Moderation Policy At Disinfo: A Quick Note

Screen Shot 2013-12-09 at 11

Don’t worry: The user’s email address is fake, naturally.

I received another angry email and I thought that this might be a good time for us to discuss the moderation system here at

A year or two, we implemented the Disqus comment moderation system. It wasn’t an easy decision for us to make, but it had occurred to me that the majority of the “anonymous” comments we received were abusive or disruptive. A lot of it was racist in nature or just completely unhinged (or both), and some of it was even violent. Deleting comments or banning deranged visitors who could just turn around and make up three or four more sockpuppets and start again was turning into a full-time job; An exercise in futility.

In order to better promote the growth of an inquisitive, involved and invested community, the decision was made to eliminate anonymous comments and require our readers to log in via Disqus.

Disqus is a third-party solution to community moderation that requires the use of some kind of more or less consistent, verified identity to comment on our site. It’s not perfect. For one thing, you can game it if you’re really, really intent on staying anonymous – even beyond the anonymity of just using a throw-away email address or whatever to register with the system – and for another, it sometimes falsely flags legitimate comments as spam. This can be a problem.

When Disqus suspects that a comment may be spam, it removes it and places it in a folder marked “Spam” for approval by an administrator – yours truly. While I do generally check the comments several times a day, sometimes things happen. Occasionally a comment will linger in the spam folder for a few hours. This is especially likely to happen if the comment is made while I’m asleep. Most people are pretty reasonable about this kind of thing, but you’d still be surprised by the number of angry (normally anonymous – again) email I get accusing site management of deleting this or that comment because it’s too “controversial” or threatening to the status quo. At this point, I’m pretty much used to the insults, and my response is to go and check the spam filter and approve the comments. When I can (In essence, when the angry commenter leaves a legitimate email address), I respond back and explain the situation nicely and encourage them to try commenting again. Very rarely, I’ll discover that there’s a good reason why their comment was flagged.

I don’t like playing policeman here or anywhere else. Unfortunately, sometimes it’s necessary for the benefit of our community, and when it is, I’m far more likely to shoot to kill than issue proverbial tickets. Deleting comments piece-meal is a half-measure. If it’s the kind of comment that I would feel compelled to delete then it’s already going to be pretty damned bad: Racial epithets and other forms of bigoted comments that might make visitors not feel welcome are big on the list, as are threats of violence. Finally, there’s insults to the community here. What I mean is that if your entire comment history consists of insulting the intelligence of readers, contributors and commenters, then you’re better off going elsewhere. (I honestly don’t understand how or why one would waste the precious moments of his or her time reading things that you they know they hate, but I guess there are people who don’t value their time like you and I do. However, I will do what I can to make sure you direct your attention elsewhere.)

When I read these things, I almost always just ban the commenter outright. Why the ban? It’s because if you feel comfortable calling someone the “n-word”, threatening to find them and set their house on fire, or enjoy trolling as a hobby then you need to go elsewhere. I’d rather get a thousand angry emails from banned nutjobs than lose even one of our valuable contributors, commenters or readers. Trust me when I say that I’d happily discard thousands of deranged bomb-throwers to keep the majority of the people who are currently reading this post. Sure, it can cut down on our site traffic, but in the long run, I think that I’d rather have a small but great community than a sprawling hellhole.

There are caveats to a lot of what I’m talking about here. Sometimes we all have bad days. I certainly do, and even some of our best contributors and commenters sometimes lose their tempers or say something that perhaps they shouldn’t have said. In those cases, I’ll comment on the thread and ask him or her to tone it down, or I’ll email the commenter with a very polite warning. In other words, if you’re a regular around here then I’m far more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt – especially if you’ve not completely flown off the handle and threatened to find and kill someone or something of the sort

I should also mention that just being disagreeable, annoying or contrarian isn’t enough to get you banned. You can’t run a site like this without trafficking in the bizarre or contradictory. I don’t care if you believe in global warming or think it’s a conspiracy of some sort. If you think that the Illuminati is behind the success of the Kardashians then that’s just dandy. Occultist? Atheist? You’re welcome here. Bring it. Keep it weird. Argue your heart out. Even I don’t understand, agree with or especially enjoy some of the things we discuss here, but my job is to make sure that there’s a lot of good stuff on the ideological buffet. I know you won’t like all of it, either, but I want to make sure that there’s at least something here for everyone to nibble on.

