In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Fight! Fight! Fight!

piny

So there’s a link-roundup post at Alas which has degenerated, as round-up posts always do, into a fairly heated discussion about an issue only tangentially related to one of the links provided.

Then the heated discussion degenerated into a heated discussion about the heated discussion.

I left this note in comments, and would like to open the issue up here, since it interests me as someone who belongs to a great many such communities and who is nowhere near as constructive as I’d like:

I just had a discussion like this on/about a community I belong to. Basically, someone was behaving inappropriately and stifling discussion, and I and the people I talked to about it (it’d been a running, Oh, God, not AGAIN for a few months), decided to confront him for the following reasons:

1) The behavior is inappropriate, full stop. It deserves criticism.

2) Even if calling this person out doesn’t cause this person to reevaluate their conduct, it may still cause them to knock it down a notch. Bullies depend on successfully intimidating people; when their authority is challenged, they often back down.

3) Other people reading would be less likely to accept this person’s words as gospel.

4) Other people who had felt intimidated might feel supported.

5) Other people who had felt annoyed would understand that it’s not just in their heads.

6) The inappropriate conduct itself was stifling–a discussion could not really happen as long as it was left alone.

What do you people think constitutes constructive calling-out? When is it necessary? What does it look like? When does it become futile?

46 thoughts on Fight! Fight! Fight!

  1. I think it’s when you get linker’s remorse. It happened early in my blogging career (2003), in the Pleistocene/blogspot Era, when I was trying to get as many Houston/Austin bloggers on the roll as possible. Then the UN building in Baghdad blew up, and one of the linkees decided to piss on the UN workers’ not-yet-dug graves. So I did it, got a bunch of traffic from well-wishers and reactionary ghouls… and that’s why I’m now the world’s first blogging billionaire.

    As for the minutia of what happened on what board when, wow. If the first post in a thread makes you go “What the fuck does that have to do with anything?” or “Oh shit, not that!”, then I think the host can take immediate remedial measures before it inevitably spirals out of control. Harder to do in a link-dump, obviously.

  2. If there are, as they say, “facts in evidence” that the poster is misrepresenting or misquoting” they should be called on it whether you agree with them or not; i.e., 46% of women…, and you know damn well it’s 10% of women…. and you can prove it, you should do so.

    I think it’s incumbant on us to try and argue in good faith, trolls or no. But when that fails, snark away.

    Better though, if the blog owners warn them, and then ban them them if they continue their bad behavior. I think it does us all good to have constructive arguments with conservatives and even true wingnuts. However, when their behavior evidences a clear intent to disrail and/or disrupt; ban them. If you don’t; don’t get mad at us little folks for going at them ‘hammer and tongs.’

    The whole point of moderators in real debates (meaning in the flesh) is to keep the affair civil and on topic.

  3. If there are, as they say, “facts in evidence” that the poster is misrepresenting or misquoting” they should be called on it whether you agree with them or not; i.e., 46% of women…, and you know damn well it’s 10% of women…. and you can prove it, you should do so.

    Well, sure. I’m not sure I’d even call that “calling-out,” so much as “troll-killing.”

    …This issue is a little stickier because it’s about how you behave, not exactly or only the views you hold.

  4. I always find those comment wars interesting, in the same way as watching a family–not your own–fight and rehash old crimes and bring up old slights. Interesting, queasy-making, and quite voyeuristic.

    That said, I think a disruptive comment thread should be cut off at the knees. I know from years of experience on forums and listservs and, now, blogs that there is almost never a resolution. Just stop it in its tracks, without mercy, but first explain what you’re doing and why. If anybody wants to dispute your decision, tough titties. If they want to have a free-for-all, let them do it in their own homes.

  5. geez. this is NOT difficult. you nominate moderators. you set some rules. those who don’t follow the rules get banned. especially when they think they’re being sneaky by being passive-aggressive and snarky. everybody gets 2 warnings, and on the third strike, they’re out.

    it’s possible to have constructive arguments with people who have a different political philosophy. but you can’t allow trolls to take part because they ALWAYS dominate the discussion. there will always be those few trolls who think they’re being clever by not being too overt about it, but frankly, i’ve never had ANY trouble figuring out what was going on when someone tried that approach with me. once you make a practice of ditching trolls ASAP, they stop showing up with such frequency.

