A very good morning from your Wednesday editor.
Our cheery morning photo (above) shows Stephen Fry and Elliott Spencer. Many congratulations to them both on their forthcoming marriage, the plan for which became public yesterday.
We’re going to try something a bit different today.
As an experiment, comments on the next post, to follow in ten minutes’ time, will be moderated and reserved for new and infrequent commenters on this site.
“Infrequent” is defined as having posted less than five comments in the last month.
We have 40 posts a week where our frequent commenters have more than enough space to express their views. We welcome those views but we’d like to try giving a little breathing space especially to people who haven’t commented here before or have done so only a little recently.
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back to Butterley Tunnel on the Cromford Canal
Are we programmed to die?
Fraser's weekly ward surgeries tonight! #dundeewestend
An online conspiracy?
Alex Hosking
graham
Daniel Stylianou
Craig Levene
Paul Barker
57 Comments
The idea that rare commenters don’t get “breathing space” is not true because there is no comment limit.
Eddie
The reader naturally reads down the comments thread and a debate develops. When that debate is dominated by the usual ten men, who are all very forthright and voluminous in their comments, then there can be nervousness or reluctance on the part of new or less frequent commenters to take part. That especially applies when they fear that one or more of the ten men will start tearing their statements apart, word by word – which very often happens. We have had a lot of feedback to that effect, on email, verbally, on social media and in the comments threads.
Paul, if people can’t stand up for themselves, how can they stand up for other more vulnerable people in society?
It’s a tough world. I feel nothing but admiration for those who day in and day out stand up for their political beliefs despite sustained personal attack . I don’t think that even when I was younger I would have had the courage to knock on the doors of strangers who might be violently hostile to my politics . I include Nick Clegg in this outbreak of admiration. He shows considerable grace and strength under pressure, as does Ed Miliband, who is also subjected to personal insults that are unforgivable in their viciousness. I don’t necessarily agree with some of their policies and strategies though.
Lib Dem Voice is hardly a crucible of fire compared to what goes on in the outside world, and is perhaps a safe training ground for testing one’s arguments.
Obviously I agree with the general principle of what you are trying to do but could you give us some more thoughts on why you chose this method & why 5 a Month rather than 5 a Week or 5 a day ?
Thanks for the work you are all putting into this site.
Hi Paul (Walter), I don’t mind people trying new things to attract new commenters, but sometimes I get the impression that us regulars are held in disdain and we are often the first to blame for the lack of diversity. As I have said in the past, we should try hard to write about different topics and perhaps advertise them elsewhere. I remember being surprised at how popular mumsnet is, we should try and coax some of them onto here somehow. š
Regards
Jayne – We are simply trying a little test to see if it helps to have a new and infrequent commenter area occasionally. It seems refreshing to me. Not all the people in the Liberal Democrats or within our supporters have the same skills and characteristics. Some may be very good at “standing up for the vulnerable” and speak and write confidently despite criticism. Others may be happy to be in a party which collectively stands up for the vulnerable but do not have such robust, combative personalities as others. Others may feel it is simply not worth getting involved in the sort of discussions which sometimes evolve here. I don’t think it is a bad thing if someone simply can’t be bothered to argue with people who have a lot of time and tenacity to argue back at length. I am big and ugly. But even I winced a bit at the ****storm I have encountered here sometimes.
Paul Barker – we chose this method because it was an idea that emerged following recent controversy over our moderation policy. I chose the 5 in the last month (not 5 a month) as a random figure. We may revisit it – but looking at the comments on the relevant post this seems to be a good rule of thumb.
Eddie – no disdain. We welcome all commenters. But there are 40 posts a month on LDV. We are just trying something different on one or the occasional post.
@ Paul,
Point taken.
Given the size of the photo it is difficult to see your size, but you aren’t ugly.
Thank you! that’s the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me on this forum! š
Very much in favour of this experiment. Comments have too many posts not relevant to the article but just “the above can be solved by getting rid / keeping Nick or Danny” (other targets are available). We need more debate on policy and then the SPADs instructed to summarise the site might talk to the leadership about what the membership and others believe what should be policy.
I think that this is a good idea. I’m a little miffed that Paul has used the experiment to write a very good and thought-provoking article! Perhaps the discussion could be opened up after a day or two – or maybe the rest of us could start a parallel thread here … ;-).
One concern I would have is that if this requires manual pre-moderation of posts (i.e. to check the poster’s record) it could get in the way of the conversation, so I would hope that posts by regular posters are blocked quickly and automatically.
