Lessons Learned.
I didn't announce that I had taken the posts down when it happened because I didn't think I needed to. When the news came out, though, it became clear that a lot of people disagreed with my decision.
Some of our community here at Boing Boing, and elsewhere around the web, viewed the post takedown as a violation of an unwritten rule of blog etiquette. Many more were frustrated with us for taking so long to respond, and being vague when we finally did. You, our readers, were angry because we weren't communicating with you.
We're sorry we didn't communicate more quickly and clearly. We delayed posting in part because I (and we) were trying to avoid something I feared would become a petty, personal online fight that would violate the privacy of parties involved.
When it became clear this strategy wasn't fair to our community, we were in a poor position to respond: a few of the Boingers were on vacation in remote places with their families, making coordinated communication and action difficult.
Finally, when we did post a response that drew heated comments, we didn't have a way to coordinate with our moderators and join the conversation in a consistent way. We screwed up. And we're sorry.
I'm certainly not going to say I'm glad this whole thing happened, but we did learn a lot. The whole kerfuffle made us realize that the way we work together needs to evolve as we grow. Boing Boing is still the shared personal blog of multiple editors who work together asynchronously with almost no formal editorial process. That's the way Boing Boing began and I hope it doesn't change too much. Each of us has our own opinions and we may not agree with each other. We don't coordinate what we post, and until now, we didn't have a process or protocol for taking posts down.
In fact, it's not unusual for us to take down posts. For example, I might accidentally post something that Pesco hit on a week (or a year), before. So I nuke my post. Or Mark might make a quick post on some big topic, not knowing that Cory is working on a longer, more-informed piece. Very rarely, we also take posts down for personal reasons. It's an incredibly infrequent occurrence, but sometimes one of us feels strongly that it's the right thing to do.
We've learned, though, how much those decisions can impact each other and our readers. So in the extraordinary event that one of us feels compelled in the future to take down any of our past work for non-usual reasons, we've agreed that we'll talk to each other before acting. That way, we can weigh the decision very carefully as a group and consider all of the possible consequences. In the end though, the decision will be up to the person who made the posts. After all, it's his or her work.
But we also do believe that transparency is a desirable goal. So we're exploring a few ideas for providing information to our community when we take down posts for reasons above and beyond the norm (dupes, etc.). If you have thoughts on that, we'd love to hear them.
Thanks for your continued support. Now, let the happy mutation continue....
good faith,it's needed ALL around
I still don't understand why you have to explain yourself. It's your site. It's your call.
To whom are you beholden? The Internet cranks?
Thank you.
I came here to say just what #2 said so eloquently. Hopefully though, this long drawn-out apology will appease those of you that find the greatest pleasure in coming to Boing Boing to bitch and moan about nonsense. Pick your battles people. Pick your battles...
long live xeni!!
It's your site, your blog, do what you want. I don't see why other people think you have to live by their arbitrary rules.
I'm another one who agrees with #2, MHains. *shrug* Except if you put up and then take down an excellent recipe.
As far as I was concerned, the issue was tango uniform from the get go - it's your blog, do as you wish. Nicely said, tho. No more needs to be.
While I have a prurient interest in any gossip about what the fall-out with the Other Party was all about, you are in no way beholden to the public to keep your posts up in perpetuity. There's no social contract promising all blogs to be immutable and inviolate. Disgruntled readers and commenters who believe such a promise has been made and violated can go read something else, or get used to disappointment.
The fire BB had come under can only be seen as a measure of its success; a non-issue blown completely out of proportion because you're popular. Most bloggers can delete their old posts all day long and nobody -- NOBODY -- cares. That makes them cranky and jealous, I suppose.
Wow, I just can't believe that people need to create a tempest in a tea-pot over something as innocuous as unpublishing (i.e. not deleting) some archived posts you felt were not longer appropriate for personal reasons on your own website.
I set older posts on my own livejournal to 'friends only' or even 'private' because they are valid for myself, but not necessarily something I want shared any longer. Of course, there is a huge leap between my tiny corner of LJ and bb.net, but the hardercore-than-though internet crowd ought to cut the BB editors some slack.
