isn&#8217;t USENET, or an open message board - it&#8217;s a web page that allows limited kibitzing, nothing more - and you ARE the defacto moderator, and if you choose not to moderate, then you&#8217;ve given your implicit approval to whatever is posted.</p>
<p>You can make all the comparisons to &#8220;Real Life&#8221; that you want, but there&#8217;s only one that&#8217;s apt: the network TV show. This is Paul Live, Paul Coast-to-Coast, The Paul Show. You may not get to pick the guests, but you sure as hell are responsible for what they do on your stage, and how much of that gets broadcast.</p>
<p>So don&#8217;t wear a star. Don&#8217;t wear a ribbon. Don&#8217;t posture.<br />Just open up that admin page that only you have access to, _and do your damn job_.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shog9</title>
		<link>http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2007/04/09/blogger-code-of-conduct/comment-page-1/#comment-2348</link>
		<dc:creator>Shog9</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:06:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2007/04/09/blogger-code-of-conduct/#comment-2348</guid>
		<description>&#38;gt; I am on the side of anarchy in this. It comes down to the individual how
&#38;gt; they run their domain. So long as it is legal I don’t want interference from
&#38;gt; any party. It is the readership that decides what they read.

Uh-huh.
Look, the whole thing's reactionary. Someone got scared by a bunch of assholes, and the "leaders" are looking for some way to wield the power that they don't have so as to avoid being accused of complacency. Meanwhile, all the usual suspects are screaming "censorship!".

IMHO, all the shrillness just hides the obvious: it's *your* blog, it's *your* site, BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT'S ON IT!

If you don't mind vulgar comments, then let 'em be - but when someone gets offended, don't loose your backbone: it was your decision to leave 'em open, and you ARE responsible, morally if not legally, for what others posted. This isn't USENET, or an open message board - it's a web page that allows limited kibitzing, nothing more - and you ARE the defacto moderator, and if you choose not to moderate, then you've given your implicit approval to whatever is posted.

You can make all the comparisons to "Real Life" that you want, but there's only one that's apt: the network TV show. This is Paul Live, Paul Coast-to-Coast, The Paul Show. You may not get to pick the guests, but you sure as hell are responsible for what they do on your stage, and how much of that gets broadcast.

So don't wear a star. Don't wear a ribbon. Don't posture.
Just open up that admin page that only you have access to, _and do your damn job_.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#38;gt; I am on the side of anarchy in this. It comes down to the individual how<br />
&#38;gt; they run their domain. So long as it is legal I don’t want interference from<br />
&#38;gt; any party. It is the readership that decides what they read.</p>
<p>Uh-huh.<br />
Look, the whole thing&#8217;s reactionary. Someone got scared by a bunch of assholes, and the &#8220;leaders&#8221; are looking for some way to wield the power that they don&#8217;t have so as to avoid being accused of complacency. Meanwhile, all the usual suspects are screaming &#8220;censorship!&#8221;.</p>
<p>IMHO, all the shrillness just hides the obvious: it&#8217;s *your* blog, it&#8217;s *your* site, BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT&#8217;S ON IT!</p>
<p>If you don&#8217;t mind vulgar comments, then let &#8216;em be - but when someone gets offended, don&#8217;t loose your backbone: it was your decision to leave &#8216;em open, and you ARE responsible, morally if not legally, for what others posted. This isn&#8217;t USENET, or an open message board - it&#8217;s a web page that allows limited kibitzing, nothing more - and you ARE the defacto moderator, and if you choose not to moderate, then you&#8217;ve given your implicit approval to whatever is posted.</p>
<p>You can make all the comparisons to &#8220;Real Life&#8221; that you want, but there&#8217;s only one that&#8217;s apt: the network TV show. This is Paul Live, Paul Coast-to-Coast, The Paul Show. You may not get to pick the guests, but you sure as hell are responsible for what they do on your stage, and how much of that gets broadcast.</p>
<p>So don&#8217;t wear a star. Don&#8217;t wear a ribbon. Don&#8217;t posture.<br />
Just open up that admin page that only you have access to, _and do your damn job_.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Damien Mulley &#38;#187; Blog Archive &#38;#187; Code breakers - Blogger code not too popular</title>
		<link>http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2007/04/09/blogger-code-of-conduct/comment-page-1/#comment-2347</link>
		<dc:creator>Damien Mulley &#38;#187; Blog Archive &#38;#187; Code breakers - Blogger code not too popular</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:48:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2007/04/09/blogger-code-of-conduct/#comment-2347</guid>
		<description>[...] Paul Watson:  I am on the side of anarchy in this. It comes down to the individual how they run their domain. So long as it is legal I don’t want interference from any party. It is the readership that decides what they read. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Paul Watson:  I am on the side of anarchy in this. It comes down to the individual how they run their domain. So long as it is legal I don’t want interference from any party. It is the readership that decides what they read. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