So far the (10) comments seem very good and thoughtful. Interestingly it doesn’t look like the Nick Clegg love-in that I might have expected to see when the usual naysayers (myself included) are barred.
It’s good to see you trying out a test like this and from my first impression, it looks like the thread is (to me at least) one of the more interesting sets of comments on similar posts so I think it’s achieved something. That may of course simply be people behaving differently because it is a new test rather than because of the particular mechanic selected, but fingers crossed…
Just for info, at the time of writing this , there are 17 articles in the first six days of 2015 on which the number of comments is 3 or less.
The perception that LDV is dominated by frequent comments from a few individuals is precisely that, a perception.
Anyone who is not a frequent commentator could have chosen any one of those articles to comment on without feeling
Intimidated, or squeezed out or whatever. That is a fact. š
Nous sommes tous Charlie
So they should stick to the unpopular posts?
A simple look a few times a day at the recent comments bar or a look through some of the posts with more than 3 comments paints a different story.
This is just an experiment and if continued will be an occasional thing. Surely if it encourages a few new posters or people who haven’t commented frequently, that’s a good thing is it not?
The posts on the restricted thread are more positive than usual but there is not much of a debate. This policy, quite unintentionally I am sure, has the effect of silencing some critical voices which always makes me uncomfortable as a liberal.
I accept that there is a problem with a repeated posts, and that some posts are far too long, but there are other ways to make sure there is an open debate, such as a word limit, or limit on the number of contribution. The advantage being that it is the same rule for everyone and critical voices can still be heard.
What about electing the moderators? I’ll get my coat…..
Nous sommes tous Charlie
Paul Walter 7th Jan ’15 – 9:09pm
So they should stick to the unpopular posts?
Paul , apologies for not answering your direct question sooner. It depends what you mean by “popular posts”.
I have noticed that the “most read” articles are not the same as the “most commented on articles”.
A friend of mine who is much more technically savvy than me points out that this is all nonsense. She says she seldom comments in LDV but looks at it every day. When she does comment she uses a pen name.
Her computer skills are such that she does not even have to use a different phone or lap top but simply routes her message through the “identity” of her choice. All clever stuff and way beyond my capabilities. You probably know all about this sort of thing.
After she had spoken to me it occurred to me that I could be commenting in a discussion with what looks like ten men and is in fact one woman using a number of different “identities”. For all I know paul barker is really Liz Barker. Jedibeefychops could be Shirley Williams. Strange place this virtual world, is it not?
Which is maybe an argument for dropping pen names and having everyone use their real name just like everybody used to before the geeks took over.
I realise that some young people cannot look me in the eye when we speak because they have loved their lives in their bedroom staring at a screen. They have not developed the social skills required to engage in normal conversation. But unless we want to descend into a species of atomised individuals who only look at their shoes when removed from their screens, I guess we need to try returning to more naturally human ways of interacting.
If LDV wants to create a ‘nursery slope’ for the shy and easily intimidated that’s OK by me.
I am happy to go along with whatever the rules are. Like a small boy watching the informal game of football arranged by the bigger boys I am happy to be invited to have a go. I do not expect to score many goals but it is nice to have a go. If you say the rules have changed and I am now rationed to five kicks a month, that’s OK too.
You big boys and girls at LDV make the rules and if the rest of us do not like them we can blogger off.
LDV is your ball.
I will kick it as often as you let me.
On your own blog Burblmgs you say — “..I have said some controversial and off-the-wall things, but it is my blog and I can say what I like…”. LDV is your blog as well, you can say what you lke here as many times as you like, as controversially as you lke. That is the big boys being in charge, is it not?
Nous sommes tous Charlie.
LDV is silent on the global story of the day.
Is that some evidence of acute embarrassment?
The very day LDV exercised this blatant censorship …
We need Charlie … We need a totally open LDV where freedom of expression is sacrosanct.
Actually John, yesterday LDV lost its balls.
!
@Bill Le Breton
” We need a totally open LDV where freedom of expression is sacrosanct.”
Fair enough – why not start one ? Starting a blog is really easy
And the prize for gobsmackingly misplaced sense of perspective goes to…
Simon, of course but your views on freedom of expression are?
Malcolm does my comment offend you?
Bill – no, it doesn’t offend me. I just think it’s ridiculously inappropriate. Ridiculousness doesn’t offend me even when it’s unintentional.