I would hate to see BB become a website known for arbitrary censorship and post facto retractions on a regular basis, but I'm going to trust Xeni's judgment and continue to not notice such unproblematic actions. Further, I recommend the rest of the internet learn to take it easy and pick your battles much more wisely - it would save the BB front page from having two long, overly dramatic, navel gazing posts appear on the frontpage in rapid succession (ie. violetblue) about something 99% of us have no knowledge of.
Removed posts?
Took down posts?
If nothing else, at least you've dropped the Orwellian 'unpublished'.
Good to hear more about this at last.
By the way, if I were you I would make sure to read this post, by a friend of mine:
http://www.websnark.com/archives/2008/07/sing_a_song_of.html
And take its advice to heart.
I still don't understand why you have to explain yourself. It's your site. It's your call.
To whom are you beholden? The Internet cranks?
I know people (ok, a person) who feels poorly about your "unpublishing" of late, but I don't understand his point of view.
Keep up the work; I judge it good. :)
ditto #2
Apparently there's a fairly large contingent of readers who feel its their given right to be informed of every thing that goes on behind the scenes, as evidenced by the train wreck of the original thread. I don't get it either.
And lets not start up again with the "zomgz, "unpublished is ORWELLIAN!" stuff again, because its very very silly and inaccurate.
TimW @11, the word is still "unpublished" if you use Movable Type.
As I was just observing the other day, any word can be made to sound Orwellian. Orwell generated horror using plain standard English.
This once again proves that the best way to draw attention to something is to try to hide it.
On the one hand, I roll my eyes at the notion that this had any noticeable harmful effect on either the Internet or the world.
On the other, people do link in to BB, and the phenomenon of link rot is an irritating one. I can see why someone who'd linked in would be taken aback.
To a certain extent, I'd like to point out that link rot exists even at sites other than BoingBoing, and that if someone thinks a particular page should have more than momentary relevance they should take care of their own backups instead of expecting you to be an immutable resource for ever and ever amen.
But -- if you choose to do so -- then deletions at a later date might better be implemented as redirect pages to a post noting and explaining the deletion. Then nobody has those nasty 404s that threaten our civilization so direly, and you've been all open about your editorial decisions (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean in your context) and everybody will hopefully be less unhappy about the situation.
But I'm still rolling my eyes at the amount of furor this caused. It cost me a perfectly good three days, too. I'm an idiot.
Thanks for the support, all. We're not thinking we have to live by anyone else's rules, but we want to make sure we do what we feel is the right thing. And what our community says really does matter to us, even if it's critical. Although, of course, positive reinforcement is always appreciated! Thanks again. : )
@timw, I think its' fair to say that we should have explained what we meant by "unpublish" in the initial post when we first posted it, but that term has been explained many, many times since. It's not an "Orwellian" neologism, it's the name of a button in movable type that allows you to remove a post from public view, or take it down, *without* deleting it. So if you want to republish, if you evaluate things and change your mind, you can later on. In this case, the original decision stands.
@Michael, maybe clever 404 pages (or informative ones!) would be helpful. Someone in the other thread posted some hilarious collections of good 404 page designs.
I went to a garden party to reminisce with my old friends
A chance to share old memories and play our songs again
When I got to the garden party, they all knew my name
No one recognized me, I didn't look the same
CHORUS
But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well.
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself
People came from miles around, everyone was there
Yoko brought her walrus, there was magic in the air
'n' over in the corner, much to my surprise
Mr. Hughes hid in Dylan's shoes wearing his disguise
CHORUS
lott-in-dah-dah-dah, lot-in-dah-dah-dah
Played them all the old songs, thought that's why they came
No one heard the music, we didn't look the same
I said hello to "Mary Lou", she belongs to me
When I sang a song about a honky-tonk, it was time to leave
CHORUS
lot-dah-dah-dah (lot-dah-dah-dah)
lot-in-dah-dah-dah
Someone opened up a closet door and out stepped Johnny B. Goode
Playing guitar like a-ringin' a bell and lookin' like he should
If you gotta play at garden parties, I wish you a lotta luck
But if memories were all I sang, I rather drive a truck
CHORUS
lot-dah-dah-dah (lot-dah-dah-dah)
lot-in-dah-dah-dah
'n' it's all right now, learned my lesson well
You see, ya can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself
Another vote with #2.
