Yo.
I like the format. Fiona, thanks so much for all your hard work!
Let's just take baby steps at first. Leave Twitter rolling.
Because you never know.
My intent is to post articles (like the one about the demonizaton of Barr, which I also found separately) I find around the 'nets for your amusement and comment. I might even do some original stuff, but I'm eager to let this thing develop organically.
I remain stunned at the high-handed and opaque way the WSJ decide to make its drastic changes to the commenting system, and immolate the BOTW community.
Most offensive is the fact they can't just tell us what they are doing and trying to accomplish
.
Someone over there said we were being "petulant" by bailing.
I'm sorry, but when someone takes 50 percent of the value out of a product I've bought for years, "petulant" does not begin to describe my feelings.
I might buy back in to the WSJ, under my wife's name, or even my own, to snag a cheap sub.
But if they don't want me commenting, I got no problem not commenting. I didn't mind providing them with content, when they wanted my content, and yours.
PS: Not everyone uses their real name around here. Let's respect that. Because as a big brother, I know that Big Brother is always watching! :)
Hi, Todd! Thanks so much for supporting the blog idea. Good advice re baby steps. It's easier to run if you know how to walk first.
ReplyDeleteThere were multiple reasons why I stopped commenting at WSJ. The platform change was one reason. It became difficult to track a conversation, and the e-mail notifications were awkward. Lack of spare time became a problem as well. I do read others' comments there from time to time. And there were personal reasons.
Thanks for accepting the invitation to be a contributor, Todd. Contributors are able to write posts for others to comment on. Anyone who would like to be a contributor, please contact botwrefugees at gmail dot com (I have broken the e-mail address into segments so as not to attract the big bots that sweep the interwebs to grab e-mail addresses to spam and phish).
Let's just see how this evolves ...
Odd tidbit:
ReplyDeleteCarriker showed up in my comments yesterday, and I "ignored" him long ago.
Then another "ignored" showed up.
Either there is an upper limit to how many you can ignore (and I only ignore egregious commentators over there) or the mods are determining who we "should" and "should not" ignore.
Bizarre.
Officially, my sub ends the 27th.
My sub ended, too. A month early. I feel gypped not to have gotten my full 12 months. I can't afford the high cost of admission to get back in. Am going to miss the daily crosswords, and the Review section in the weekend edition.
ReplyDeleteAs for the number of ignores, I recall when I started ignoring Carriker et al., I saw a warning that there was a limit. You've probably reached your limit, Todd. Maybe the reason he showed up was a first-in, first-out, thing?
Todd - I just tried to reply to you on today's column. I think I am "blacklisted" because it went straight to moderation. nothing remotely abusive and totally in line with the rules. I'm not buying what the Jameses are selling just yet.
ReplyDeleteMelly, I'm not buying tit until everyone who has been black-boxed gets back in and stays in. Granted, I haven't been commenting on BOTW lately, but I have heard enough grievances to know that there's trouble in River City.
DeleteYou wrote: All-time highs.
ReplyDeleteWe seem to be hearing that a lot during the Trump presidency.
My reply: Absolutely - and "funny" how hard it is to find anything resembling positive coverage about it.
What about that required moderation?