I am confused by the posts after John Tilley’s magnum opus.
So an editor or a group of editors decide to erect a ‘pulpit’ from which one of them is free to state opinions to a community only some of whom are allowed to respond because others in that community whose opinions might be challenging to some must be silenced.
It is not ridiculous to point that out. One might say it is respectful.
A great number of editors in the main stream media are going to be challenged in the next few days about what they allow to be printed and what they refuse to print.. Some will retain their moral authority. Others will not.
Have you really been ‘silenced’ Bill? Or is it that you think your opinions aren’t really challenging to anyone? I’m not sure which of those options is the more ridiculous, but either would qualify.
Well, the editors have clearly stopped frequent commentators from commenting on Nick Clegg’s views on coalition strategy, which is the subject of the next post, and which is crucially important to the party and all its campaigners.
Perhaps one way round this would be for Paul to summarise any such potential but excluded comments in a single comment posted in his name?
Meanwhile, more interesting would be how LDV might encourage a wider set of authors of posts, so that LDV doesn’t collapse to an extended editors’ blog? (I’d also like to see LDV publish its accounts…)
Malcolm,
I sort of take your point and, then again I don’t. Yes, it’s a bit of a massive leap to talk about international mass murder in the same breath as talking about creeping censorship on a political blog. There is a risk of being dreadfully self-important. Then again, I guess that all the individuals who came out to protest “Je Suis Charlie” in the cold and dark last night will have thought, rightly, that it needs individuals, one by one, to stand up against this. It doesn’t help the cause of fredom of expression if individuals, in particular those associated with a liberal party, do not show that they stand up for it.
I’m an infrequent poster but I’m drawn this time to comment on John’s remark about people who can’t look him in the eye.
Many people on the autistic spectrum have great difficulty making and holding eye contact, particularly with those they don’t know well. Of course the Internet offers people who struggle with normal social interaction a chance to converse on a level playing field as they can be unseen.
My older son, aged 11, is autistic. He frequently avoids eye contact even with his family. Sometimes this is because he is concentrating, sometimes because he is nervous or cross about something and sometimes just because.
My son has Asperger’s and will have to live a ‘normal’ life, earning his own living in a world where eye contact signifies trust and honesty. We try to help him increase eye contact. But I am under no illusions- this is very hard for him and causes stress.
We all meet many people like him throughout our lives. And no, you won’t usually know the person you’re speaking to has a disability. So next time you meet someone who doesn’t look you in the eye, stop trying to force it. Get alongside them and carry on talking. Give them space to reflect and reply.
That’s ny public service announcement for the day :).
@ Kate Hall,
Yours is a really important post Katie. It draws attention to something that I had never considered.
We can all be thoughtless sometimes.
@ John Tilley,
My husband insisted that I use the nick -name I used from childhood because I am the polar opposite of your friend, I aam computer illiterate. When he sighed and showed me how to contribute on here, he was concerned that I would get a lot of personal abuse and that I would give too much away about myself.
I have been Jayne Mansfield since schooldays. I don’t wish to go into why I got the name but it was meant to be cruel. Unfortunately for the name callers, I recognised whilst quite young that the way to take the sting out of an insult is to own the name myself. Friends also became screen stars of the era calling themselves, Jean Harlow etc. We laughed at ourselves as well as at the bullies.
When I met my husband in a pub over 40 years ago, when asked my name, I didn’t like the look of him so I gave him my nickname, and it has stuck. I am not jedibefftrix, I am the person who I say I am, using a name that is known to my friends and family who wanted me to protect myself from potential harm. Their fears were unfounded. but they still worry at the trouble that a dottie old woman could get herself into using a machine she doesn’t understand.
Jayne, I am very glad you decided to make the leap and start contributing on here. It is not only more women’s voices we need to hear, but older women’s especially.
I have a reputation for being a bit of a bruiser, but I try not to be and it is only when I feel attacked that I start the combative language. I think it is the same for others here.
Geoff Crocker
We have not stopped frequent commentators commenting on Nick Clegg’s coalition strategy simply because we published the whole speech in full earlier this week which gave frequent commenters the chance to debate it, which they fully used.
We did have two posts on Charlie Hebdo yesterday, Bill Le Breton.
John
I can’t say anything like here on LDV because I am bound by the collective team responsibility of the editorial team, and of course LDV’s policies.