It's your writing and your private life. What you share is cool, and if at any point you stop wanting to share, frankly, I think it's your right.
Social conventions around this stuff are still evolving, but frankly I hope they move in a direction that has more respect for people's privacy than we saw through this whole episode.
@Michael (#18), Your idea is one we've talked about. Thanks for posting that. I agree that 404s suck. When I dig deep into the BB archives, I notice that a lot of our older "Links" go to 404s and that's a drag, especially when I want to add "Previously on BB" refs to new posts.
you know, i still don't agree with how this is handled - but i think there's a bigger lesson here to be learned: it's really easy to perceive that this was some sort of orchestrated smear, or cabal-esque decision, because there was a perfect vacuum for those theories to expand and thrive.
i can't say i believe any one party in all of this, or hold any in any higher or lower regard - but i think the personal experience that you've all had to go through in how this sort of negative opinion could flourish is an object lesson that should be remembered the next time you (being all of boingboing) decided to take any entity to task for withholding or omitting information... because really, the reasons could spring forth from a similar place.
however, as much i feel that you should take your lumps (which you guys have), the stickers i've been seeing slapped onto various newspaper boxes in SF with "Unpublished" in the boing boing font are just damned funny, in that "come on, this is getting silly" kind of way. i'd post a link to a snapshot, but it's my understanding hyperlinks are frowned upon in comments.
Takuan, we can always count on you for meaningful musical interludes. Thanks, bub. :)
Robotech @12, fine; that's a decent link.
In general, we're hoping readers will be parsimonious with links in this thread.
Together we stand, Xeni.
(Excuse me while I don my patented Evil Villain top hat with built-in monocle. There.)
In my own much smaller adventures in blogging, I discovered something valuable. I made a few unintentionally inflammatory posts and drove some people away. It turns out that their absence wasn't really a loss. The internet cranks do add something to the conversation, but they take away something, too.
This whole affair has driven away some people who you can easily afford to lose. If it wasn't this, it would be something else. In the process, you've learned something and brought the rest of the community just a little bit closer together. All in all, it's probably a win.
wholeheartedly ditto #2. totally.
@#25 sushispook, the experience has given me a greater fascination for larger incidents of conspiracy theory. I am now even more confident that well-trained attack gerbils did not bring down the twin towers with republican laser beams.
I would also like to point out that contrary to reports on some MySpace pages, there were ZERO Mossad agents in the building when these Boing Boig posts were unpublished.
ditto #2
@#28 Ken Snider is the best sysadmin in the world, and quite possibly one of the best humans in the world, too.
@Sushipook, you should post hyperlinks to those pictures. I am anxiously awaiting the day that I can joke about "unpublishing" without it being too flippant. But in the meantime, I'm glad someone else is doing it!
Gah, I can't even spell the name of my own blog. BING BONG. There.
Ken Snider rocks.
You gotta lotta class, pal.
SUSHISPOOK (@#25), Thanks for not posting links in the thread. However, I would like to see the stickers you mentioned! Very funny idea. Can you please email me the snapshot directly?
Who cares if you guys take stuff down? It's your blog, your material, your business what happens to it.
Besides, who goes digging through archives in the blog business anyway? All blog readers want is new material. Sad but true.
Xeni: Mossad? No kidding? How did I miss that one?
While Boing Boing's credibility may have been shaken, I can't really see this is a big deal. Maybe to some the ideals you've shared over the years now seem less sturdy, I'm not sure that's the only reason people come here anyway. Despite all this deleted post nonsense, Boing Boing is still a site I visit everyday. And everyday I find something entertaining, interesting, outrageous, hilarious, etc. No, you're deleting of posts is not going to stop me from reading.