  6. That said, I think a disruptive comment thread should be cut off at the knees. I know from years of experience on forums and listservs and, now, blogs that there is almost never a resolution. Just stop it in its tracks, without mercy, but first explain what you’re doing and why. If anybody wants to dispute your decision, tough titties. If they want to have a free-for-all, let them do it in their own homes.

    hear hear.

  7. piny:

    You’re right, as you usually are. But it’s not only about behavior, it’s behavior at some point. The question is really up to you and the other blogowners. If I’m desperately trying to be rational with someone and they refuse and are being totally ingenuous then at some point I’m going to roll out the 16″ Snark Cannon and let fly. Just to try and get them to go away. I guess I’m saying (and others it would seem) it’s your job to kill them for us. That is to say…STOP ME BEFORE I SNARK AGAIN!
    [Bwahahahaha] 🙂

  9. You’re right, as you usually are. But it’s not only about behavior, it’s behavior at some point. The question is really up to you and the other blogowners. If I’m desperately trying to be rational with someone and they refuse and are being totally ingenuous then at some point I’m going to roll out the 16″ Snark Cannon and let fly. Just to try and get them to go away. I guess I’m saying (and others it would seem) it’s your job to kill them for us. That is to say…STOP ME BEFORE I SNARK AGAIN!
    [Bwahahahaha] 🙂

    Don’t look at me. I’m as much of a drama hound as the next guy.

    I’m all for being tougher on trolling. The question is, when does it cross the line?

    Yes.

    And is it exactly trolling when the troll in question is arguably a member of the community?

  10. it’s possible to have constructive arguments with people who have a different political philosophy. but you can’t allow trolls to take part because they ALWAYS dominate the discussion. there will always be those few trolls who think they’re being clever by not being too overt about it, but frankly, i’ve never had ANY trouble figuring out what was going on when someone tried that approach with me. once you make a practice of ditching trolls ASAP, they stop showing up with such frequency.

    Okay, before this comments thread gets confused–not that this isn’t also an interesting discussion–this isn’t exactly about trolling. It’s about hashing community dynamics (which can touch on definitions and examples of trolling): when those debates are appropriate, when they’re necessary, what they should look like.

  11. zuzu:

    Case by case of course, but….

    a) When they repeat the same thing over and over wihtout referencing other opinions or answering questions put to them;
    b) When they are rude to people who are trying hard to be civil with them;
    c) when every time someone tries to drag the thing back on topic they drag it back off.

    Your faithful are all adults and don’t need to be coddled. At the same time we trust in you and piny and Jill to make us a nice civil home (blog).

    You know me well enough by now that I try to be civil but that I can be a nasty SOB. Everytime I do that though…o.k., I’ll say it… I’m trying to get rid of a troll that the owners should have gotten rid of. More importantly, I, in retrospect, don’t like myself very much and would rather not have been ‘forced’ to retaliate. We trust your judgements or we wouldn’t come here.

  12. I’m all for being tougher on trolling. The question is, when does it cross the line?

    being tough? well, that’s every blog owner’s call, i think. in general, i think that 2 or 3 moderators can determine whether someone is troll on a case by case basis, but it helps to define what you consider disruptive behavior. people should know what the rules are before they get banned, and each individual community will have to decide the rules for participation.

    my personal list of what i consider disruptive behavior:

    1) habitually posting off-topic comments
    2) habitually posting material that is known and intended to be inflammatory
    3) lying or otherwise misrepresenting the facts
    4) ad hominem attacks
    5) posting more than 1/4 of the comments in any given thread
    6) repeating the same thing over and over again
    7) anything intended mainly to upset another commenter or the blog owner

    anything else can be up to the discretion of the person who owns the space. if a thread appears to be going nowhere and is only producing more fighting, then it should be closed. anyone who tried to continue the fight in another thread should be banned to hammer the point home.

  13. piny:

    Sorry, cross posted with you. But the same rules of civility and debating in good faith should apply to “our own” as to invaders. I’d rather debate with a civil invader than an uncivil so-called ally.

  14. I like the “Yo MAMA!” response myself. But if you really want to help form better behavior I have seen several rules work. One, put bad behavior on extinction -i.e. “that” (and try to clearly define the behavior) is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Offer different behavior that is acceptable. Next time they stray over the line tell them warning 2, repeat step one and explain last chance. Then ignore it and cut it off if it happens again. No arguing, no attention to it. No Attention is the biggest thing. There’s a reason people cave and freak out to the silent treatment.