What I’ve written about here doesn’t apply to most of you. I hate even bringing it up. Unfortunately, moderation is something that has to be done, and I’d rather you know exactly how, why, and when these kinds of things happen around here.

110 Comments on "Moderation Policy At Disinfo: A Quick Note"

  1. DeepCough | Dec 9, 2013 at 12:54 pm |

    All the same, Matt, your efforts are appreciated.
    Also, I thank you for putting up with my shit as well.

    • Matt Staggs | Dec 9, 2013 at 12:55 pm |

      Hah! No worries, I really enjoy your contributions here.

      • I seen Matt Staggs curse out a sailor in yiddish and then he swept his peg leg with a submarine kick right into a giant octopus, he screamed, “burn in hell jesusfreak” mid strike. Classic Staggs move.

  2. I like how the individual tips his hand in the very first sentence, disclosing that this is not his first banning.

    • Matt Staggs | Dec 9, 2013 at 1:10 pm |

      The thing that most annoys me about this kind of email is the unwarranted self-importance It’s not that a comment has disappeared: It’s that our freedumbsfighter’s (sic) words are like the mighty trumpets of Jericho with the power to knock down this KINGDOM OF LIES and therefore must be stopped.

      • Calypso_1 | Dec 9, 2013 at 2:28 pm |

        Unfortunately, it takes little imagination to suspect that your inclusion of their pronouncement in the post will provide further reinforcement of said self-view.

      • Anarchy Pony | Dec 9, 2013 at 4:34 pm |

        There’s a stormfront coming…

    • Matt Staggs | Dec 9, 2013 at 2:25 pm |

      By the way: He’s been banned because he’s a racist. Big fan of the “n-word” he is.

      • Oh, definitely. I saw one one of the two posts he made before the deletion, and I figured that out pretty quickly. He came across like something of a eugenecist as well, rambling about all the social ills that we wouldn’t have if certain groups weren’t here.

        I missed out on seeing the reply he directed to my comment in that discussion, but my heart will go on. I’ve probably been called worse by better.

      • Or rather because he’s (presumably) using racial abuse, rather than because of any genuine opinions expressed here?

        Though I’m hardly a Net Nazi or White Power type, I have racialist views but have never been banned or censored here. (The need to confirm with Disqus caused me some confusion though.)

        I understand about abusive language, usually I never use the ‘n’ word unless it is with humorous intent or in response to anti-whites. (Of which there are not a few on the internets.) Using such language without an appropriate context is counterproductive and alienating, and isn’t allowed on most preservationist forums for whites.

        I support black seperatists by implication when I endorse white seperatism, and feel a lot of respect for figures like Malcolm X and Bro Farrakhan. For that matter I’m probably to the left of the Democrats and Labour on most things except race and first world issues.

        • $58946654 | Dec 9, 2013 at 3:32 pm |

          I noticed I get -1 for this lol.

          This is something I noticed elsewhere, first a racially abusive gobshite gets banned and then all the “tolerance” people start getting agitated, using it as an excuse to call for banning those opinions they don’t like.

        • Ted Heistman | Dec 9, 2013 at 3:34 pm |

          The only hope for the white race is miscegenation.

          • Then you should approve of the US government then, because that is official policy and their “racists” like Reagan, if you check facts, supported things like amnesties for the illegals.