NO WITNESSES! BANG! BANG! BANG BANG!!
TheWomanYouStole (@#41), Thank you. Means a lot.
Just keep up the good work, folks.
As for suggestions: Instead of unpublishing unfortunate posts, maybe just disemvowel them?
(Apologies if this was already suggested in the gargantuan TVBT post.)
Maybe you could redirect to a very unique 404 page featuring kittens and duckies?
Rock on Xeni.
I agree with the "your blog" and "eyerolling" comments. This whole thing was overinflated in the first place.
I'm glad it's over.
Well said #2. I just shook my head reading the "irate" complaints about it. It felt like they were trying to create drama where none existed.
TheWomanYouStole, it may be shaken but I trust it's not stirred.
I think this comes down to the difference between Art and Journalism. If this is Art, and it has been stated that it is, then the Artist has full control both creatively and otherwise. If it's Journalism then it must be evaluated with those standards, and unpublishing may or may not be the right thing to do. I think part of the problem here is that people are in conflict over the definitions of what this is. So I support the right of an Artist to do whatever they please with their own Art.
Just keep in mind when you guys eventually control our entire government, someone might be able to credibly accuse you of censorship.
You might wanna amend the Constitution beforehand. Unless someone is already taking care of that!
Oh, and I meant to say: I deeply admire the way you all have dealt with it. Especially you, Xeni. Some of those people were so nasty about it that I would have just dropped a note to TNH asking her to ban their IP address from ever commenting again, but you answered them forthrightly, even when they were just piling on, rather than making legitimate criticisms.
I don't think I could have done that.
There appears to be a state of surprise when a website goes from obscurity to widespread readership and its owners are now held to a standard of practice that the original bloggers never really imagined themselves to have signed up for. To the bloggers, it's still "their" site - and while techincally true in the property rights aspect of who owns the website, there is an overlooked effect that comes with reaching a level of success in both readership number and duration.
It's called the brand identity - and here, BB has developed its own brand identity and a level of public goodwill associated with it. This goodwill is expressed in the level of expectations that the public builds upon that brand. This level of expectation can act as stifling shackles to some. For example, if a personality such as Barack Obama were to start acting in porn movies, the public outcry would be huge. Yet, that would be well within his constitutional rights and within his personal prerogative to do so. So the conflict is not a legal one but one of responsibility toward a public good which the public has grown to expect.
So yeah, BB still owns its own sandbox and may do as it wishes. It hasn't broken any rules. It isn't the issue to question the legal rights of unpublishing an article. Rather, the reaction is a measure of the public disappointment upon discovering a set of events that falls short of the set of quality standards expected from BB.
The second part of what made this event more damaging is the way the aftermath was handled. Questions naturally arose but the response to this was to go on the attack. Moderators and BB contributors were liberal in the ad hominems toward those who wanted to understand the issue more fully. The issue could have been put to bed with much less noise had there been a better and swifter clarification of what happened.
While we will likely never find out why any of this even happened, I think the exercise is a good lesson in appreciating that a brand can have an identity independent of the personalities that created it and that it remains as fragile as ever no matter how much hard work goes into building it up and it doesn't take much to cause or permit damage to come to it.
Wait. What?
Some intertube grognards complained because you took down a post?
Who gives a flying--
It's your site, do what you want with it.
You do what you want. The sane ones among us won't mind a bit. If anything, you should unpublish a few more entries, just to see how high you can raise the incontinence level of the audience.
Ken who?
I love the term NUKE.
Ken means mountain in Chinese. To be firm and consistent is important, and I find BB to encapsulate both. I'm not Chinese, I'm a guy at a computer not knowing what's for lunch. Maybe I'll feast my eyes on Xeni for dessert.
I know this website is run by androids.
Peace.
David/Joel - i sent the graphic along to David's pesco address.
Maybe a "removed due to X" post replacing the original? If the post is removed due to more thorough coverage elsewhere, a link to that coverage would work.
If it's a retraction, just say that, maybe with a brief reason why.
