Arnold hires private detective to look into  NOV 07 2003

Arnold hires private detective to look into allegations that he groped women; shouldn't he know if he did or not?.

There are 12 reader comments

patricia20 07 2003 9:20AM

maybe he wants the detective to find the women so he can do it again?

dtetto08 07 2003 6:08PM

Furthermore, I don't get the part about he may keep the results secret. What the heck is the point, then, for even those of us not inside Arnie's head?

Mike Aparicio02 08 2003 3:02PM

Probably the same guys who are helping O.J. find "the real killers"...

Joshua41 08 2003 4:41PM

Politicians do this all the time to see what an independent third party can come up with, because if your investigator can find, chances are your opponents can. This practice is commonly known as dust busting.

Controversial Conservative25 09 2003 2:25AM

I'm just surprised that commenting hasn't been blocked from this post yet. Oh wait, not enough opposing viewpoints have been made...

jkottke07 09 2003 2:07PM

I'm just surprised that commenting hasn't been blocked from this post yet. Oh wait, not enough opposing viewpoints have been made...

This is off-topic and I would normally delete it, but since there have been some closed threads lately, I'm going to respond.

I have recently closed two remaindered links threads. One was the photo of Bush signing the partial birth abortion ban. I closed it because the discussion was mostly a battle of entrenched ideologies instead of a productive & useful discussion and also because one participant in the thread posted a comment masquerading as one of the other participants. I should have explained this at the time, but I was disappointed that the thread had gone so wrong so fast when the level of discussion on the site is pretty helpful and instead posted a snarky comment & closed the thread.

The second thread I closed was the ACLU one, in which someone called the members of the ACLU pedophiles. A subsequent poster remarked that I have may have missed some humor, which might be the case, but I figured the only place the thread could have gone was further off-topic, so I closed it.

To help avoid some of these problems in the future, I've added some posting guidelines below the posting form. They read:

"Hearty discussion and opposing viewpoints are welcome, but please keep comments *on-topic* and *civil*. Flaming, trolling, and personal attacks are discouraged and may be deleted. In general, the closer you adhere to these guidelines for focusing on learning, the better off we'll be. Thanks!"

Schmelding27 09 2003 8:27PM

Maybe there are some women out there who don't even know Ahnold who might be trying to cash-in on his success? It's been known to happen before.

Bobby37 10 200312:37AM

Alright, hopefully I can get this out without getting canned for being off-topic (but in all fairness, Jason's previous post takes this section into a different direction). I am also going to attempt to follow as many of the new rules and guidelines as I can, in an effort to show my respect in someone else's house. I think a discussion about some of these outstanding issues would be a diplomatic gesture on the part of Kottke.org.

First I'd like to address the ACLU story. You mentioned that someone stated that the ACLU were pedophiles and that the discussion was headed off-topic. (Rule #9. Respond first to what was said before making your point.) While you may find this statement to be outrageous, and others may find it to be hilarious, others still may find it to be accurate and even appropriate. (Rule #2. Welcome one another's thoughts and opinions.) The ACLU has defended the North American Man/Boy Love Association, which "advocates sex between boys and adult men and the abolition of age-consent laws". In my social construct, that's pedophilia, and I would consider anyone who doesn't agree to be misinformed or delusional. (Make personal statements by using "I" rather than "you".) Therefore, I don't consider the statement "ACLU = Pedophiles" to be neither outrageous or funny in the least bit, but a sad observation based on guilt by association.

Now let's move on to the partial birth story. You mentioned that you were disappointed because the thread had gone "wrong" and became a "battle of entrenched ideologies instead of a productive & useful discussion". According to whom? One person's "wrong" is another person's "oh so very right". Infact, I found that the topic was closed as soon as it was established that most of the respondants were arguing a Pro-Life case. Yet, looking back as early as the third post you will find this comment:

don't you think, Brad (a man, right?), that it's a TINY bit ironic that a law affecting only women, what they can or cannot do with their body, is being signed into effect by a group of primarily white MEN? just the tiny, tiniest bit??

Wow, inflammatory! In my opinion, anyway. Not to mention that it's a personal attack on Brad, which you stated were "discouraged and may be deleted"... Overlooked, I guess. How many white males have been killed by abortions, I wonder? People often forget that abortions always involve at least two parties, the mother and the child. While it is true that sometimes the mother's life is in danger (Rule #1: Release the need to be right.), let's not forget that the baby always dies. Isn't it ironic that someone calling themselves Pro-Choice would sentence an innocent person to death before they are even able to talk, much less express their opinions?

So, why is it then that this topic was allowed to continue for 36 more posts before it was deemed "a battle of entrenched ideologies"? Perhaps entrenched ideologies are the only substance one has when it comes to this debate. Or perhaps everything said was productive and useful, only to different people, and in different ways. Perhaps this mutiny would have been overlooked if the conversation continued on a Pro-Choice agenda? Perhaps that would be a violation of rules 1,2,3, and 8 on the author's part (a la this little ditty (notice the commenting is still open here with no chastisement from Jason)? Don't mind me, I'm just taking time to reflect (Rule #7.)

