RSS
I’m very pleased to announce that our small webzine has now broken the million comment mark, with readership traffic also growing very nicely. Further, the comments are hardly the short and totally trivial dross so often found elsewhere, with the accumulated comment text being well over ninety million words, the equivalent of perhaps 500 good size non-fiction books.
As most of you realize, although our comments are moderated, they are generally moderated with a very light hand, although some particular bloggers may have stricter policies.
The results of such very light moderation are that we attract a considerable number of lunatics, crackpots, extremists, and fanatics, whose comments usually contribute almost nothing to the discussion, and would surely get their authors quickly banned at most other websites. But on the other hand, we also tend to attract a considerable number of exceptionally erudite and knowledgeable individuals, whose extremely valuable contributions clearly outweigh and justify the worthless chaff of the first group. And since individual visitors can choose to permanently “ignore” any commenters they dislike, they can easily “ban” members of the first group, while retaining the second.
Still, given the huge inflow of daily comments, I do think it’s time to establish somewhat stricter guidelines for commenting, thereby improving the experience for the overwhelming majority of the discussants and perhaps seeing off those who refuse to comply.
First, although the form of the vast majority of comments is reasonably good, a certain number of commenters tend to be too lazy or ignorant to write in good English, instead producing comments that lack proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, spacing, or capitalization. This is not acceptable and tends to detract from the perceived quality of the website. If commenters are just too lazy to write proper sentences, it’s much less likely that their thoughts will contribute much to the discussion. Therefore, there’s a reasonable chance that such comments will just be trashed instead of posted, and once this happens enough times to comments that required considerable time and effort to produce, perhaps certain hard lessons will be learned and behavior will change. Thus:
- Comments lacking proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, spacing, or capitalization may be summarily trashed.
Similarly, our comment threads allow all sorts of extreme and controversial ideas to be expressed under the safety of anonymity, and I doubt that too many other webzines can match these freedoms. However, I’ve recently noticed a considerable increase in the use of profanity and egregious racial/ethnic slurs, which tend to degrade the tone of the conversation, and perhaps by proximity even injure the credibility of far more respectable comments. So henceforth, use of profanity or racial/ethnic slurs may very well cause a comment to be trashed rather than published, though this result is merely a possibility rather than a certainty, and will depend both on the overall quality of the comment and totally unpredictable factors.
I should emphasize this restriction is merely on form rather than on content since even the most extreme positions can be expressed in reasonably polite language; “freedom of thought” is hardly being restricted. But someone who takes the time to write a long and detailed comment only to see it trashed for including a trivial word or two has only himself to blame for having taken that risk. In the immortal words of Dirty Harry: “Do you feel lucky, punk?” Thus:
- Comments containing profanity or egregious racial/ethnic slurs are at risk of being summarily trashed.
Finally, commenters have been repeatedly warned that they are NOT allowed to use multiple handles to conceal their identity. Commenters must pick ONE handle and stick to it, or freely use Anonymous or Anon whenever they wish to drop into deeper anonymity. This constitutes the last and final warning regarding the use of multiple handles, and commenters who suffer because they disregard this prohibition have only themselves to blame.
One very fitting punishment for violators would simply be to have their new comment handle replaced with their regular one. Thus, if a commenter is trying to use a throw-away handle to express a particular unsavory or contradictory opinion without “tainting” his established persona, he may suddenly discover that his new comment is actually posted under his regular name, perhaps causing him considerable problems or embarrassment. But he has only himself to blame for his violation of the rules. If necessary, this handle replacement process can even be automated, but I hope things will not come to that. Thus:
- Commenters must pick ONE handle and stick to it, or freely use Anonymous or Anon at any point; multiple handles are not allowed.
So long as commenters follow these simple rules, things will go smoothly.
ADDENDUM:
- Commenter authentication problems.
Given the endlessly contentious disputes between angry commenters, an obvious risk would be “false flagging,” in which individuals post damaging comments under the handles of their enemies in order to discredit them. Therefore, a year or so ago, I added an automatic “handle authentication” feature, in which the handles of reasonably frequent commenters are checked against the real or fictional emails they selected, and rejected if those (and also their IPs) do not match. These emails and other commenter information can be saved as a permanent cookie by using the “Remember/Update My Information” checkbox, which I strongly urge commenters to do.
The problem is that some commenters may refuse to use the checkbox (or their cookies get erased) and then also fail to remember their fake email. That’s why I would suggest that people use real emails, even if these are merely of the throw-away type, since these are much easier to remember or locate.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Somebody once said a good comment is decided on the basis of whether it’s true, new, important, or funny. Steve Sailer I believe.
Kick some ass, Ron (feel free to trash if “ass” is over the line).
“Commenters must pick ONE handle and stick to it,”
Agreed.
Applauded.
” … or freely use Anonymous or Anon at any point; multiple handles are not allowed.”
Remove this option. Please do.
I’m outraged every time I see a commenter that demands attention and respect when he/she demonstrably can’t be bothered to choose one simple username / nickname / a number instead of a name … anything!
It’s nonsensical. There is no conceivable reason for that.
Congratulations on the success, this is indeed one of the few forums where comments can be just as, or more, interesting as the content itself. These rules are very reasonable, though I admit to being entertained sometimes by erudite debates that are nevertheless laced with profanities and insults. The only note I’d make is that there are more than a few commenters whose first language is obviously not English, but have much to contribute to a discussion. It would be a shame to see their comments trashed.
Ron, thanks for underwriting this site. I’m a one-year reader, and have commented a bit. Those comments from “erudite and knowledgeable individuals” are occasionally gems that, frankly, make my life a bit better.
I’ll offer some advice to commenters who want their thinking taken more seriously. Give the reader some idea of the experience or education behind your comment. I’ve read any number of fairly persuasive comments that could have been strengthened even further had the commenter mentioned his relevant background. That background need be no more than something like “former psych grad student”, “resident of a neighborhood ‘in transition’”, “Fortune 500 HR manager”, etc. That background needn’t be mentioned in every comment, of course, but it will add credibility to the well-considered thought that ought to be differentiated from less expert comments.
The only exception I would make to the “pick one handle or use Anon/ymous” rule is that an commenter should be able to, without giving up the anonymity of his regular handle, be able to make a post under his REAL NAME if professional reasons make that appropriate, for example if he is a known expert in a particular field and wishes to make a professionally informed comment on one thread without revealing his unrelated opinions on other matters.
