Joan Foster

Jun 30 2009, 03:25 PM

abb

Jun 30 2009, 12:00 PM

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, June 30, 2009
(Yet Another) Comment re Comments Policy
I continue to be amazed at how, despite my having written more than 1300 posts totaling more than 1.3 million words on the case, a few readers continue to attempt to discern my attitudes not by examining any of those 1.3 million words but instead by ruminating over comments I have or have not cleared--despite the unequivocal wording of the blog's stated comments policy: "My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only."

We saw an example of this pattern a few weeks ago when the blogger who posts under the pseudonym "John in Carolina" slimed me by claiming that I had "banned" a commenter. (To my knowledge, he never retracted the false allegation.) And another example came in this morning, when a reader forwarded me a comment thread from the N&O featuring two pseudonymous commenters (two figures who had spent much of the criminal case functioning as Nifong apologists while always expressing faux outrage as to how anyone could ever claim they were suggesting a rape occurred) speculating as to my motives for clearing a comment.

I write this blog with a presumption that readers have college-level comprehension skills. It saddens me, therefore, that the two pseudonymous commenters from the N&O blog apparently lack such skills, and were unable to understand the comments policy. For them, let me try to summarize the comments policy at an elementary-school comprehension level:

* Posts = KC's Thoughts
* Comments by KC = KC's Thoughts
* Comments by Anyone Else ≠ KC's Thoughts

For others, I will, from here on out, include a reference to the comments policy at the end of each and every post.

Does anyone know what N&O article he's talking about here? Maybe it's time he found a woman in Argentina or something.