          • Ted Heistman | Dec 9, 2013 at 3:50 pm |

            Oh No hot Latina women coming to the US! Hide the childrens!Seriously Dude ever seen any Brazilian women? Its not a Bad thing.

        • Calypso_1 | Dec 9, 2013 at 5:14 pm |

          Your views are erudite and more nuanced and that in and of itself deserves due diligence. There are those who present an absolutist counter attack to positions such as your own and the vast majority of this community would not venture into your home turf (even though there are more connections to alt right ideation then most would care to explore). That however is potentially counter productive when the possibility exists for insight into issues that are not going to be resolved by any status quo methodology.

  3. Ted Heistman | Dec 9, 2013 at 1:38 pm |

    Matt is a highly paid Illuminati Shill don’t believe him!

  4. Kevin Leonard | Dec 9, 2013 at 1:57 pm |

    I find the disinfo comments section to be both frustrating and rewarding. I keep coming back precisely because of the eclectic nature of of the community and the very fact that bigotry and outright hatred is not tolerated, which gives ideas a chance to stand or fall (or stalemate) on their own merit, and not be assailed by some 12-year old mentality of an “argument”. Kudos to you, Matt Staggs. I’ve said it before… I do not have the stomach to do what you do.

  5. Ted Heistman | Dec 9, 2013 at 1:59 pm |

    In all seriousness Matt is some type of Quixotic alchemical magician, that occassionally has the ability to rescue trolls by exorcizing their toxic memes and restoring them to some semblance of sanity, using the milk of human kindness. Its a thankless job, but I have seen him in action! But don’t piss him off! He bcan just as easily banish you to the abyss!

    • Frater Isla | Dec 9, 2013 at 2:09 pm |

      Yeah. How does he DO that?

    • Agreed. There appears to be an intuitive level of organization and flow of subject matter that could not be the product of mere rational planning.
      He gets paid a living wage to do this? More evidence of his magical power.

      • Ted Heistman | Dec 10, 2013 at 8:43 am |

        web content editors get paid less than you may think.

        • Matt Staggs | Dec 10, 2013 at 11:20 am |

          I’ve got about five other jobs.

        • I only know that he ain’t dead. Matt’s comment below does not surprise me. I have been paid little or nothing for many of the things I have done. I ain’t dead either. I’m guessing you and many others here might say the same.

          From one perspective it seems that the more worthwhile I think something is, the more I really want to do it, the less the likelihood I will get a paycheck for doing it. Yet I keep doing those things and I ain’t dead. Sometimes I get paid in misery, from which I learn things and grow. I get a good return on my suffering. Which implies there is either an economic system that includes but transcends cash flow, or I’ve been riding an awesome wave of dumb luck.

    • I seen Matt Staggs butt fuck a yeti just to learn his secrets. #MATTSTAGGS!

  6. emperorreagan | Dec 9, 2013 at 1:59 pm |

    So I guess I’m wrong in assuming your sit in your tower wearing your necro pants and cackling madly while randomly deleting comments and sacrificing small animals to Lucifer…

  7. jasonpaulhayes | Dec 9, 2013 at 2:45 pm |

    Don’t feed them after midnight and try not to get them wet.

  8. American Cannibal | Dec 9, 2013 at 2:56 pm |

    Viva la Disqus!

  9. Ted Heistman | Dec 9, 2013 at 3:42 pm |

    I think theories of racial supremacy should be out in the open to expose the inherent bankruptcy of the position. The problem with a lot of liberal white people is that they think white supremacy is true, but impolite to talk about.

    • emperorreagan | Dec 9, 2013 at 4:31 pm |

      They tend to go about their racism in a sneaky paternalistic or condescending way rather than the openly hostile way people associate with racism and integration in the south.

    • Basically, most materialists and evolutionists are inherent racists. Or anyone who believes Western Civilization is progress. That might be why they compensate w/ their white guilt.
      Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel opened my eyes to a lot of this, not to mention Ted K.’s surprisingly anti-leftist manifesto.