Now, what we have here are a set of rules you've suddenly put into play that are so utopian that to enforce them would mean to shut comments (if not the entire site) off completely and forever. Let's take a closer look at a few of them.

Flaming, trolling, and personal attacks are discouraged and may be deleted.

You might want to start by removing some of your own Remaindered Links. This, this, and this could all be considered to be different flavors of "personal attacks, flaming, and trolling" by reasonable people. Oh, and I don't need to mention this again, do I?

3. Suspend judgment.

If this rule applies here, then I must have tapped into a parallel universe where Kottke.com is a website that occasionally discusses politics from a liberal perspective, pointing out the shortcomings of the US president, conservative legislature, and the war on Iraq to name a few things. All the while supplying a solid array of links to other sites that support this viewpoint, and allowing readers to post their own comments, often times resulting in a debate. I must be in crazyworld, someone unplug my head socket.

8. Lean into discomfort.

Unless it doesn't suite you, and then brand it "flaming", "trolling", "personal attacks", or "going off-topic", right? Three cheers for symantics!

10. Have fun.

Love it or hate it, I've been an avid reader of this site for nearly 4 years. And this is precisely the reason, it was fun. I remember the good old days of Kottke.com when we lived in a carefree world and your posts would actually be fun. I can appreciate the fact that you've grown up a bit since then, but if this page gets any more cynical and political I'm going to have to shoot myself (hold your applause, liberals!).

Jason, I'm in no place to tell a successful web designer and blogger what to do, but let me offer you three bits of advice:

1. Lighten up.
2. Loosen up.
3. Don't bite off more than you can chew, unless you're willing to have a stomach ache now and again.

Regards,
The Controversial Conservative, AKA Bobby.

Bobby39 10 200312:39AM

Correction: "This little ditty", also mentioned later as "this", was meant to point here, instead of simply being bold.

M.Kelley42 10 200310:42AM

But didn't the ACLU help defend a high school basketball player who was kicked off the team because he/she refused to attend a Sunday practice, for religious reasons? So your swipe about the ACLU being in bed with the pedos doesn't equate. The ACLU is in bed with everyone, christian, atheist, gay, bi , straight.

Sorry but free speech doesn't say, "Free Speech, But the following....". Free speech includes opposing viewpoints, hate speech, and just things that might make me and you sick. Free Speech also means that people in the minority also have a voice and not just people in power. Free Speech is neither republican or democrat.

I'm a registered republican and I am a member of the ACLU. And I also know it's Jason's site, not a newspaper or tv station. He doesn't have to keep your post or listen to your asinine assumptions.

megnut09 10 200311:09AM

But Bobby, you forgot number 6 in your response:

6. Clarify first what was said before you challenge someone

Jason also says that he closed the abortion thread, "because one participant in the thread posted a comment masquerading as one of the other participants."

jkottke11 10 2003 1:11PM

hopefully I can get this out without getting canned for being off-topic (but in all fairness, Jason's previous post takes this section into a different direction).

I did indeed.

Therefore, I don't consider the statement "ACLU = Pedophiles" to be neither outrageous or funny in the least bit, but a sad observation based on guilt by association.

Defending the rights of pedophiles and being a pedophile are two different things.

So, why is it then that this topic was allowed to continue for 36 more posts before it was deemed "a battle of entrenched ideologies"?

Much to my surprise, that thread generated 39 comments in less than 2 1/2 hours. I didn't have time that day to step in to try to moderate the thread nor did I see any of the comments until the thread was (IMO) out of control. The thread was "allowed to continue" because I can't babysit every single active thread on my site every single minute of the day.

As for the rest of it, you either trust me to be fair in determining what's allowed and what isn't or you don't. That trust is gained or lost through my behavior in dealing with the discussions. Since turning on comments for the remaindered links, I have closed exactly 2 threads (out of more than 1000) and deleted a very small amount of comments (out of more than 2800). I think this track record shows that the vast majority of people who comment here know what is expected of them and that I'm pretty fair as to what is allowed. If you don't wish to participate on the site because you don't trust my judgment, you are free not to. Commenting on the site either works as it has been working, or I turn the commenting off completely. I (literally) don't have time for anything else.

Finally, I'm closing this thread because it is hopelessly off-topic and this is not the place to continue this discussion. Bobby, if you have further specific concerns, you may email me directly with them. Thanks.

This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.

this is kottke.org

   Front page
   About + contact
   Site archives

You can follow kottke.org on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Feedly, or RSS.

Ad from The Deck

We Work Remotely

 

Enginehosting

Hosting provided EngineHosting