The theory with your friend’s implodes when you realise that we use other technical criteria to identify posters, not just the name, so you would have to be pretty ingenious to get in under our radar…
Malcolm, “Have you really been āsilencedā Bill? ”
Are we now only able to defend free speech when it applies to us?
I enjoy challenge here. Since posting in 2009, I have found it made me think more deeply and certainly to improve both ideas and the way they are communicated.
Actually with reference to yesterday I did exactly what Geoff Crocker suggested and sent in a post which I expected would be gagged having taken part in some really good debates of late, especially with Martin and at times Michael who may have experienced me confusing them on occasion. The comment I sent in and which was moderated suggested that the author refer to an excellent blog by Alex Marsh on the subject and quote his form of words which I thought would be helpful.
I try to see the ‘reason’ in other people’s comments and to respond to the points they make. I try to be polite, which includes returning feistiness where I find feistiness.
Now apparently some people have been sending in comments to the editors saying they have been put off. One probably did so after having commented in length and articulately. Rather strange that. Made me think of my primatology days.
Looking back in time there were always individuals who commented a good deal and who are no longer so active. It is difficult not to conclude that they were condoned, then, because they had different opinions. The balance of opinion has changed in the five or so years that I have been participating, but that seems a reflection of the change in views of the activist.
Stephen Tall is a brilliant writer and publicist (thats a compliment), but it is interesting to see the journey his thinking has taken in the last five years. Perhaps look at this last two posts on his website. Once they would have been linked to here with an intro by an editor. And I think that Alex Marsh’s pieces deserve similar treatment. But they do not get it.
The editors, for whom I have nothing but respect and admiration, seem to have built a bunker recently. That’s a pity.
If someone wrote to me along the lines it has been suggested editors have been written to I think I’d first say, ‘Go on, have a go. The waters really pleasantly warm in here.’ And secondly I’d keep an eye open for them and give them some support the moment I saw them comment..
Bill le Breton 8th Jan ’15 – 1:17pm
Malcolm, āHave you really been āsilencedā Bill? ā
Are we now only able to defend free speech when it applies to us?
See, this sort of thing is annoying. In response to your claim that posters with “challenging” opinions were being “silenced”, I used rhetorical questions to draw a reasonable (though not incontestable) inference that either you were being silenced or your opinions were not challenging to anyone — when clearly neither is true. You could have disputed my inference; but instead you took just the first part of my rhetorical argument and “answered” that, thereby making it look as though I was saying something completely different and frankly unworthy. That’s not reasonable argument, it’s plain misrepresentation; and I suggest it might be the sort of thing that puts off the less accustomed debaters from taking part. You may think you’re being “polite”, but I don’t think you are.
Bill Le Breton
Thank you for the link to Alex Marsh’s words. I saw it but unfortunately had too much to do yesterday to include it in the article.
We ‘be retreated into a bunker have we? That’s a laugh. The team spend hours reading comments and corresponding with readers and engaging in the comments threads.
This is one post out of 40 a week, Bill.
A sense of perspective needed perhaps?
Malcolm, “when clearly neither is true”. Addressing part 2 viz”Or is it that you think your opinions arenāt really challenging to anyone? ”
My comment was blocked and had to be ‘approved’ for general release by the Lord Chamberlain.
I see that Nick Clegg has said, “you cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each otherā”
He makes my point. The editors are concerned that some are being offended here and others fear being offended if they comment. Just think what this means. People are being blocked and ‘read’ prior to having their comments published for fear they may offend those who may at some time in the future comment here.
One of my first meetings as a councillor had on the agenda ‘What to Do About the Life Of Brian Coming to the Local Cinema’ which dates it to 1979. Councils had those powers then. The Tories wanted to ban it unseen. Some Liberals decided that the Amenities Committee should view it and then approve it. Our Liberal Leader spoke passionately about the illiberality of viewing it. He was right. He taught us a great lesson of lasting value. Viewing and approving it is still censorship. It is still an abuse of power.
Paul, you know I am grateful. And thanks for the info on Alex’s piece. I have always tried to add something in the way of links etc. when I comment.
But, perhaps you could just reflect on my comment above. Why are you all having to read so many comments? Protecting the owners from libel. Not a problem. You filter out inappropriate language automatically. Not a problem. Pre-viewing The Life of Brian? A problem.
Why do we have to read “so many” comments?
In order to maintain our comments policy, where is here:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/comment-policy
The nub of it is about making challenging points without abuse of groups or individuals. When e talked about offending people was he talking about people swearing at others? I doubt it. Was he talking about gratuitous personal insults? I doubt it.