    Do give much kind attention to positive behavior.

    These steps must be taken by the authority figure and must be supported by the community or it won’t work.

  15. Okay, before this comments thread gets confused–not that this isn’t also an interesting discussion–this isn’t exactly about trolling. It’s about hashing community dynamics (which can touch on definitions and examples of trolling): when those debates are appropriate, when they’re necessary, what they should look like.

    actually, i think trolls are partly responsible for fomenting and prolonging bash-fests. i understand that piny was getting at something more than trolls, but i think the problem would be mostly solved by eliminating trolls. it sets the tone for participation and encourages everyone to behave. it provides visible and continuous enforcement of the rules. even community regulars are often guilty of trolling. i guess i intend ‘trolling’ to mean disruptive behavior rather than ‘ideological opponent who behaves annoyingly.’

  17. sorry piny — i didn’t realize i was responding to *your* comment.

    Banned!

    Don’t worry about it. I do it too, and the discussion itself is already a fairly complex one.

    i guess i intend ‘trolling’ to mean disruptive behavior rather than ‘ideological opponent who behaves annoyingly.’

    Then I guess the question is when “annoying” becomes “disruptive.”

    And, in this context, whether it’s disruptive to complain about “annoying” behavior.

  18. I don’t know if the latest 50+ commment post had any bearing on your thinking on this post, Piny, but I figured I’d bring it up, since it at least seems to be on-topic, for this thread.

    I disagreed with your move to quash criticism of Dadahead’s offhand joke that right-wingers aren’t people. To me, it doesn’t seem like the kind of things that ought to have escaped comment. Surely a comment–even in jest–like “Feminists, who are in general, man-haters,” or “left-wingers, who are, in general, amoral,” wouldn’t have been overlooked, and with good reason.

    But eh, it wasn’t a huge deal, and it’s your blog, so I dropped it. But this:

    But the same rules of civility and debating in good faith should apply to “our own” as to invaders.

    is very, very important. Unless you treat your skeptical commenters with the same respect as you treat your faithful, this site will start to sound more and more like this one.

  21. I disagreed with your move to quash criticism of Dadahead’s offhand joke that right-wingers aren’t people. To me, it doesn’t seem like the kind of things that ought to have escaped comment. Surely a comment–even in jest–like “Feminists, who are in general, man-haters,” or “left-wingers, who are, in general, amoral,” wouldn’t have been overlooked, and with good reason.

    I didn’t quash criticism; I told you and Dadahead to pipe down after I counted four comments from you two combined that had nothing to do with the post and which continued a spat that looked to be escalating rather than slowing down. My comment wasn’t directed specifically at you, Shankar.

    And I wouldn’t expect or require that kind of comment to be overlooked; I would, however, step in if it looked like a post unconnected either to “feminists” or “left-wingers” were being obscured by a fight about fairplay complaints about either group.

  22. piny:

    Then I guess the question is when “annoying” becomes “disruptive.”

    And, in this context, whether it’s disruptive to complain about “annoying” behavior.

    I think the earlier comments give pretty good lists for what is acceptable behavior. And this annoying vs. disruptive question is an important one, too.

    Annoying comments can occur any time someone responds–after all, we’ve all got our own tastes, opinions, and biases.

    A disruptive comment, though, is one that: 1) does not address (or only tangentially) the post; 2) addresses the post but makes use of fallacies in its treatment (like ad hominem attacks, strawmen, selective quotation, etc.); or 3) addresses the post and uses no fallacies, but singles out a poster or commenter in a hurtful manner.

    An example of the third type would be: “I think all annoying posts are disruptive, but that we have to live with them. But you’re a poopy-head and are gonna delete all posts that you dislike anyway.” It’s on topic, but clearly not intended to further communication.

    Can you think of other types of disruption?

  23. …There’s also the question of when a derail is and is not offensive. If I posted about, say, what I made for dinner last night, something I saw in the paper, and a conversation I had with a friend about learning-disability accomodations in public schools, I would not have much of a problem with a twenty-comment digression into someone’s new kitten, a really good recipe for butternut squash soup, or how irritating it is to know that your town’s public schools are underfunded for students in general. I wouldn’t even mind if someone held a donnybrook about how x poster always does y irritating thing. Same goes, really, with a lot of posts about the left wing and about feminists.