In other words, I propose that commenters can use ONE additional handloe only if it has no anonymity, so that it is not an abuse of the privacy system here.
One other point: please automate the use-mention distinction so that the forbidden words may appear if they are being referred to within quote marks.
Thanks Ron.
A few months ago I began blocking large numbers of commenters, not those I usually disagree with necessarily, but obnoxious, lazy and repetative ones. I still read lying, unprincipled commenters that at least work for the attention.
However, I’d like to be able to block Anonymous commenters. I don’t think that’s possible now. I just find postings under that name to be, on average, a big waste. And I’d like to be able to block comments in reply to certain trolls.
[Well, if so, then let your “whim” take you to some other website. Many of the commenters here have highly inflated views of their own verbiage, and how can others examine their commenting history or “ban” them if they keep changing their handles? Also, long handles are frowned upon—commenters should save their imagination for their text rather than their handles.]
I don’t use multiple handles at the same time (AFAICR) but I change my handle from time to time as the whim strikes me and stick to that handle for a while …
Do you have a problem with that?
Don’t you use the email to link them together? I use the same email address.
Just for the record I used to post as Outwest. For some reason –Windows 10, a glitch or? I was delisted. Rather than fighting to reup my old tag –it kept being rejected- I just started afresh.
It seems fair to mention so anyone I offended can maintain their enmity.
Great rules. I would like the ability to ignore Anonymous, however, I want the option of seeing replies to commenters that I have on ignore .
If you choose to do this perhaps show both handles (say as “New Handle (Old Handle)”) to make clear what is happening. Thinking about it some more, I suppose this might add software complexity you might like to avoid (I understand there is a major benefit in having a unique id).
In any case, thanks for this site and congratulations on reaching this milestone!
Dear Ron,
To my columns this sort of filth is always appended:
https://www.unz.com/imercer/its-murder-by-muslim-immigrant-stupid/#comment-1582340
*****
Is this really edifying?
I don’t follow which scumbag said what and when, but today I even see a suggestion of MURDER on my column’s thread. Although I have not and will not follow this thread, this appears to be a threat of violence/murder, I believe, against me!!!
Threats of murder and violence should never get past our moderator.
Other than that, The Unz Review, which I call America’s smartest webzine—certainly its most interesting—should perhaps refrain from referring to itself as marginal. As a branding expert told me, the site has the potential to be huge, like Breitbart, if it boldly asserts its value: The Unz Review is not marginal; it is magnificent and intelligent.
How about, “The Unz Review: America’s Smartest Webzine”?
Unz’ Alexa analytics certainly suggest I have a point:
Alexa Traffic Rank:
Global: 40,413
United States: 10,866
Sites Linking In: 2,204
Thanks for all you do, Ron, especially in the Pravda series and in exposing McMussolini.
On the subject of blog usability in general, you really need one of those floating “back to the top” buttons, especially for those 300+ comments Sailer threads. Otherwise, no complaints about these changes.
Best commentariat l’ve found. With increasing traffic only judicious editing can keep it that way. When you’ve found an artist with good taste trust his judgement.
“Threats of murder and violence should never get past our moderator. ”
That doesn’t seem to have been a threat, more like a statement that many of the Muslims who have been killed by the US deserved being killed.
@Mr Unz: Your changes seem quite reasonable to me; I have a question though: Some time ago (at least a few months ago) some other user wrote a few comments under the name “German reader”. As far as I can tell, it wasn’t intentional, merely a coincidence. I pointed out that I had been using that name for some time, and the user was somewhat apologetic and stated he hadn’t known about that, and stopped writing as “German reader” as a consequence. Result however was that this user’s comments show up in my comments history. I don’t know if something like this has happened to anybody else, just wanted to point it out as a potential problem.
Another thing: I have persistent problems with the comments showing up in Anatoly Karlin’s blog, there seems to be some sort of glitch in that part of the site.
Opps– forgot to add that some of the best threads veere off into discussion of high culture. This group knows alot and you need a young Jacques Barzun in your stable.
As I say: I didn’t follow the thread just skimmed the comments and saw the ilana/Jew/rapist staple, followed by a suggestion of murder. I don’t like suggestions of murder, not mine, not of any non-aggressor. Maybe if the person had said “some Muslims who’ve murdered need killing,” it would have come across better and made sense.
Does your browser offer a keyboard shortcut to do that? On Chrome/Windows the Home button goes to the top of the page.
Judging from his comments history, the guy who wrote that comment actually seems to be somewhat of a fan of yours. Sorry, there certainly are quite a few unpleasant comments around here, but there’s no way that specific comment could be interpreted as either a threat towards you or other commenters.
How will the paid commenters feed their children? This is practically genocide.
I don’t like people advocating murder either, unless it’s clearly meant as a joke. But when I say that I want Tony Blair arrested, charged, tried, convicted, sentenced and hanged, I hope you’ll agree that I am not advocating murder.
Does your browser offer a keyboard shortcut to do that? On Chrome/Windows the Home button goes to the top of the page.
Hah, now they tell me! Glad to know that. Still, I like those “top” buttons because I’m usually scrolling with a mouse and it’s just simpler. Lazy, I know!
Heh, yeah, Ron might be better off using the email address as the key. People tend not to use different email addresses, but I haven’t seen the data.
Maybe Ron could provide a report on how many different email addresses there are per handle and how many different handles per email address.
You sound like a pathetic, angry beta male. If you can’t handle it, just don’t read the comments.
I second this. What a great name! Ron isn’t a big talker and certainly isn’t a marketer. I agree that he is too modest about the quality of this site. The smartest reading is seldom done by a majority of people so there is a big difference between rarefied and being marginal.
Please coerce some of your scribblers into following these dictates, Ron. One of them retains a tremendous chip on their shoulder after being rejected from Harvard, blaming the failure of a laughably-lackluster application on some anti-gentile conspiracy, which we are to understand is both omnipresent and responsible for half the ills of American society, in addition to depriving said “journalist” of a degree from any respectable institution. This same individual reconciles their alleged tormentors’ depravity with data sets demonstrating Caucasian-Jewish IQ differences through the revelation of his secret existence as a half-Jewish, half-White Übermensch and early member of the future “IQ Elite”. It’s the old business of thinking you’re the King of England, or the President of the United States, or God. The asylums are full of them. Pat Buchanan and Linh Dinh are laudable contributors to your little website, but the promotion of certain characters here underlines a broader need for higher standards at every level.