If it's a "OMG, I was drunk when I wrote that!" reason, that would work too :)
#2 got it right imo!
Being relaxed about it all is important, and all writers/bloggers/artists need a healthy amount of relaxed space to help with the creative process. Don't let us stress you guys out! You do good work, and on the off-chance you screw something up, I figure you've earned plenty of breathing room in the first place. Much
=)
@rstevens, hahahahah. Hey shouldn't you be doing something else, like drawing?
I'm sure there are circumstances that would...necessitate the pulling of a post. (I won't waste anyone's time with my guesses.) But wouldn't most circumstances get by with just an update, maybe just a cursory one, to the post? I mostly agree with the ownership argument that most commenters have offered here ("Hey, it's your site! Do what you feel!"), but I couldn't help feeling a little shortchanged when I heard about this. BB has made its (much deserved) rep with an almost slavish commitment to openness and community, so it shouldn't expect to be judged by the same, ever-weakening standard to which other sites (and other media outlets) pay slippery lip service.
I don't even know what flap you're talking about. I vaguely remember some post about a deleted a few weeks (or months?) ago, shrugged, ignored it, and read on to more interesting topics.
Some people don't seem to have enough to worry about. Carry on, Xeni, et al.
Thanks Xeni. Well Said.
To those who say "I still don't understand why you have to explain yourself. It's your site."
If they just thumbed their noses at us rather than try to explain their actions I doubt this blog would have many readers. It is exactly this kind of openness that keeps people coming back.
I guess this is where I get attacked form both sides...
"But they weren't very open when they deleted the posts in the first place!"
And
"This is their blog and they can do as they please. If you don't like it go somewhere else."
Yawn.
I agree with TheUnusualSuspect (#44).
Imagine what it would be like to stumble upon the disemvoweled posts having no knowledge of the practice.
This isn't 'Nam Smokey! There are RULES!
Seriously though, this isn't government, it's an ONLINE JOURNAL. The contributors are not beholden to the readers at all. Their ball, their game. Don't like it? Go find another one.
2,4,6-
Why?
Because civility in the face of incivility is, in fact, one of the defining characteristics of civility. Because "the internet cranks" and those who "find the greatest pleasure in coming to Boing Boing to bitch and moan about nonsense" were just the extreme edge of a deeper and more thoughtful concern about the nature of private media outlets, public blogs, and their evolution in the public square.
Finally: because it's obvious that Xeni et al are concerned about BoingBoing and are at the forefront of the aforementioned evolution and merging of private and public spaces. It's all well and good to ask "Why should they care what these idiots think?" but it's obvious that they do care and that they want to manage BB in a way that is consistent with their values.
Make no mistake, ultimately I agree with you. BB is a private enterprise, and they can do what they wish with it.
BB isn't beholden to anyone except its ownership, but I think it's the transparency of the process and concern enough to discuss that process which differentiates this particular private enterprise from many others, even if I disagree with the decisions made.
@#64GuySmiley, it's okay. He's with the band.
Still not a peep from the usual suspects on these subjects... so I'm sure I'm not alone in waiting to hear what Mark and Cory have to say.
"Xeni offed Ms. Blue in the library with a candlestick."
Unusual Suspect @44, it's a lot harder to restore a disemvowelled comment than an unpublished one. On the other hand, there's a certain amusement value in figuring out what it says.
@ #62: Being that defensive means you already know you're wrong. ;)
I get annoyed if my own thoughts get edited here, but nowhere is the phrase "It's their blog, they can do what they want." more appropriate than here.
If Xeni has personal issues for removing entries that fell of the front page eons ago, then it shouldn't matter to us.
ditto# 2
Holybuzz @60:
Absolutely. That's why it's what usually happens.Also, as long as Boing Boing is indexed by the Wayback Machine, there's a limit on how secret any change can be. The same goes for every other website they index. I keep thinking that someday someone's going to figure out how to generate diffs on the data at Wayback, and all the web's second thoughts will be laid bare.
Someone back there wrote:
"And lets not start up again with the "zomgz, "unpublished is ORWELLIAN!" stuff again, because its very very silly and inaccurate."