    If, however, I posted about a raped woman, I would be much more offended by a digression. I think it’s much more disrespectful to engage in cross-chatter over her situation than over my wild-rice jambalaya. Then again, if someone started a conversation that spoke directly to how the community organizes around theories of rape, discussions of rape, and intra-community punishment/ostracism of people who hold x or y beliefs about sexual violence, I might or might not feel compelled to intervene.

  24. Oh, and there is another part of this. (As others have mentioned:) This is your (and Jill and zuzu’s) place. You are under no obligation to put up with anyone at any time.

  25. Oh, and there is another part of this. (As others have mentioned:) This is your (and Jill and zuzu’s) place. You are under no obligation to put up with anyone at any time.

    Tell that to you-know-who.

    I understand this ethos in moderation, though…What if the community is set up to facilitate discussions between the people who visit it? If it’s as much a board as a blog?

  26. I like a good argument more than I probably should – I think it’s a big picture problem that you can’t really detail out – more leave it to the judgement of a moderator. As long as the thread is going someplace, and the conversation is progressing and (mostly) respectfull, I think some heat is ok.

    Shankar’s case is classic derailment.

  27. Derailment and trolling are, generally, in the eye of the beholder. And all too often for all too many people, a derailment is an idea that I don’t want to see, and a troll is someone who cogently argues for a viewpoint I find unappealing.

    More formally, “derailment” is the word given to whatever part of the dialog isn’t privileged by the community. In the case of Shankar and Dadahead, the objective derailment – IE, the post that went off-topic – was Dadahead’s assertion that right-wingers aren’t human, which had no connection to the discussion that Piny was trying to have. But it’s Shankar’s (and mine) objection to this that is classified as “derailment”. On a conservative site, very likely it would be Dadahead’s post that the community would view as derailment, and Shankar would be the good guy.

    Call me a nutty objectivist, but I prefer to think of a derailment as being an off-topic idea (bounded, as Piny noted, by the fact that many threads don’t really have topics, and some ideas are much more open to tangents than other), and a troll is someone who posts on a contrarian basis, disagreeing for its own sake. The valence of the ideas in question is, or should be, immaterial.

  29. But it’s Shankar’s (and mine) objection to this that is classified as “derailment”.

    Like I just said, no. It was comments 3 and 4 (Dadahead’s “Learn to take a joke,” and then Shankar’s response to that) that prompted me to comment. Your decision to jump in did prove beyond any doubt that the spat was destined to escalate and devour the thread, but I didn’t see it until after I commented.

  30. if you have moderators, they can manage the task of dealing with complaints. i think there’s a fine line between calling someone out and taking over a thread and making it all about how someone offended you. i think a few comments back and forth should suffice because commenters should be given a chance to resolve the matter by themselves before the offended party runs to the thread nanny. if the offender doesn’t stop behaving badly, then the moderators can handle it.

    did i mention that i *really* like moderators?

  31. did i mention that i *really* like moderators?

    I’ve met some very good ones, too. The friend I was discussing online communities with has moderated and co-facilitated some discussion groups, and it never ceases to amaze me how he can defuse a fight without shutting a discussion down.

  32. It helps a lot that your serious trolls and disruptors generally give up on moderated spaces, and you’re left with the subset of people who – however idiosyncratic or difficult they may be – really do want to have a conversation.

  33. I personally liked to try and fold the people who initially looked like trolls into the community (hi, Robert), whereas I won’t allow comments to clear that are intentionally incendiary.

    On the other hand, de-emvoweling is awfully funny AND it allows a shitty comment to stand, in part, as it was. A placeholder, if you will.

  34. On the other hand, de-emvoweling is awfully funny AND it allows a shitty comment to stand, in part, as it was. A placeholder, if you will.

    On a conceptual level I like it, but it drives me up the wall in practice because I am compelled to decipher and read every single encoded comment.

  36. Dude, you are so banned.

    Although if you abused it too much, wouldn’t we all simply learn to read disemvowelled text the same way that students of Arabic learn to recognize words as they appear in, say, newspapers?

  38. Yes, we would, very quickly. Disemvowelling only works because it’s an unusual pattern. If we saw it every day, we’d quickly adapt.