“but the promotion of certain characters here underlines a broader need”
Can’t you just name them? It’s tiresome if people have to guess whom you’re alluding to.
I’ve been otherwise preoccupied for the last month or so and appear to have missed some fireworks in the comment section. I confess to some curiosity about what has driven this notice from Ron. Any particular comment threads I should peruse for enlightenment?
As for the potential changes, I’d commit voter fraud to support a hundred times over the automation of forcing commenters into one pseudonym. I’m a huge fan of the tool allowing us to ban specific commenters from our sight, but this is completely thwarted when they change pseudonym with every other comment!
Can answer only for myself of course, but absolutely yes – I do have a problem with that. For all I know you are some trollish jackass I have added to my “commenters to ignore” list multiple times already. That list is based on the exact spelling and punctuation of your pseudonym as far as I can tell. So you can wear out your welcome and other readers’ patience with a name then switch when the mood strikes to a new name that bypasses the ignore lists.
You can scroll past the comments then. The site’s policies should not be devoted to avoiding hurting the feelings of hyperemotional beta males.
Please get rid of “Anonymous” as a posting name. It destroys the ability to block people. Its also absurd that someone so lazy they can’t think up a handle should allowed to post.
Great website. I love the mostly unedited comments, but one more rule is needed. Limit each reader to three comments per post, or maybe five. This could be automated within the website. When someone makes silly comments about every other comment, or when two commentators digress into an odd discussion, it makes it difficult to keep reading.
I want to read what others think about the article, hopefully offering insight. A few exchanges among guests is okay, but a comments section should not become a debate forum.
I’ve checked three times and don’t see any grammar or spelling problems (thanks to spell check), I hope this passes muster. I hope contractions are acceptable.
Yeah, but this is online commentary; people can claim any credentials with no way of backing up any of them . If someone actually writes “Fortune 500 HR manager”, etc., am I going to believe it? If not, why bother?
Your announcement, Mr Unz, I greet with warm welcome.
“Its also absurd that someone so lazy they can’t think up a handle should allowed to post.”
Just the opposite in my case. I routinely changed my handle very frequently when I posted for quite some time. One reason was because I don’t like liberal busybodies trying to triangulate and play other nonsense games, and I like to base my commentary on reality, things I have observed where I work, etc. Another reason was because I don’t care if people follow me. Take what I write at face value for what is written, think whatever you will of that, not some false image you’ve pre-formulated about me. Another reason was that it can be even a bit amusing to come up with new handles routinely. One could even argue that someone using the same one all the time is the one who is too lazy to be creative. Anyway, who really cares what name you use when posting online? Is anyone using their own name here, besides Unz’s writers? If not, what does it matter?
About a month or two ago, it was decreed from on high that changing one’s handle must be an attempt at “sockpuppetry”, so I complied and stuck with “Anonymous” as a compromise that would comply with the new rules.
I don’t tend to lace my statements with profanity or slurs, but I must say, I’m not too keen on the increasing rules on commentary lately. Used to be, Sailer’s blog was one of the few places where one could comment with some freedom from PC filters, or Disqus or others trying to curb opinions that went against their ideology. Things seem to be heading in the direction of nearly every other site out there, with the end result down the road being that anything that offends the sensitivities of delicate snowflakes is banned, as a way of controlling free thought expression.
What is it about “The most deplorable one” that you don’t understand.
I usually find Tiny D*ck worthless to read, but occasionally I need some light relief so I don’t bother banning him.
In any case, I don’t change my handle that frequently and it usually contains a word or more in common with the previous one.
What is notable of course is how many confuse the messenger with the message.
Well, if you want to speak freely, try https://gab.ai
Actually, based on a comment upthread I just discovered that the “Ignore” system had not been working properly on “Anonymous,” and quickly fixed the problem. Thus, all that you or those of similar mind need now do is add “Anonymous” and “Anon” to your Ignore list, and all those commenters will disappear for you, while others who prefer reading them can do so.
Sometimes technology can resolve deep ideological disagreements…
If you’re fine with checking IPs (during comment submission), you could always go the imageboard route. A per-thread ID system could be implemented, based on IPs. If a commenter leaves comments on two separate threads, the IDs should be different.
This allows us to filter anonymous users by ID (at least, for a specific thread), and if a particular author dislikes this system, s/he should be allowed to disable it.
Now that I’ve thought this through, it isn’t as elegant a solution as I thought it would be – considering how most here end up tying their comments to an identity.
Please no, I hate any sort of “floating” element on webpages.
It also makes the website ugly and hard to use on mobile devices, but isn’t pretty either on large desktop screens.
Absolutely, and fine by me if you are policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner in that case yourself.
I wonder what happened to Priss. I hope he didn’t somehow get word of the new regime and self-deport.
It’s a great site Ron, you should be proud!
You’ve got a point, but I mentioned that some identifier of experience or education would likely bolster a comment that’s already fairly strong in detail and persuasiveness. For some readers, I think, that’d help answer the question I sometimes have when reading a good comment: “How’d that commenter get so smart?” Plus, I’d like to believe commenters would identify their backgrounds only when it’s really relevant to support a good comment that lies within their expertise.
I agree with you in general about the mischief-making opportunities of on-line commentary. But, I think someone who insisted on bootstrapping his credibility by repeatedly claiming false credentials to support weak comments would be smoked out. Hope that helps.
If I remain anonymous then I don’t take myself too seriously. Having an identity means I have an image to uphold, honor, dignity, ego etc., which get in the way of seeing things clearly and stating them plainly.
[If you keep dishonestly changing your handle to conceal your identity, all your future comments may get trashed.]
Searching for the specific details turns up these relevant items:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000770.html
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/evolutionary-psychology/conversations/topics/2725
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/09/better-college-rankings_25.html
While not all the people posting at The Unz Review may have obtained entrance into Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or even Stanford, I’d like to think that most of them would do a bit better than ascribing it to Der Jude. My name isn’t particularly Jewish, so it couldn’t have been that which won over the adcom. Plenty of our ethnic compatriots get rejected from the same place each and every year.
Hi Ron. Since Unz.com is among the best commentary sites on the web, why not offer ‘Unz Review’ hats and Tee shirts for purchase?
These items will be a revenue stream for you, an advertising opportunity, and a way for your readers to connect with one another outside in the real world.