      • Ted Heistman | Dec 9, 2013 at 4:39 pm |

        Yeah, Ted had some good insights, too bad he was a crazy serial killer…seriously!

        • Calypso_1 | Dec 9, 2013 at 5:43 pm |

          Are you familiar with the psych experimentation he was subjected to?

          • I think the psych experimentation only served to wizen him up concerning the ethics and aims of the rulers’ psych technicians, and the rulers in general. I doubt they effectively manipulated him.

          • Calypso_1 | Dec 9, 2013 at 5:50 pm |

            manipulate? wasn’t even suggesting that. damaged more likely.

          • there’s a theory he’s some sorta Manchurian candidate. I thought that’s what you were referring to.
            I read a little about the type of experimentation. how do you figure it damaged him? do you think it was like how some women get raped and hate all men after that? in a way, their hate is justified, considering how many men treat women like sex objects. in this same manner, ted k. was mentally raped by a psych. tech. who supported and represented modern civ. Is his hatred of technicians justified? I’m sure he was wise enough to realize not all technicians are so wicked. but think about the damage done by those who are..

          • Calypso_1 | Dec 9, 2013 at 6:42 pm |

            The experiments were grueling and ego-dissociating based interrogations specifically to test methods for “anxiety & disintegration” designed by the head shrink for the OSS. It had nothing to do with an abusive tech. The subjects were not offered informed consent. At his trial the gov’ts own forensic psych testified that this was the period that his mental illness emerged.

          • if he wasn’t experimented upon like that, do you think he would have still become a radical, or might he just have become the “normal” oversocialized leftist academic that he hated so much?

          • Calypso_1 | Dec 14, 2013 at 1:48 pm |

            Total speculation, but being moderately familiar with his manifesto, the trial & post-incarceration writings & demeanor, I don’t think the man is severely mentally ill. I do see some evidence (as have others) of personality disorder. The level of stress the experimentation induced would certainly exacerbate any underlying issues. I am inclined to think that the experience may have been altering to his life path. To what degree, I’m not sure. From my perspective there was, despite all the ‘radicalism’ and exposition of a rationalized world view, an acting out of a great deal of personal retribution and a lack of awareness of these motives. This in and of itself neither negates the viewpoints or absolves the actions.
            His early life, according to all accounts, despite social involvement, always had an element of separatism. For an expansive mind this can be very painful and lead to a meting out of social dynamics on a very grandiose playing field.

          • Ted Heistman | Dec 9, 2013 at 8:08 pm |

            Yeah, I read about that.

          • misinformation | Dec 10, 2013 at 2:59 am |

            Not entirely an aside. It doesn’t go into detail on the experiments, exactly, but a fascinating documentary imo:


        • yeah, but who isn’t?
          seriously…how many plants, animals and humans who are more dependent on nature than civilization are destroyed or have their habitat destroyed just by you or me by using electricity, driving a car, or by working for The Man? Now, lets ask the same question about those who are even more complicit than us. And what about the quality of life for the majority of earth’s inhabitants because of our “civilization”?
          Not that I’m agreeing w/ the use of violence, because 2 wrongs can’t make a right. But, most serial killers don’t have empathy for living beings. I’m not sure that can be said about Ted. I mean, if you saw yer sister or mother being raped, what should you do? How do you empathize w/ the rapist? Sometimes you might not have a choice in sparing the rapist’s life and rehabilitate him. If that’s possible, that should be tried first. Otherwise, it’s your Moral Duty to protect your sister. I’m not sure anyone who refuses to protect their sister from rape and destruction can be properly called a man. Am I wrong?

          • Ted Heistman | Dec 9, 2013 at 8:06 pm |

            Well, the question for me is how effective his terror campaign was for achieving his goal? I would say not very, except possibly that it achieved him some notoriety and brought exposure to his writing.

