Thursday, June 21, 2007

I'm really sorry to all the decent Anonymous commenters here, but given that I seem to have a stalker that I cannot be bothered to put up with, I have disabled Anonymous comments. Those of you who are sane know what to do. To the rest of you, I'm sorry. I shall try to enable them again at some point in the future.

I have always tried to encourage free debate here at The Kitchen, but I don't see why I should have to take unreasoned abuse*. I could re-implement Haloscan and ban by IP address, but I've just spent a lot of time getting rid of them and I cannot be arsed.

* Actually, I do take unreasoned abuse: it would be hypocritical not to. However, I got bored by the the sheer volume of the off-topic paranoid ravings.


Unsworth said...

Anonymity doesn't encourage free debate, it encourages reckless and damn stupid debate - in my view. Personally I think you should keep the ban in place. After all, commenters can always adopt a nom de guerre if they are a little shy.

And it would help to follow threads through if anons were banned.

guido faux said...

You are only as anonymous as your IP address and I'm just as anonymous as I've always been even though I've just signed up.

Why don't you just turn on moderation DK?

the A&E Charge Nurse said...

Surely internet debate is ehanced by trying to imagine the traits and foibles of blogger adversaries, and for that we need a name, any will do, so long as it's consistent - after all, threads soon run dry if we all agree with each other ?
Or put another way I doubt if any of us enjoy the same infantile pleasure when a skillfully constructed insult gets wasted on 'anonymous'

On a slightly different tack - the Devil and his acolytes will, no doubt, continue to insinuate their libertarian fantasies on gullible commentators.
But the A&E charge nurse, and one or two others refuse to taken in by by these free wheeling mammonite predelictions.

In time some of you might realise that hedonism burns out only to be replaced asceticism.

Mark Wadsworth said...

What Chuck says. I only post under my real name.

A&E, why do you equate libertarianism with hedonism? The aim of libertarianism (ugly word) is not to try to encourage or influence or change behaviour (or not any more than is necessary in a civilised society).

Katy Newton said...

Anyone who thinks that DK is acting disproportionately (not that anyone so far has said so) has never had to delete 30 comments filled with utter lunacy at two in the morning to make room for people who were actually interested in the subject of the post...

guido faux said...

OK now we're dying to know what the comments were.

Katy Newton said...

They were so utterly mindless and incoherent that it is difficult to replicate one, but they were something like:


Expand that into several paragraphs and multiply it by thirty and that's about the size of it.

The Remittance Man said...

It's a pity DK has been forced to do this - poking sticks at the loonies is always fun - but I I can see why it was necessary.

btw, Sister A&E, I think you may be confusing libertarian with libertine. It's a common enough mistake but one easily rectified by a quick trip to wikipedia or

Jackart said...

I abuse my commenters. Maybe that's why no-one comments on my blog...

the A&E Charge Nurse said...

remittance man - a case of another follower blinded by his masters voice ?

Unknown said...

a pity it has come to this. i've noticed on this blog and lots of others that folks like to leave anonymous tip offs and tittle tattle so that their civil service masters dont know who is leaking the information.

anonymous comments are very important to the flow and ebb of debate. its a pity that some people abuse that privilege.

Unknown said...

may i add, if a blogger has anonymous comments enabled it basically means "i trust you".

i wish people would get that into their heads. its not meant to be abused - its actually a privilege, a mark of trust, from the blogger to you personally.

if anonymous comments died out on the blogosphere then it will be the death of blogging. i hope more people get this into their heads. its a privilege - not a right.

Mark Wadsworth said...

"YOU ARE ON DEATH ROW IN TEXAS" what sort of pathetic insult is that?

"You are the Goblin King's illegitimate son", now that's a gratuitous insult that must have hurt.

Devil's Kitchen said...


Absolutely correct: I have the greatest respect for almost all my commenters.

Also, if people are going to take the time to enter a discussion and give feedback, I have always thought that I should make it as easy as possible for them to do so.

And, yes, I could moderate comments; however, first, I would still have to use them and, second, I think that this delays debate quite significantly. This last point is the most important and the reason why moderation would be my absolute last resort.



Roger Thornhill said...

a&e:But the A&E charge nurse, and one or two others refuse to taken in by by these free wheeling mammonite predelictions.

In time some of you might realise that hedonism burns out only to be replaced asceticism.

oh dear, falling into that "Not socialist = greedy capitalist" trap again. Greedy capitalists are not socialists, but that does not make everyone who is not a socialist a greedy capitalist.

the A&E Charge Nurse said...

Thanks Roger, just one question though - what makes you think I'm a socialist ?

Have you had a look at the John Gray quote [on the Henry George post] - a real corker don't you think ?

basingstoker - couldn't agree more.

Devil, very sorry to hear that some tedious dickhead is trying to ruin the party, but please don't interupt the momentum of us humble bloggers - we do enjoy our jousting you know.

Devil's Kitchen said...

A&E C/N, as you know, I value it as much as you.

I don't think that Roger was necessarily putting you down as a socialist; merely more statist than he or I.


Mark Wadsworth said...

A&E, we are going round in circles, I do not get the impression that Rog said that just because you are probably not a greedy capitalist (as defined) you must thus automatically be a socialist.

Mark Wadsworth said...

And yes I have had a look at hte John Gray quote, what on earth does that have to do with Henry George?

Russia (either under Communism or as it is now) is about as far from HG's libertarian model (or anybody else's for that matter) as you can get.

Flavious said...

Mmm, I read quite of few of those rants last night prior to bed. Seems eminently fair that you have taken this step. No doubt the irritating little troll will wander off to pester someone else once he realises you'll have no truck with him here.

Roger Thornhill said...

a&e, I was not talking about you, but just your comment about "us". Of course, when you bandy about false dichotomies and falsly label others you can accidentally falsely label yourself! ;-)

Further, your quote on the Henry George post probably says more about you than anyone else. I would also venture to assert that "sinister libertarian" is an oxymoron.

One thing about Russia is weak Rule of Law, particularly around property rights and due process. It is therefore absolutely nothing to do with Libertarianism. Another case of "not x so must be y" praps?

JuliaM said...

Hmm, yes, that does sound like quite a loony. Why do they always have a problem with 'caps lock'..?

Hopefully, they will shove off soon and haunt some other poor soul's blog. Preferably someone who deserves it.

flashgordonnz said...

"I-don't-accept-a-link-exists-between-human-production-of-CO2-and-alleged-global-warming” = “murdering-Nazi-capitalist-exploiter”... another example of people not remembering (or understanding, or choosing to ignore?) “unions”, "intersections” and “subsets” from early maths.

On a slightly different tack – left-wing and government-apologist bloggers and their acolytes will, no doubt, continue to insinuate their socialist centrally planned fantasies on gullible and vulnerable commentators.

The Remittance Man said...

Sister A&E,

If by follower blinded by his master's voice you mean that I am also of a libertarian bent, then you are correct; DK and I do share similar outlooks on life on some issues. This hardly makeshim my "master" however.

Anyway, I still contend that your automatic branding of all libertarians as libertines (or hedonists, to use your own phrase) is incorrect. To my mind libertines tend to embrace all manner of vices, quite often with the specific aim of provoking a reaction from more hidebound people. Quite often they also refuse to accept responsibility for any possible consequences.

Libertarians on the other hand acknowledge the existence of vices and simply ask to be allowed to enjoy those they have chosen in return for accepting the responsibility for any consequences.

Of course if one is of the nanny persuasion, one would find it hard to accept that anybody should be allowed to make a free choice, about anything. And the concept of individual responsibility would be anathema.

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...