Up in the sky, a bird! a plane! It’s …
OBJECTIVE MAN!
I would imagine that the individual authors on the site would have some kind of discretion on what to post, or not post, as well.
Congratulations on achieving one million, but along with success you need to curate the product, you don’t want to have a situation as has happened at other websites where some post on sensitive topic yields hundreds of social justice signaling responses.
If the site becomes too successful the standards may have to be raised in other respects as well, since sometimes posters will get involved in little side conversations that add nothing to the topic as well other irrelevancies. I, like anyone else, could be a victim of that. 500+ thread counts may be fine for bed linen but not for comment forums.
No profanity? But… I… why? A little color never hurt anyone.
Everything else seems agreeable. But come on man… I may not like over-the-top racist comments but I do want to be exposed to them.
The only solution I can think of is forcing commenters to make accounts (which is terrible). Thus new readers who come to the website can’t see the flagged comments unless they make an account which will unlock the “bad” comments. All anonymous comments are auto-flagged. This will maintain a somewhat cleaner presentation to those that stumble onto the website and just want to read the articles and the approved-for-public comments.
LOL. Hope you don’t mind if I steal that.
Is there any way to make 500+ comment threads more effective/usable? They are the main reason I tend to like up/down votes–despite the obvious problems of venue bias and voting for social and not content based reasons.
Hiding commenters and/or threads is one approach. I should probably use these features more often. Currently I don’t use them at all, but if comment volume keeps increasing I don’t think I will have a choice.
The gold box for comments is a nice touch IMHO. Perhaps it would be possible to flag those in additional ways. For example, at the top of the thread give links to gold box comments below, or make a separate “Best of Unz Review comments” page with links to gold box comments showing the blogger, original post title, and commenter handle (perhaps do this per blogger). Combining these with the wonderful “hovering on the link displays the comment” feature would be a useful way to quickly scan for the best comments.
The best idea I can come up with is to have up/down votes where each of us can pick commenters and/or bloggers to include in our own personal vote counts. By judicious choice of commenters with different perspectives it should be possible to get a sense of the good arguments on different “sides.” One issue is whether to use upvotes only or net out up and down votes. Would probably be best to have a choice since it would need to be the former to make my “best of each side” approach work (this might also be an argument for only having upvotes).
Oy, Ron. Hate to sound like a Crimson harpy, but the top three articles on Unz Review’s front page have legions of commenters attacking your writers (Derbyshire, Mercer, Reed) and assorted family members for being Jews, Jew puppets, Puppet Jews, and various amalgamations of the above. Derbyshire and Reed have previously been intimidated by this enthusiastic readership into releasing essay-length explanations for their “having never encountered the evil Jews of The Conspiracy”. Two of the three articles feature Holocaust denialism in the comments. Anything to be done on that front?
Not to hate or nothing but Mercer and Derbyshire are pretty racist themselves. If they’re feeling a little hurt because people are returning their fire…well… maybe they should pick less sensitive subjects.
I’m just saying….
[The gold box for comments is a nice touch IMHO]
Would be even better if once you scrolled down to such a comment, the commenter’s national anthem automatically began playing.
So what other handles do your comments appear under?
That’s what I mean. Because I don’t have a handle, name calling doesn’t stick. I’m neither insulted nor exalted when smeared or complimented. OBJECTIVE MAN! is a fleeting, reflected gleam of light made visible by a wisp of smoke.
ok, i got the memo. my commenting days are over. if i can hire a typist or personal assistant, then i will return. in general it is the progressive sites who are obsessed w/spell check. i have never worked in an office & have few tech skills. this disqualifies me from most low to mid level jobs. good bye mr. uz
What kind of comments would I like to see more of? I’d like to see comments that tell of readers introducing UR to friends, colleagues, and neighbors. I’ve already mentioned in a previous comment that Ron’s “American Pravda” article seems to be a good way of letting people decide for themselves whether they warm to the ideas here. I used it in a published letter to the editor.
Where was it published? Do you have a copy available?
I believe that Priss was last seen under the moniker “anonymy” (not to be confused with “anonym”) about a month ago.
Personally, I found the guy endlessly amusing. As mischief-makers go, he was many, many cuts above the thoroughly tiresome Tiny/Sick/Suck/Duck/Dick, who is, unfortunately, still hanging around.
But RKU was always on Priss’s case, ’cause of the constant handle-changes, and the loggoreah. I guess that’s why he’s gone now.
I’m pretty sure that Priss is a female, which makes her constant alpha-male talk kind of funny.
It’s not “legions of commenters” – it’s a few fanatics. And it’s much better to let them talk themselves out than to give them any excuse to think of themselves as victims.
“I’m pretty sure that Priss is a female…”
And I’m pretty sure that Whiskey is Scotch-Irish.
We really must get together, sometime, to compare notes.
When you say “trashed” you mean censored. Which is fine. It’s your website.
However, these are comments not term papers. They flicker a few moments on the screen then disappear into the void. Commenting lies somewhere between the spoken word and the written word. People do not always speak in grammatically correct ways. They might write more conversationally or even in dialect (like Mark Twain for example).
Also, you should realize that not everybody makes their living in the intellectual trades where exemplary writing is in constant demand. In the same way, for example, not everyone can remember their high school trigonometry classes, but does this make their opinions less worthy? OK, maybe it does.
Which reminds me. I have seen okay spelled many different ways. This site’s spell checker allows two of them and rejects ok? Then there is the case of British spelling vs. AmerEnglish (like Spanglish only different). Google realize vs. realise. Should we pummel the Brits for the impudent use of their own language? Okay, maybe we should.
When you do censor people, I think you should send the offending comment to an RSS feed. That way people can see the comment and know why it was banned.
If you are going to censor people, please do it openly.
Well, the standards I’m applying are hardly onerous. Offhand, I’d say that about 99% of the comments are perfectly adequate in formatting and diction.
But is some commenter is so totally lazy that what he produces is in the bottom 1% in quality of spelling or punctuation, then there’s indeed a reasonable chance it will get “censored”…
I agree the bottom 1% can be irritating. Also, your site allows for comment preview and editing, which may be the main reason it gets higher quality comments. I appreciate that.
But, you should admit to yourself that you are in fact censoring people and do it openly. Write a script that auto trashes comments based on profanity or whatever. Give your moderators a drop down list for reasons banned, like “This comment banned for excessive profanity.” or “This comment banned because it is unintelligible gibberish.” Or whatever. Then dump it to an RSS feed and be done with it.