          • That was his intention.

            in the 60s, someone like LaVey could simply adopt Satanic paraphanalia as a form ot crazy wisdom and attract attention to his philosophy. By the time of Ted, he had to kill people to attract attention to his text.

          • Ted Heistman | Dec 10, 2013 at 8:30 am |


          • Its true.

            Its now harder to get airtime in the mainstream media channels without it being set up against you. The Unabomber killings were deemed necessary by Ted to draw attention to the ideas in his maniesto.

          • he underestimated the complacency and apathy of the people. not to mention the ineffectiveness of shoving information down people’s throats through the use of violence

          • How about a God who refuses to protect It’s children?

          • Lookinfor Buford | Dec 12, 2013 at 12:53 pm |

            The greatest of teachers won’t hesitate to leave you there by yourself, chained to fate.

          • hes in the process of drawing us out of this world. its our attachment to it that keeps us suffering. that’s why he came to us to teach us to forsake the world and follow him. to release us from suffering.
            as it says in “The Round Dance of the Cross”- “If you know how to suffer, you will know how not to suffer”

      • “Some people are racist and some people are honest.”

    • ‘Theories of racial supremacy’ is a straw man. The ‘white supremacist’ is one of those folk devils erected to prevent discourse. Though there may be many racialist idiots and gobshites, there are actually very few ‘white supremacists’, even on somewhere like Stormfront, that’s if you consider a white supremacist as defined by approaching the media image.

      It is better that images such as that be rejected alongside similar mainstream charicatures of Communists, Islamists etc.

      • Ted Heistman | Dec 9, 2013 at 8:04 pm |

        People of European descent have more deleterious mutations than people of other racial groups. So I am not intimidated by any type of discourse. Maintaining “racial purity” is a dumb idea for people Just like its a dumb idea for dog breeding.

        • misinformation | Dec 10, 2013 at 3:03 am |

          “Maintaining “racial purity” is a bad idea…”

          Aside from it being a losing ‘battle’. Tick tock, tick tock.

          • That isn’t true, most people stick to their own (or those that look like their own). And very few people value strict racial purity, only hardcore biological essentialists, but it doesn’t mean race is completely dissociated from peoples social identities, or their everyday, subconscious judgements such as mate selection.

          • misinformation | Dec 10, 2013 at 4:19 am |

            Most people don’t have the option for anything other than ‘sticking with their own’, financially, if for no other reason. But then you seem to refute your first point by making your second.

            This isn’t scientific in any way but the trajectory appears to be headed towards ‘inter racial mixing’, for lack of a better phrase.

            I’m also not entirely clear about subconscious judgements and their connection to mate selection. You may have to expand on that one, if you decide to.

          • Ted Heistman | Dec 10, 2013 at 8:24 am |

            It can go both ways. How do you know people don’t also subconsciously choose mates outside their race?

          • All I’m saying is that people are hard wired to look for ‘like’ traits in their mates. The average standard for human beauty differs according to race, with preferences for familiar racial features.

            The relationship of human mate selection to race seems equivalent to that in Papio baboons. Though hybrid baboons from crossed ‘species’ (really, baboon races) seem to have increased sexiness whichever of the parent species they are living among, the reason such fertile hybrids are rare is because the parent races are too different to make mating appeal to either ‘species’. The result is that the hybrids simply assimilate into one race or the other and the difference between savannah and Hamadryas baboons is broadly maintained though the genome shows admixture. (Though only hybrid males re thought to have this increased sex appeal.)

            The same distinction between racial phenotypes in the presence of admixture and long-standing contact is found in ie. southeast Asian hunter foragers living alongside mongoloid people. The evidence shows that people largely choose according to phenotypic likeness.

          • Ted Heistman | Dec 10, 2013 at 8:21 am |

            Multiracial children have increased 50% since 2000 its the fastest growing segment of the population born in the US.

          • Part of this may be that whiteness carries less social prestige in an increasingly diverse society, so people no longer deny or rationalise away admixture.

