Monday, January 23, 2006

Some Notes on Decorum

I'd like to remind our readers that our comment strings are made available to debate facts and opinion, and not to make personal attacks on other participants in the forum.

Thanks for your time and attention.

5 comments:

Kelly L. Taylor said...

Thanks for stepping up to the plate and enforcing some standards for responsible discourse, Eric. I imagine it's not fun to be in the position of being the bad guy, but I appreciate you doing it. We don't all have to agree, but I've found it to be a smoother ride when we do all decide to get along with each other, irrespective of differences of opinion. Anyhow, thank you!

Anonymous said...

Editing posts for decorum is completely appropriate. However, I was very disappointed to see that this forum also censors comments that do not agree with the industry line. For instance, I added an additional quote the other day from Miss Nevada re: Yucca Mountain, where she commented that Nevadans will just have to "take one for the team" if any health risks result from the repository. That post was removed, and the option to comment on this item eliminated from the web page. That's unfortunate from the perspective of substantive dialogue. If you think it's so great that Miss Nevada supports Yucca Mountain, you should be willing to let people know exactly what's she saying, informed or not.

Eric McErlain said...

This is incorrect. Commenting on that post was closed after five full days of debate because the entire discussion thread had devolved into name calling. And in fact, it was a personal attack on an individual with an anti-nuclear background that led me to do that.

The comment string was shut down for that reason and that reason alone.

As to obscuring what Miss Nevada actually said, like with all our posts, we included a link to the original source material so readers could decide for themselves. How we could prevent anyone from investigating that information is beyond me.

And as I went back and checked the original comments, I most certainly did not delete the comment directly quoting Miss Nevada.

Let me make this clear: If you leave a comment attacking an individual or their motives instead of their ideas, expect to get shut down. The fact of the matter is I've been very patient on this issue, but my patience has reached its end.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for clarifying Eric. Sorry I jumped to conclusions. For the record, my post did not contain any personal attacks, but I completely understand why other such posts when they do appear would be deleted.

Don Kosloff said...

Consider, for just a moment, the real substance of what Miss Neveda said. That consideration should involve her unprepared comments about spent fuel storage as they might be related to other common activities. For example:

1. Should we consider continuing to burn coal if it involves any health risk?

2. Should we consider continuing the sale of peanut butter if it involves any health risk?

3. Should we consider continuing the use of electricity if it involves any health risk?

4. Should we consider continuing the use of vaccinations if it involves any health risk?

5. Should we consider continuing the use of life-flight helicopters if it involves any health risk.

6. What is the major difference between questions 1 through 5 above and the question Miss Nevada was asked?