If you are not open about it, people will assume and infer ideological reasons for censoring.
On my phone I use this handle. When I work on a computer at a workplace (my work takes me to several places) I usually use Tor and a throwaway handle. I would expect many employers would not be happy with me reading this site, let alone commenting on it.
(btw the site does not load properly using Tor – something to do with the style sheets)
Good stuff, Ron! Entirely reasonable, most welcome. I post frequently but remain “Anonymous” simply because you insist on keeping the logs.
While I may have your attention: Has some development happened to your site about a week ago? Out of the blue, Sailer’s section started to take forever to load. Once loaded (definitely several minutes, three-four, I’d guess), everything works normally . I am going to close the browser after this comment and see if the same problem affects other authors.
And, Re: capitalization. Does it mean that you will make Razib use proper capitalization in the comments section? Please do! 🙂
Can’t say I expected any better from a man who lives with his mother. As of now, almost all of the comments in the top article on the front page of this site concern an alleged Jewish conspiracy and Derbyshire’s role in it. The latest Unz Review blogger has even left a valuable reflection there on “Anglo-Zionist” collusion. Hey, wouldn’t it be funny if Stephan Burton(vinteuil), innocently defending these valuable contributions from the Stormfront crowd, happened to be posting Jewish conspiracy material in his spare time. Hmm…
God bless the poor bastard, with a mug that far down the genetic ladder and a career that far down the toilet, companionship beyond his old lady and cat would be unfathomable.
I’ll leave to less wholesome souls than mine the task of discovering why so many red-blooded Jew-haters happen to be washed-out geriatrics. A mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a pink slip.
Weird: directly connecting to https://www.unz.com/isteve/ is painfully slow. But no problem at all with https://www.unz.com nor there are any issues connecting to Sailer’s individual posts, like https://www.unz.com/isteve/when-afghanistan-sends-its-people-theyre-not-sending-their-best/
Once, a year or two ago on this website, I submitted a comment and got a “Your message is marked as spam” or something along those lines. I was commenting on a Fred Reed article (about policing and uncertainty; I wish I can remember the name of the article but it was a heated debate about police brutality).
I never had it happen again but I believe there is something to indicate why your comment has been rejected.
I can’t tell if Unz.com has a moderator team which sifts through the comments for all authors or if each author gets an e-mail to approve or disapprove comments (Razib Khan once stated something along those lines). I know Anatoly Karlin publishes comments automatically without moderation.
I wish there was something that explains the moderation more clearly. If there was something posted up and someone can link me I would greatly appreciate it.
This comment is true, new, important and/or funny?
I intended to reply to this tripe with the linked comment.
https://www.unz.com/announcement/over-one-million-comments-but-some-badly-behaving-commenters/#comment-1585265
I’ll do it! I’ll be the snide grammar Nazi. Mr. Unz set himself up.
Mr. Unz, you wrote:
“But is some commenter is so totally lazy that what he produces is in the bottom 1% in quality of spelling or punctuation, then there’s indeed a reasonable chance it will get “censored”…”
I’ll assume you meant “But if some…”.
That is “so totally lazy”.. “bottom 1%”.
I reread my posts at least three times before posting, yet I usually make a similar error.
I love the website, and appreciate your direct comments.
1 feel thaT evun if comments R mispeled or Yuuse unyosual Punktuation thay are worth K33ping. Ur main problem is ProFainatee.
vinteuil’s red-blooded hate extends beyond Jews. See his comments is Linh Dinh’s articles about a year ago.
If permanent handles are required then I can personally choose to ignore those with poor grammar and punctuation. I don’t need the system to do it for me. This site attracts a lot of non-native English speakers and I don’t think they should be punished for writing mistakes. I welcome their perspectives.
I agree with that.
Besides, “long handles are frowned upon” doesn’t sound well at all.
Anyway, the main meaning of such announcements is: the site is getting more popular. It’s good news.
Some commenters can be both exceptionally erudite and knowledgeable, but depending on mood, extremist, fanatic, maybe even crackpots or lunatics. The MSM would call a lot of us immigration extremists or fanatics, for example. But permanent nutcases with few/no moments of lucidity and insight… I have no use for them. But you can at least ignore them.
However, I don’t have an issue with any of these guidelines. I don’t want to read posts without paragraphs. I wasn’t noticing slurs, but sure, get rid of those too. And I prefer to look at just the one identifier without a host of changing sock puppets. People like that may have a legitimate concern with being outed, so I would ask that posts attempting to “out” or “dox” someone on this site also be deleted, as that has a chilling effect.
I also like that the ability to comment with “Anonymous” is retained, for those posts that require a higher level of anonymity.
I agree with this process to upgrade the comment quality. Sailer is a somewhat a victim of his own success. Now I no longer feel compelled to read every comment every single day of every post. If it bores me, I skip it. If it’s excessively long, I may not read all the comments. So whatever little hacks can be created to curate the comments a little better are welcomed from my end. I would prefer to read more from the better commenters, and more of the better comments, how to achieve that I’m not sure.
can I call an article trash?
I think my handle was banned when I called an article retarded on 9/23. I didn’t attack the author, but the article.
Do commenters get banned? if not, what is going on? an indication on whether my handle is perma banned or not would be great.
I’m glad the Unz Review is gaining a bigger audience, and I hope this trend continues — it would be good for my country, my people, my civilization.
The above was a simple, nationalistic, ethnocentric, culturally-biased statement, and I stand by it. I feel grateful that Mr. Unz provides a place for a rather ordinary citizen like me to express such views.
I’ve let slip a few “b*llsh*ts” here, and even a few “f*cks,” and I recently referred to the increasingly ubiquitous muslim women popping up in my environs as “rag-headed babushkas.” I assume those were offensive things that will no longer be allowed here.
I think this new set of rules is fine, something I can easily comply with, as long as we don’t slip into politically correct fear of offending protected classes of people.
Let’s not go down that slippery slope, okay?
Many thanks to Ron Unz for creating and maintaining this valuable space. I know it’s something he doesn’t need to do. I admire him for doing it anyway. I’ve occasionally even posted comments in reply to him, that were less-than-worshipful — sharp, argumentative comments by a man out of his league to someone far more accomplished. They were allowed. That says it all.