It is completely accurate. It was and is Orwellian. Just look at one of the posts Xeni unpublished - a 2005 post with images taken after the London subway bombing. In that post, Violet Blue is mentioned once because she pointed to another blog that carried images of the London bombing.
Removing an item like that because it tangentially mentions someone that Xeni has a personal dispute with is entirely Orwellian.
Fine, it's their blog, they can remove posts about the London subway bombing or a post about cutting edge anti-HIV ads that ran in France or whatever because they have personal disputes with people tangentially mentioned in the post. Just don't expect to have any credibility left when you pull that kind of nonsense.
You know right about now, I bet everyone in the Bush administration hates Scott McLellan with a passion. And yet they haven't gone through and scrubbed transcripts of press briefings he held because they no longer want to associate with him, and if they did we'd be outraged at that attempt to rewrite the WH history over that sort of dispute.
And apparently BB still doesn't get that basic understanding of what happened here.
I suppose it's too much to ask that you edit this post slightly and date it back a couple of weeks, and then pretend that it was your first comment on the matter? No? Okay, it's your blog.
Teresa @ 73:
This has already happened to the Obama campaign, more or less. Part of a 21st century "flip-flop" attack. The McCain campaign contracted with a service, but the principle is much the same.
Wait - Obama's doing porn now?
@67: Xeni speaks for me -- and I'm off for the weekend to celebrate my birthday. AFAIC, if one of my co-eds wants to delete some posts they made, it's jake with me.
#52 and #65 have it right.
It's not about BoingBoing not having every right to do what they want to with their blog. They do. It's their sandbox, and the people crying "censorship! censorship!" were dead wrong.
But as Sam Neill's character points out in Jurassic Park, what you can do and what you should do are not always going to be the same thing. People trust BoingBoing to be open, forthright, and transparent—if only because of all the times it criticizes other sites that are not open, forthright, and transparent. For BoingBoing to suddenly seem to be saying "Don't do as I do, do as I say" can leave a bad taste in people's mouths, and those people react harshly because you've just damaged a bit of their self-image.
For all of that, it would have been a tempest in a tea cup if subsequent mistakes hadn't compounded the matter.
I can't believe that people have and still are getting angry or in any way emotional over this (including the latest sad diatribe from #74). It's your blog, do whatever you want. The next time you post a picture of a carrot shaped like a potato, I won't question its reliability due to deleted posts in the past.
Happy Birthday Cory! Get drunk!
Well, if this is orwellian, I guess I've participated in Orwellian actions as well, as a person who has deleted things I've posted on the internet. And every other single person who has ever deleted anything they put on the internet, ever, has also participated in Orwellian actions.
Oh noes!
BDewhirst @67, I last spotted Cory putting up an entry about a contest where the prize is an Asus Eeee decorated by Donato Giancola. I expect he'll turn up in good time.
Folks seem to be confusing journalism with hosting space. And from that arises a second confusion of content ownership. BB "owns" their content. They can etch it into platinum plates thence to be eternity vault stored. Or they can treat their words like sand art to be intentionally dispersed at ritual's end. THEIR words THEIR fiat! OUR=guests comments exist here at the hosts discretion for the same rulesets. to my take-correct me if wrong- for example- THIS post is my copyright on reproducing IT elswhere but this "instance" of it is merely "hosted" by BB.Am I correct in that ? DO please comment!
I agree wholeheartedly with Lucifer (#52). It seems to me that most of the confusion and / or outrage stems from the fact that this blog doesn't resemble the blogs that most people are used to - that is, the line between traditional news media and blogs is becoming very blurred indeed. BoingBoing looks and feels like a whole lot more than just your friends' LiveJournals, and so, rightly or wrongly, the expectation of how you/it behave in an editorial sense is much different.
Also, for the casual reader, there is no practical difference between "unpublished" and deleted or otherwise disappeared.
Forgive me if I'm rehashing old arguments, but you *did* ask. ;)
@81...apparently its not just a large percentage of the voting population is so weak minded as to buy it hook, line and sinker.