    Vowels are helpful but not crucial.

  39. Over at my blog we place a lot of signficance on the intellectual capital that a commenter has accumulated. So, a newcomer who is derailing a thread gets yanked back much more quickly than someone who has a history of arguing fairly, thus accumulateing intellectual capital, and has stepped over the line.

  41. Now, I want to bring up something that hasn’t really been directly addressed and that I think might be a bit closer to what piny was initially getting at.

    Suppose you have a poster who doesn’t exhibit any characteristics of a troll — argues in good faith, is an intellectual/political ally, generally keeps a civil tone, so on — but that poster does certain things that, inadvertantly, shut down or derail debate. Suppose there was a well-established poster on this board that didn’t get trans issues at all and showed no indication of using piny’s posts on trans issues as an opportunity to learn. Made comments about trans people not being “really a man” or “really a woman”, again, without malice or intent to derail or shut down debate. Or when a poster came out as trans (and in the anonymity of the internet, they more or less are coming out every time they bring it up, unless they’re, say, piny) the poster would say something like “oh, so you’re really a” whatever and start using the wrong pronoun.

    There’s nothing trollish or hostile or whatever in that behaiour, but it _fully_ deserves to be called out. Does it deserve a warning from a mod? No. Does it deserve a disenvoweling? Certainly not. I think to treat this poster as hostile would create more problems than it would solve, and would probably stir up resentment in them for the community where it happened, and the person who banned them. However, as I said before, this person definitely deserves to be called out — posters who know bed, whether mods or blog-owners or not — should point out to the posters the ways in which they’re stifling debate and denying certain peoples’ experiences. Sometimes that can be as simple as a “(whoever) prefers ‘he'”, or a “(whoever) was raised as a (whatever) but is now a (whatever) — what constitutes a “real” (whatever) is a matter of debate, and I beleive (whatever)”. Education, rather than punishment.

    If all attempts at education are unsuccessful, well, then further calling out may be necessary. Tell them they’ve been unresponsive to attempts to suggest how they may change their language, and that it’s creating an environment that isn’t a safe place for trans people to discuss their experiences, or whatever might be relevant to the case. Tell them that it they can’t join the debate on appropriate terms, then that you ask that they sit it out. Banning probably won’t be necessary at any point along the line if the person genuinely has good intentions, but good intentions aren’t enough to make them immune from needing a calling-out from time to time.

  42. should point out to the posters the ways in which they’re stifling debate and denying certain peoples’ experiences.

    Tell them they’ve been unresponsive to attempts to suggest how they may change their language, and that it’s creating an environment that isn’t a safe place for trans people to discuss their experiences, or whatever might be relevant to the case.

    I think that you’re analyzing this exactly backwards. The person you’ve got an issue with isn’t stifling debate, for it would be the effort to control the form and content of the offender that should be regarded as stifling debate.

    What I think is more pertinent to the issue of “supportive environment” is the nature of the forum. If the forum is designed as a support group environment, then I think you’re well within your rights to police commenter’s thoughts and language because the commenters are all there in support of some larger goal and all share the same philosophy and alll subscribe to a grander principle than free expression – that is they support each other on the issue under consideration.

    However, if the forum isn’t a support group but is instead an environment where debate is encouraged, then those who embark on the language police tack are in effect stifling the debate because they’re ruling some positions out of bounds and asking everyone to assume some default position by either not arguing along a certain line or by using language which they would rather not use, for whatever reason.

    Now, I certainly understand that the “sensitivity” movement is very strong amongst the Left, hence the long running language and thought control battle, but doesn’t it really boil down to imposition of control via fiat rather than through the merit of the argument. Also, don’t misunderstand me – I do understand that it can be offensive to be mischaracterized by others, I certainly do, but an idea is a separate identity from that of the people discussing it, and ideas shouldn’t be constrained in the manner that you’re proposing, that is if the environment is a zone where free expression is valued.

  43. TangoMan, I’m talking primarily about situations where attitude or language or whatever is irrelevant to the debate. I’m not talking about excluding certain arguments or positions — I repeat that I prefer free-for-all (even slugfest) forums to tightly moderated ones — but well-intentioned people people can do a bad job at being allies. I’m proposing was to help well-intentioned people be better allies.