Ron respects the dialectical process. I respect him.
It’s all four, of course.
I’ll be the snide grammar Nazi.
You can’t be appointed as the official grammar Nazi. They would set off a wild stampede by other commenters wishing to be appointed to official positions in the coming 4th Reich.
mr. unz, was my handle, AO II banned? just need confirmation.
No, I see no sign that your handle was banned. It’s exceptionally rare for that to happen, with Razib being almost the only one who does that, even then only locally to his own blog.
It looks like some of your “Astuteobservor II” comments were recently marked “spam” by the WordPress filter for some reason, and I’ve now unspammed them.
The other potential problem is that sometimes commenters use a fictional email with their chosen handle, which is fine, but then they fail to save it with the “Remember Me” cookie-option and forget what it was. Your own email was “******[email protected]” and I’ve now applied it to your latest comments, so go back to using it together with “astuteobervor II” and things should be fine.
thank you. that was a weird experience.
What the…???
My friend, that was so completely, utterly, grotesquely over the top, as a “response” to what I wrote, that I can’t help but wonder if you know me and carry some sort of personal grudge against me. A grudge so bitter that you’re reduced to cyber-stalking & doxing. It’s really kind of spooky.
I’d totally forgotten that I even had a flickr photo-stream! But hey, you got me, dude – there it still is!
In the course of your researches, did you happen to notice the pic immediately after that notorious Der Stürmer cartoon? “The Martyrdom of Saint Trayvon?” Did it occur to you that there might be a reason for the juxtaposition? No?
For your better understanding: the two pics were illustrating an old blog-post of mine in which I likened the demonization of George Zimmerman by the mainstream American press to the demonization of Jews by the Nazi press.
Are you feeling ashamed of yourself, yet?
As for your more personal remarks, what can I say? I am, indeed, as poor as the proverbial church-mouse. From a utilitarian point of view, I suppose it’s a good thing that somebody get’s some satisfaction from that fact.
Mr. Unz, do you have any problem with pseudonymous commenters on your site – and, indeed, in your own threads! – publishing identifying information about other pseudonymous commenters, up to and including their photos?
Personally, it’s fine by me. I stand by everything I’ve ever written here, there & everywhere. And I don’t mind if people know exactly who I am. I’m not asking you to censor egghead’s post. In fact, I’d prefer that you let it stand.
But other pseudonymous commenters might find that a bit worrisome, and I think they should know where you stand on the question.
We use a standard WordPress spam filter, which usually works very well, but it’s odd that your comments got mislabeled as spam for some reason.
Maybe you were commenting on some other WordPress website, and the people there tagged your comments as spam. This caused the joint filter software to you as a spamner by IP, and apply that designation here as well. Don’t know whether that’s true, but it’s my best guess.
Well, it’s certainly new…so far as I can recall, no pseudonymous commenter on Unz.com has ever before violated so many netiquette rules so egregiously in a single post.
And the guy’s attempt to portray me as a jew-hater because I used an old Nazi cartoon as a model of media wickedness is kind of funny, I suppose…
True? Important?
Sorry – can’t think of any defense, there.
this is the only wordpress website I visit regularly + comment on. this just got weirder. could be a glitch? just glad I can comment again.
“See his comments [on] Linh Dinh’s articles about a year ago.”
Good grief – you’re still smarting about me calling foul on all that silliness about the sounds of baby squirrels ’round the campfire while the baby rabbits looked on in wonder?
Get a grip, man.
This is one of the best free speech forums (if not the best) on the internet, so I hope any added moderation will be light. Personally, I’ve seem some of the problems raised by Ron Unz but it seems pretty atypical. What I do have a problem with are the few trolls and crap-stirrers that seem to harass rather than add to a discussion but even then they can simply be ignored.
Understandably this site shouldn’t become a haven for semi-literates, but we all make inadvertent punctuation or grammatical errors on occasion so hopefully that will be taken into account before the comment gets trashed.
Since I cannot LOL, thanks for the laugh!
Wasn’t it first Jewish Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who said “sunshine is the best disinfectant.”?
Well, my guess must have been wrong. Software is always mysterious…
Shall I send you the phone number of the Philosophy Dept where I now work as an adjunct so you can call them up and try to get me fired?
Would that satisfy your thirst for vengeance?
Or have you already done that?
Tomorrow morning, I’ll be doing my best to explain Plato’s views on the ideal ordering of the state, and of the soul, to a bunch of very smart, but strangely humorless, millenials.
How ’bout you?
For anyone seeking to ascertain the depths to which this despicable lowlife will sink, a neutral third party’s testament to his pro-Nazi sympathies, particularly regarding “the question of the Jews”, can be found here:
http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/02/a_little_chines.html
I see that “Steve Burton” also goes under the name of “Vinteuil”, a troll I have the displeasure of knowing well; I ought to have guessed as much from the inanity of his responses. Your presence isn’t wanted here, “Steve,” if that is indeed your real name; I want to hold discussions with intelligent people, not right-wing nutcases who are usually happiest lurking on places like Stormfront. – Abiola Lapite, Foreign Dispatches blog author
Two of Stephan’s preceding comments had been deleted due to Lapite’s distaste for being associated with Holocaust justification, anti-Semitism, advocacy of genocide, etc.
A creep like this, his career’s swan song being a “bio-ethics internship”, would have been wise to avoid the wrath of better men while such a chance remained. Instead, Stephan Burton decided slinging mud and vitriol at Ron Unz and Linh Dinh was a better course of action. That was a bad idea, “vinteuil”. A very, very bad idea. Give me an eensy-weensy bit of time in deciding how to handle that lovely treasure trove some of your old friends were so helpful in sharing, yes? Good man. We’re all friends here. Oh, and words of advice from a mutual acquaintance: “Every part-time hack who mouths off to tenured faculty or research staff regrets it someday. Today is that day.” We’re in different time zones and he hasn’t been aware of your location for half a decade, so you’ll forgive the three-hour disparity.
I always use my real name.
Peter Crawford
15 Yr Ogof
Kingsland
Holyhead
Gwynedd
That being said I have nothing to say. Pitiful really.
Regards
Pete
OK, so here was my outrageous comment at “Foreign Dispatches”:
* * *
What right-wing critic of ‘multiculturalism’ opposes the serious study of Chinese history? None that I know of. Impose a requirement that students study the history of one or more non-Western culture(s) *in addition to* the history of their own culture and you will get no argument from them. But that’s not what “multiculturalism” is all about.