But surely it isn’t a bad thing that we read numerous comments, is it? It keeps us out of the “bunker” š
As someone who has become somewhat addicted to the site, but is in fact somewhat of an ingenu in the LDV world, I am glad this is happening.
Not so long ago, this would have been a vital step in building confidence to state my opinions and participate in one form of LD politics.
I still feel sometimes that people do not interact with what I say in preference to fighting and refighting old battles with people they already know, in person or electronically…
Paul I have already taken up too much of your time, but please consider that reading the comments may actually put you in the bunker. Trust the people?
matt (Bristol) good to hear from you. As a matter of interest, what do you think makes it addictive?
Bill, I have enlarged my comment above as you were writing your latest one.
We have spent hours of discussion on this site and within the editorial team developing and maintaining our comments policy.
The main comments we weed out are swearing or otherwise making gratuitous personal insults at other commenters.
We have made a decision as an editorial team to uphold our comments policy which tries to keep things polite. I would suggest that the right of the editors to make such decisions is part of our democratic framework of free speech. There are plenty of places where people can swear and insult people. Even Guido Fawkes has started moderating comments to an extent.
Over several years of commenting at LDV, I’ve had some tens (maybe 20-30?) of comments automatically filtered, mostly I gather because I had inadvertently used a word or words which were flagged, or because all comments for a specific article were being filtered, as is sometimes done. All but one of those comments were (eventually) published. The one exception was when I made a remark that I thought was an innocuous statement of facts, but which LDV apparently felt would expose them to some type of liability. That instance still puzzles me, but it was not over anything very important, and I put it down to an excess of caution rather than an attempt to slant the discussion.
Paul
I see you didn’t respond to the second part of my comment š
Bill,
Paul does need to read the comments, so that he can weed out gross obscenity, gross rudeness that can be described as “behaviour liable to provoke a breach of the peace”, libellous or otherwise actionable comments which could place LDV itself at risk of legal action, and (arguably) statements which are clearly and demonstrably untrue.
Paul,
You don’t need to approve or disapprove anything else.
David
We have a policy that has been decided at length. As editors it is our right, within the framework of free speech, to have that policy and stick to it.
I’m now going to record that remark and issue it on vinyl.
Geoff
“I see you didnāt respond to the second part of my comment :)”
Some of us have to earn a living (and keep fit). I managed to squeeze in two minutes of rebuttals on my phone in the wind on the way to gym. I’m sorry that I didn’t reply to every blessed remark.
“Perhaps one way round this would be for Paul to summarise any such potential but excluded comments in a single comment posted in his name?”
Well the excluded comments were only a few. Potential comments? Well, just do a search on the various posts where commenters have torn Nick Clegg a new orifice. There are many of them in our archive.
Paul, it’s tiresome to read LDV editors backing out of issues by telling us all that ‘some of us have to earn a living’ and that the exercise is all voluntary. It’s no answer.
I assure you that I have to earn a living too, that I also go to the gym, that I work very long days, that loads of things I do are done voluntarily etc etc etc. We either agree willingly to engage in debate on LDV or not. I don’t bleat on about the things I do voluntarily. If they’re a burden to us then we should un-volunteer. Otherwise if we choose to initiate a debate we should engage the response.
I rather object to my post being described as a ‘blessed remark’. Any chance of publishing LDV accounts?….
Katie Hall 8th Jan ’15 – 11:32am
Hello Katie, I have only just come back to this thread so have read your comment some hours after it was written.
I hope you have not been offended by what was in my earlier comment. But I fear that I have caused offence.
If so I do apologise and assure you that was not my intention.
Reading through my comment again I am not sure how I might have said what I did in a way that would be more acceptable. I was not talking about people who have a disability.
If anything I was talking about people who have developed an addiction – a serious issue. There are reports (probably exaggerated )of Korean young men who have not left their bedroom in years because they have become addicted to on screen games etc . Doctors in Korea report an increasing number of such cases. Some of my daughter’s contemporaries in their early to mid twenties, have no disability, come from comfortable or even wealthy backgrounds, have a university education but do not have basic social skills. Some of them have been unable to hold down a permanent job since leaving university. They have grown up as the on-screen generation. I was not trying to minimise the difficulties or ridicule such people. I think there is a real problem for them and for the rest of us.
The problem with this technology is that it gives the appearance of a conversation. But the reality is quite different.