    Reread my post. At no point to I advocate “language policing” and certainly not “though policing”. I’m fine with people using whatever language, having whatever thoughts, and making whatever arguements they want. In fact, I flat out advocate it. I’m suggesting that there are ways to call out people who _want_ to be good allies for not being there yet, and to help them get there.

  44. Reread my post. At no point to I advocate “language policing” and certainly not “though policing”.

    KnifeGhost, There’s many a slip betwixt cup and lip. When you reread your comment you didn’t see yourself calling for language policing, yet when I read your comment:

    Tell them they’ve been unresponsive to attempts to suggest how they may change their language.

    I really don’t see a way to interpret this in a non-language policing fashion. Perhaps your first comment didn’t fully convey your thinking and your second comment is more definitive, and if so should I take your position to be the 2nd one, which means you repudiate the quoted comment or do you want me to accept that the 2nd comment is just a refinement of the 1st? I see no contradiction in your 2nd comment standing on its own, but I can’t reconcile the 1st and the 2nd saying the same thing.

    You also wrote:

    If all attempts at education are unsuccessful, well, then further calling out may be necessary

    Education = this is the way we see things. If the commenter doesn’t buy into that perspective then you suggest some additional action. How is that not “thought policing?” The crux of the issue is that some commenter, who is with you in spirit, doesn’t fully subscribe to some point that you may feel is crucial to some issue. The debate is civil and respectful, but seems to hinge on an intellectual issue which may have differing emotional meaning for the two parties. To get the two parties to the same emotional plane means that one party needs to change the thinking of the other party, even if the fail to do so in an intellectual fashion, thus necessitating the deployment of other tactics.

  45. Tell them they’ve been unresponsive to attempts to suggest how they may change their language, and that it’s creating an environment that isn’t a safe place for trans people to discuss their experiences

    Quoting myself to emphasize the second part of that quote, which you left out. In that paragraph, I meant to imply (but I recognize that I didn’t make it explicit) that it would be in a situation where the blog or forum has a mandate to create a safe space. Safe spaces can be maintained without draconian measures, but it depends on the participants _wanting_ to make it a safe space.

    I really don’t see a way to interpret this in a non-language policing fashion.

    I was going to respond to that, but it occurs to me that before I can, I have to know what you mean by “policing”. To me, it implies the enforcement, through punishment, or a correct vocabulary. I’m not sure that’s what you mean. If it is, you seem to fail to understand that I’m not proposing any kind of punishment at all. To use a bit of a silly analogy, traffic policing involves writing tickets and exacting fines for failure to obey posted signage, whereas I’m proposing a polite note slipped under windshield wiper tell the driver that he’s plarked in a waythat inconveniences others, and if he hadn’t intended to do so, may we suggest parking over here?

    One more thing.

    Education = this is the way we see things.

    True. But it’s not, as you seem to imply, education = this is the way we see things, and you have to see things this way too or you’re getting the fuck banned. It’s more like “this is the way we see things, and this is why, and we suggest you think about why we think this way and what that way of thinking means to other people here. There are no consequences for your failure to do so other than not being a very good ally.” For people who don’t care to be a good ally, then it’s a non-issue. People that do want to be good allies will think it over and see where the ideas fit. Either they’ll reject that requirement for “good ally” and keep on as they were, or they’ll change their mind to some degree. I’m sorry, I fail to see how showing another person who seems to be receptive to it another way of looking at something while attaching no negative consequences to their failure to adopt that way of thinking constitutes “thought policing”.

  46. This conversation reminds me of the recent controversy at Glenn Greenwald’s blog surrounding his decision to limit Gedalyia to one comment per post. The problem with disruptive commenters is that even if you choose to ignore them, more often than not, someone else in the thread does not. You can’t just skip over the comments of the people you know to be disruptive because many of the regulars can’t help themselves and get drawn in to a fight. And eventually you have a situation where there is as much discussion on the thread about the habitual distrupter as there is commentary about the original topic. See this comment thread for example.

    I think there is not a single clear answer to the question you propose. It is a judgement call that speaks volumes about the atmosphere that you want at your blog. As for myself, when I see a blog’s proprietor making a genuine effort to deal with rude dissenters, that’s usually enough to make me happy. It’s only when all manner of rude and incisive comments are allowed in the name of freedom of speech that I start to get irritated.

Comments are currently closed.