I'm satisfied with the conclusion of this and eager for the whole spectacle to fade into the past.
Toward that end:
@74 Brian Carnell - You can lid that. It's over.
"I would also like to point out that contrary to reports on some MySpace pages, there were ZERO Mossad agents in the building when these Boing Boing posts were unpublished."
Are you sure? I hear those guys can be pretty sneaky...
@84 no one is saying it is censorship in the legal sense of that term. It is, however, completely contradictory to their state values and also extraordinarily petty given the posts that were taken down simply because the string "Violet Blue" appeared therein.
Boy Howdy I agreed with everyone until I got to #74. I agreed with him even more. Instead of deleting the whole post, which was very good, why not just snippet out a name?
Brian Carnell @74, I have no idea how you arrived at that reading; but if you want to go on in that fashion, the pertinent thread is still open, and it's still linked from the "Don't Miss" list.
Besides, the stalwarts there are still hoping it'll break 2000. It's up to 1775 comments as of this moment.
I love BB. You guys do a great job.
I applaud you, Xeni, for finally confronting this issue heads-on.
The reason that I think this turned from a non-issue, to a kerfluffle, to an imbroglio, is not the act of removing posts (or unpublishing), but the stated reasons for doing so.
If you're going to go as far as to say something has become un-wonderful (or to say even more unflattering things in the heat of the moment), then you need to accept responsibility for stating why that is so.
If you do not want to state why publicly, then you shouldn't publicly say something is un-wonderful.
What to do when asked why? I'm not sure (welcome to the new world of 21st century communication), perhaps even "private reasons" is enough. But to go as far as to say something has un-wonderfuled, and to further say you won't say more because of embarrassment for the other party (who herself has been quite open, from what I have seen)... that opens up a can of worms and makes the world think it is for reasons perhaps even worse than the truth.
In the end, it's probably a good problem to have, being popular enough that the blogosphere actually cares so much.
Also, for we bystanders/voyeurs, it's been an interesting drama to watch, at the very least.
this thread is for braiding down to a tapered point. Whoever wants to roll in Velvet Blue should go there. Hopefully both will be pinched off soon since I'm in severe danger of getting bored.
You took down a number of posts for personal reasons that aren't appropriate to discuss in public.
I fail to understand why your post didn't end right there.
#85 Brian,you'll have to forgive me, but I'm not sure what your point is. There's a difference between Barack Obama removing some statements and BoingBoing deleting a blog post, for obvious reasons (Although I still support his right to change his stance on issues.)
Unless you're just saying his actions in that regard were Orwellian as well.
you go girl ! no problem. mutation continues.
Teresa wrote:
"Brian Carnell @74, I have no idea how you arrived at that reading; but if you want to go on in that fashion, the pertinent thread is still open, and it's still linked from the "Don't Miss" list.
Besides, the stalwarts there are still hoping it'll break 2000. It's up to 1775 comments as of this moment."
Um, I think you misspoke. What you meant to say was it is available *now*. Whether it continues to be available is apparently entirely up to how Xeni is feeling about her personal relationship with Violet Blue on any given day.
Which of course is the problem with this whole episode that you and the other "boingers" continue to be oblivious to.
SUSHISPOOK kindly sent me his photo of the "Unpublished" sticker spotted on a newspaper box in San Francisco. It's really well done. I'm going to break the rule and post a link to the image. Congrats to the person who made it, friend or foe. : )
@94...it was meant as insult..please disregard it... Maybe Teresa can unpublish it. ;)
#93: Because clearly that isn't enough for the Blog Post Internet Freedom Crusade, of course :p
Is there now a rule that there are no more links in comments?
I don't want to cramp anyone's style, but there is still a rule here about not mentioning presidential candidates in the comment threads of entries that don't mention them.
This thread has enough to talk about without dragging in presidential candidates -- or for that matter the Fourth Amendment, the serial comma, Macs vs. PCs, homoousios vs. homoiousios, or any other perpetual motion machine.
Thank you.