            For example someone I know was disappointed to learn his broad, concave nose ‘only’ made him Alpine rather than part black.

            In the past people went to great lengths to conceal mixture ie. the Portuguese myth around the Melungeons.

        • The higher frequency of deletrious mutations may be true, but still white people are doing fine. Besides, race mixing can carry the risk of introducing new deletrious mutations into a stock.

          Also mixing two different stocks may have unforseen conseqences. Lundman found that there is a higher frequency of skull pathologies when a linear Caucasian and a lateral Caucasian stock are mixed. Israelis found out that mixes of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews are more prone to facial abnormalities.

  10. Thanks for the update Matt and for running a great site. Keep up the good work:)

  11. Make up your mind. Either you believe in the right of a majority to discriminate against you, or you don’t.

    • I don’t understand the question as it appears to be a non-sequitor. I don’t really obsess over discrimination, since all people and societies will discriminate in some way or other, not everyone will ever be happy, and the different moral judgements of any case of discrimination will naturally depend upon their perspective.

  12. There’s no place for that kind of talk.

  13. As an occasional commenter at best around here, but daily reader, I have to say that I think the moderation seems to work pretty well.

    There’s obviously tolerance for some fairly robust discussion, whilst avoiding descending into the kind of pointless abuse and out-and-out racism and/or homophobia that characterises much of what passes for debate on the intermawebs.

    Good job Mr Staggs – even if it does one day turn out that you are indeed a highly ranked member of the Illuminati and/or lizard person!

  14. aliasooze | Dec 9, 2013 at 8:02 pm |

    I’m out of here. Good liuck becoming as irrelevant as MSM.

    • If MSM (whatever that is) failed because it banned people who drop the N-word willy nilly and/or threatening people. Then it failed for a good cause.

      • aliasooze | Dec 9, 2013 at 8:31 pm |

        I did not use foul or insulting language. I added a link to a you tube video that explained how money is created. 3 minute video. It’s been an hour and that comment is still not there. You have already been to the article and gave an explaination and I gave you a thumbs up. If it’s just discus holding it up and not a censoring thing why would it take so long?
        Thanks for telling me about the language that should be used though. Really informative.

        • There is only one Mod, it says so in this very thread. Matt is likely busy and hasn’t checked yet. You are not being singled out. I recommend being patient. This is honestly a very forgiving, smart, and ecclectic community.

          It’s also crude, rude, and most of all sarcastic. Give it a chance, if you want. This site will challenge your perspectives, infuriate you, make you laugh your ass off, and all sorts. If you let it.

          • aliasooze | Dec 9, 2013 at 8:55 pm |

            Do I talk like him/her? It seems the person you are talking about has worn out his welcome which means you know how he operates. I’m not screaming, ranting, raving or cussing. I’m not insulting anyone.

          • Jin The Ninja | Dec 9, 2013 at 9:06 pm |

            i’ve been on this site for close to 3 years posting regularly. sometimes when you link a video or a site- the comment gets caught in the disqus spam box. not a big deal. not enough for the foot-stomping hysterics…

          • When the mod gets a chance, your reply will likely be released.

          • aliasooze | Dec 9, 2013 at 9:25 pm |

            LOL It got released and I corrected a spelling and discus got it again. Too funny. Thanks

    • Matt Staggs | Dec 9, 2013 at 9:24 pm |

      Hey, Aliasooze, I was at Jiu-Jitsu class from about 5:30 PM CST to around 30 minutes ago. I’m home now and have approved your comment. It was caught in the spam filter and I found it there while I was checking in on the site. I’ve found that links in comments tend to get caught more than anything else. I’m the only mod here, and do what I can.