I hope this second comment has not made things even worse. I have hesitated before sending it. Would it have been better to say nothing? I suppose when it boils down to it — all of us can be intimidated at times.
Bill, I think it’s worth saying I don’t think I mean addictive in the same way John Tilley does.
Um I post here (sometimes rather a lot) because:
– I find I rarely meet other people at the moment who would publically even contemplate voting LibDem (I am a member but am not terribly well linked into my local party and have little time to do so)
– I like the variety of topics and the variety of views and voices
– It gives me a way of working out my frustration and lack of real power over the direction of politics in this country
– As someone who did an MA in political history in the 1880s, its nice to talk to people who have a mutual reverence for Gladstone (although one quickly realises that its a bit overdone, and almost every political movement of the current day can find some claim on him and his party, and much of what he did is unintelligible in modern terms).
Anyway – more of this sort of thing, please – once a month? Vary the topics, though.
I am enjoying reading the thread and feel a solidarity with the posters even though I post too much to comment on it.
Jayne Mansfield 8th Jan ’15 – 12:31pm
Jayne, thanks for your comment, it all makes sense to me.
I remember you saying something similar before. In my mind you are Jayne Mansfield because that is all I have ever known you as. For the reasons you explain you are in a different category from my friend because being known as Jayne Mansfield predates your time on a computer. But you make a good point.
Like you I know very little about the workings of this device I tap words into.
I never even knew how a conventional land line telephone worked. I just dialled the numbers and paid the bills.
Membership of the AA is a necessity for me because I have not a clue about how the engine of my car works.
All this technology might as well all be sorcery. I like to use it, but I do not pretend to understand how it works. It is a good job I have indugent children and a supportive wife who sort out these things for me.
Geoff Crocker
I am very sorry for my stupidly aggressive reply earlier. I was drunk.I will take your advice and “unvolunteer” to the extent of not spreading myself so widely, especially when I am drunk!
There were only one or two comments which did not qualify for the test post. I don’t think it is worth a separate post summarising them but I would point you to the original post where we published Nick Clegg’s relevant speech in full, which has some comments beneath it which may be indicative of the range of views on the subject:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-cleggs-press-conference-today-44070.html
Also, Caron posted on the speech earlier this week and that gave another opportunity for all commenters to give their views on the speech:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/ldvideo-nick-clegg-on-buoyant-form-saying-liberal-democrats-needed-to-govern-responsibly-and-fairly-44071.html
One of the reasons I chose the particular subject for the test post was precisely because we had already had two posts about that subject, which had therefore already given all commenters good opportunity to comment on the matter.
“Meanwhile, more interesting would be how LDV might encourage a wider set of authors of posts, so that LDV doesnāt collapse to an extended editorsā blog? (Iād also like to see LDV publish its accountsā¦)”
I’ll bring the account publication query to the attention of the team, Geoff. It’s not my specialist subject.
On the matter of authors of posts, we regularly put up “How you can help LDV” posts which invite submissions. We also have a question in all our monthly surveys which asks something like: “Would you like to help Liberal Democrat Voice?”.
In cases where respondents answer positively to that question, we write individually to them, inviting them to submit articles (amongst other things).
We receive and publish a reasonably steady stream of articles by authors who are not members of the LDV team. For example, at the moment there are eleven such posts (including two LibLink posts, which are essentially articles by others) on our home page, out of 30 posts in total.
Thank you for your enquiries and, again, apologies for “biting your head off”.
Despite Paul’s excellent article elsewhere, it is interesting that this thread about that restricted thread has generated more comments and debate. And nobody has called for Clegg to go!
Thanks Paul – I very much appreciate your kind response
Peter Watson 9th Jan ’15 – 12:37am
Peter, have you considered the possibility that a lot of people made exactly that call but found their comment disappeared into one of those dispiriting grey boxes ?
In LDV what you get is what what you see, not necessarily what everyone else has attempted to say.
@ John Tilley – “After she had spoken to me it occurred to me that I could be commenting in a discussion with what looks like ten men and is in fact one woman using a number of different āidentitiesā. For all I know paul barker is really Liz Barker. Jedibeefychops could be Shirley Williams.”
It should be pointed out, if for no other reason that sparing the good name of Shirley Williams, that the real Jedibeeftrix is not she. š
While it is possible to comment using anyones username, and even to use the same flair as associated with that chosen username, ldv staff at least should be able to spot the difference as in most cases the email address won’t be widely known.