Are you under the impression that college students today never find out about the Five Dynasties because they are too busy reading Plautus and Terence (Or Marcus Terentius Varro, if that’s who you meant by “Terentius”)? Well, you can rest easy. They’re not. If only! I mean, show me a college kid with an extensive knowledge of Roman theatre, and I’ll show you a really interesting college kid – regardless of whether or not he knows his East Asian history.
Personally, I would be thrilled if the average student these days graduated college with some in-depth knowledge of any culture whatsoever, other than modern popular culture.
You write: ‘What passes for ‘protecting the Western Canon’ strikes me as mostly an attempt to defend parochialism, borne of the smug, erroneous belief that no other cultures will have any significant input into the future course of human existence.”
Again, I want names – and evidence. Who believes such nonsense?
* * *
That’s what I wrote. And then they banned me.
Me so naughty. Me hurt your butt long time.
I take it, then, that you’re not at all ashamed of misrepresenting my use of the cartoon from Der Stürmer?
Not even the least little bit?
You posted two more comments, containing Judeophobic espousals of Goebbels-eque ideology and historical practices. The author of the blog deleted the text of said comments and then cleaned house, as can be seen here:
http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/02/a_little_chines.html
This may come as a surprise, but lecturing to inbred ingrates at a trashy Jesuit school won’t impress a community college janitor, much less an Ivy League attendee. You tend to evolve a well-developed contempt for white trash while learning at a university ranked first in the nation over a dozen times by USNWR. Unlike the gutter cretins swarming your benighted Rockhurst, my peers have never rolled in the hay with their siblings or cousins. Shocking, I’m sure.
“…words of advice from a mutual acquaintance: ‘Every part-time hack who mouths off to tenured faculty or research staff regrets it someday. Today is that day.’ We’re in different time zones and he hasn’t been aware of your location for half a decade…”
Ah, OK, so you don’t know me, or anybody who knows me, after all.
That being so, it’s strange that you’ve got such a great big bug up your butt about me.
Cheers!
“You posted two more comments, containing Judeophobic espousals of Goebbels-eque ideology and historical practices.”
Oh really? Would you care to quote those comments?
“…lecturing to inbred ingrates at a trashy Jesuit school won’t impress a community college janitor, much less an Ivy League attendee. You tend to evolve a well-developed contempt for white trash while learning at a university ranked first in the nation over a dozen times by USNWR. Unlike the gutter cretins swarming your benighted Rockhurst, my peers have never rolled in the hay with their siblings or cousins…”
What a surprising fellow you are! As if my lectures were meant to “impress” anybody!
Your fear over losing that hand-to-mouth adjunctship is wholly unwarranted. The truth will sterilize even the worst anti-Semite in due time. It’s already done a number on Stephan Burton’s career, so no need for anyone to push that cart over the cliff quite yet. Being the biggest flop among your peer group is enough for now:
http://www.bioethics.nih.gov/alumni/post.shtml
More cyber-stalking, more doxing…and more shameless lying about my supposed anti-semitism.
Sad.
No need for below-the belt oratory here. What’s so “surprising” about me that you feel obliged to enunciate it? Philosophy doctorates from UMich can’t be worth the toilet paper they’re printed on if you think professional scrutiny is “doxxing”.
Why not provide the option to block all “Anonymous” and “Anon”?
Actually, it exists. Just add “Anonymous” and “Anon” to your personal “Ignore” list…
https://www.unz.com/announcement/over-one-million-comments-but-some-badly-behaving-commenters/#comment-1584266
FWIW-My local newspaper of record no longer permits comments under its letters to the editor. No explanation given, and there aren’t even plausible guesses that explain the new policy. Comments under articles, editorials, and features are still permitted.
Our local Podunk Tech’s student newspaper only very rarely has comments beneath its articles, even controversial articles. One very plausible explanation is that faculty and staffers fear their identities will be revealed, even if they use a screen name, and that they’ll be targeted for retaliation by department chairs and other administrators. The work environment there is toxic. I don’t know why students don’t comment.
Can you ban TInyDuck and Rehmat1?
Does the CTI list operate exclusively on the posting name?
Commenter Brutusale’s comments are blocked for me and he is not on my list and I do not remember ever having him on the list. He makes decent comments so I always have to click show comment. I remember other commenters mentioning similar problems with the CTI list.
IMO a significant problem is conversation veering far off topic in so many threads, admittedly I”ve participated in this at times. Overall very edifying discussion here compared to pretty much anywhere else though.
Could you double-check your CTI list? That sounds quite odd. Software is sometimes mysterious…
Ron, could you simply merge the comment histories or automatically change the usernames of certain accounts to their original email-linked one? Commenting on two different blogs leads to mixing up usernames infrequently, resulting in those delightful sockpuppet warnings.
Yes, I’ll go ahead and change the names this time. But things would be much easier for you if you just use the Remember/Update My Information checkbox, which saves your name, email, and other info into a cookie, so that you don’t need to remember/retype it each time you comment.
I confess to being a horrible proofreader, so I triple checked.
If no other commenters have the problem, it is not worth wasting time on.
Thank Mr. Unz for running a little diferent site here.
I am sure, from what I hear of English-speaking lands, universities are full of stupidity, more now than ever, but, for example, you can cause pain by announcing fake events, the idiots take half an hour or so to work it out.
You just have to make the guest lecturers ridiculous enough, and the posters or SN graphics (I strongly recommend real posters, if possible) loud enough, and morons will turn up.
My greatest triumph at the time, I was unable to attend, full-time work, night university, but my then gf and I put up the posters together (my design).
Her description of the non-event makes me laugh to this day. Annoyed that I had to be at work.
Seriously, most people are too stupid or vain to learn from a prank that fools them (I would imagine, of the 300 or so my then GF reported attending, most are bureaucrats or politcians now), but at least, they must have had a questioning inner voice at the time.
Work out a way to make fools of fools on your campus, with thought, there will always be a way!
“…professional scrutiny?”
Like publishing my photo with the comment: “a mug that far down the genetic ladder…?”
Like characterizing my students as “white trash…gutter cretins..roll[ing] in the hay with their siblings or cousins?
Like falsely and maliciously imputing anti-semitism to me and then refusing to admit it when you get caught out?
And then accusing me of “below-the belt oratory?”