  15. Adam's Shadow | Dec 9, 2013 at 8:17 pm |

    I understand why you guys have the moderation policy that you have, but as far as I’m concerned, if people like c2409175 want to post inane, racist bullshit, let’em. Not that I think you made a bad move or that I necessarily disagree with your decision, and I certainly think his views are reprehensible, but I personally don’t care if someone wants to spew their bile all over the comments section.

    Then again, I’m not a moderator.

    • Matt Staggs | Dec 9, 2013 at 9:27 pm |

      Yeah, I believe everyone has a right to be a creep, but my main concern is having someone come here and not feel welcome because of a bunch of racist comments.

      • Adam's Shadow | Dec 10, 2013 at 9:45 pm |

        Good point – I also understand that the specific use of a certain racial slur was exactly what got dude in trouble, and I agree with that.

        The more I think about it, I realize that I might feel differently about the situation if I was black.

  16. I, for one, never claim to be tolerant.

  17. kowalityjesus | Dec 9, 2013 at 11:23 pm |

    I am shamefully malleable on this subject, among several others. Most unfitting of a Prince. But check this out, for fodder debunking wide conspiracies against whites.

    • “What has that to do with “wide conspiracies against whites”?

      • kowalityjesus | Dec 10, 2013 at 4:54 am |

        Well it clearly illustrates an instance of unified, manifest destruction to a prosperous black community, and a subsequent cover up. Most opposing complaints about racial cover-ups in media cite crime statistics by blacks against whites, and how there is an anti-white agenda in media. I think most of the agenda in the media is to foment and augment whatever conflict already exists between two races, i.e. a satanic agenda.

        • The way the media ‘covers up’ black on white crime isn’t by denying them, but by code words such as ‘youths’. As such they race bait by implication, playing with peoples attitudes by implicit racial identities. I agree with you that the media foment and augment whatever conflict already exists between two races.

          The Trayvon case is an example of this, but also reveals genuinely anti-white sentiments – after all, the media falsely claimed that Zimmerman is white.

          Nonetheless there is however a counter truth, summed up by the missing white girl syndrome. There is no such concern for missing minority children, though I think I’m right saying that more minority kids go missing every year.

          But this inconsistency only exists when you look it it as race vs race. If you remember that the media is run by affluent whites, then the way they treat racial issues can be summed up as affluent whites talking to themselves. And coverage of something like the trial of George Zimmerman reflects political divisions between affluent whites ie. Democrats vs Republicans.

  18. Moderation in moderation. Keep up the good work!

  19. Thank you, Matt.

    I’ve gone on other sites and witnessed too many posts that can only come from the most truly feral of people who are attacking others in vicious ways. I only go on them once because I (like many other people) am only interested in real information not someone’s opinion. Everyone has an opinion. I learn a great deal from the sites I habit: I get links, research, and thoughtful discussions. Getting angry because a post doesn’t go through results from an overblown ego and the belief that what any of us has to say is overly important. No one of us will change the world: thoughtful discussion and an open mind combined with community can do just that.

    Thank you for standing up for a civil society on this site. 🙂

  20. michaelredmond | Dec 10, 2013 at 10:20 am |


  21. Jonas Planck | Dec 10, 2013 at 1:06 pm |

    Yes, Jonas, the Spam Filter works – Matt

    Let me put this Spam filter to the test… My friend made over $300000000000.00 working from home just a few hours a week! Now he has the girth and staying power to satisfy ALL the LADIES!!! It’s a patented method, and all you have to do to get in on the ground floor is go to this link and watch this video!
    Guaranteed to work! Build muscle mass and fulfill your financial finance fantasies!!!

  22. gustave courbet | Dec 11, 2013 at 7:20 pm |

    I wouldn’t mind the occasional nutter slipping through the net, if only so the erudite folks here could disabuse him/her of their foolishness or at least explicate their intellectual deficit.

  23. Dear Matt,
    I admire the creative and ethically-grounded moderation process you have described. How cool, to raise your voice on behalf of civil discourse, regardless of its shape or size. Thanks very much.

Comments are closed.