Well, that’s chutzpah for you.
Thank you, Ron. First-rate site in every way, easily better than Bloomberg and Reuters.
Mr. Unz, I take it from your silence in response to my previous inquiry, despite the fact that you’re obviously following this thread from time to time, that you consider “doxing” – i.e., posting identifying information about pseudonymous commenters – perfectly acceptable, on your site.
I understand why you dislike me, and are pleased to call me a “nitwit.”
But are you sure that it’s a good idea to set a precedent like this? To allow this sort of thing, just because, at the moment, it’s being used against somebody you despise?
Strange…that’s not what you were saying a couple of days ago:
https://www.unz.com/announcement/over-one-million-comments-but-some-badly-behaving-commenters/#comment-1584988
I know this may be difficult to understand for a UMich graduate, but my distaste for both Russian and American jingoists are unrelated to either the excellent content or technical quality of this site.
121, above.
Now this is a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty. You published that photo. You never disputed my characterization of those students. You published unwanted pro-Nazi propaganda on other people’s blogs. I don’t mind imbeciles or fanatics, it’s hypocrites that really sicken me, and ought to sicken every moral human being.
In the case of you two, may matter and anti-matter collide.
121, above.
but, dear anonymous, there’s a certain asymmetry, here…haven’t you noticed?
egg… has published my name, my work–place, my entire career history – even my photo! on this website – apparently with RKU’s full approval.
But egg… remains 100% anonymous.
Do you think that’s playing fair?
So it sometimes seems.
Well, I’m not Ron Unz, and Ron can tell you his view (or not). But it seems to me that if you fail to maintain your own anonymity, it’s your own damned problem.
I certainly don’t have the slightest sympathy for you. Underneath the first article, you called me a liar. You did not say I was mistaken, which would have been okay. But no, that I was lying — i.e. intentionally propagating falsehoods. You said this from behind a cloak of anonymity, when I was participating under my own name.
The issue then was the Charlie Hebdo thing, you claiming that I was “lying” about this and the other incidents in France. I then asked you to tell me what the proof was of the Charlie Hebdo official story, and then you pointed me to the wikipedia page, which is nothing more than a synopsis of the official story. I pointed out that this was an example of the “beg the question” fallacy, that the official story is not proof of the official story. Then you left the conversation.
At a later point, I queried you about this and you said that you had not provided any proof because “you got bored”. Of course, you were lying. The reason you never provided any proof was because you had none.
I consider all of this very improper and if I had known your identity, I would certainly not have hesitated to out you. All people like you want is to be able to be a total asshole with zero accountability. Well, fine, the medium gives you that technical possibility. However, if you screw up and people can identify you, well, you screwed up and that’s your problem. Cry me a river, Mr. Burton.
Does any of this affect Steve Sailer’s blog? (“Comments are moderated by Steve Sailer, at whim.”)
Aside: Leaving that egg-person’s doxic effluent all over a thread about somehow making comments more nicer managed to give the post a slightly off smell.
I think I’ve seen isteve being strangely slow when connecting from Germany. There have also been persistent failures to load CSS in a couple of countries (umm, in Europe, though I can’t recall exactly which ones), which of course detracts from the experience.
If it’s any consolation, we can at least conclude that comments will remain rather unfettered.
Yes, it’s fair. If I may quote Johnathan Beruvsky below, “Cry me a river, Mr. Burton”. Please troll other websites and blogs, Stephan, the Unz Review is a far better platform than you deserve.
I’m in Germany and haven’t had any problems with Sailer’s blog…loads just fine.
Downvoting? Please no. The agree/disagree/lol is even a bit much IMO, but I hope Mr. Unz doesn’t ever go to up and downvotes. If you disagree, explain why in a comment. There is also the option to ignore certain users as Mr. Unz has noted.
In your opinion, am I anti-semitic?
In your opinion, am I pro-Nazi?
92/193, this time.
Concealed identities and altered egos have long been a way of allowing people to speak the truth and opinions about subjects that are difficult to discuss, or which are verboten in society.
Some writers include Voltaire, Deep Throat, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, not to mention some who submit to Wikileaks, countless anonymous tips to the police and countless whistleblowers, just to name a few.
This is not to say that there haven’t been times that pseudonyms have been used for wrong, but on net, they serve a useful purpose.
Online, they often are used to further the dissemination of information about topics that are currently forbidden in society. I think anything that disrupts the free use of pseudonyms ultimately has a chilling effect on these discussions.
So how about when a well-to-do & successful guy uses his anonymity to heap abuse on a guy who’s on the bottom of the heap, and has spend his whole life being abused by the powers that be?
Trolling, by definition, involves writing things you don’t really believe.
Project much, my friend?
Cat got your tongue?
Can’t quite bring yourself openly to accuse me of anti-semitism – ’cause you know that would be an actionable libel?
I’m pretty sure Ron agrees with you. IIRC I’ve actually had that discussion with him in person. The first paragraph of the comment you responded to partially explains my reasoning. The voting provides a usable prioritization of comments (while also bringing a number of problems). If you read my earlier post closely I think you’ll see I have mixed feelings about the voting idea.
My original post is best read as throwing ideas out there as brainstorming. I do wish there was some way of making it easier to find comments either by or recommended by certain commenters (whom I select) on a per thread basis.
Do you have any thoughts on how to make reading 500+ comment threads more effective?
To try and address what I think you’re saying(?), I would guess it isn’t the well-to-do/elites who need to use anonymity to heap abuse on a guy at the bottom.
In fact, in this day and age, most elites consider it a virtue to leapfrog over their middle class cousins to sing praise about those at the bottom.
Not really sure what you are saying, so not sure if I’ve addressed it.
Do you also go by ‘Johnathan Beruvsky’? Just wondering because some of what you wrote seems to be very similar to his.
I’ve responded to this ill-bred bile in the other comment thread. Your hatred of Jews speaks for itself, though I myself prefer the phrase “Judeophobe”. Fear drives all these bitter little men with shattered prospects into denouncing Der Jude.
You have repeatedly posted my name, my picture, my current place of work, and other identifying information about me.
You have repeatedly made accusations against me that are (1) personally and professionally damaging, and (2) demonstrably false.
Since I am not a public figure, it is not even necessary for me to prove actual malice. But your malice towards me could hardly be more obvious.
This is a clear-cut case of libel.
On advice of counsel, I have saved the complete contents of this and the other thread.