First of all, I’ve just returned from the Fall Convention of the Maryland Republican Party, which should explain why I hadn’t done any comment moderation. Tomorrow I’m going to do a full report on the proceedings, covering both the official and “unofficial” points of interest.
Because they were well off-topic for the post, I withheld approval for two comments from “Big Daddy”, who I’m guessing aligns more with that anti-monoblogue blog than with my interests. I would have explained my reasoning to him (or her, you never know with a pseudonym) outside the public arena of a post, but the commentor also left an obviously ersatz (and not so nice) e-mail address. The feedback is worth answering though, and I’ll spend a portion of my afternoon doing just that. Here are the comments in question, which I’ll answer one at a time:
Hi Michael… a little off topic but i was wondering if you agree with the stance that your group over at PMG is taking with the bashing and boycotting of the Salvation Army just because they let Joe volunteer to help?
Let me start out by saying that, with any multi-contributor blog group, you will have a divergence of opinions on what is appropriate for posting. But I think the criticism of the Salvation Army is a bit problematic because on the whole they are a worthwhile organization. And if Joe Albero wants to help them out by donating time as a bell ringer, that’s great.
I guess the issue is more along the lines of Joe being critical of one particular bell ringer but then turning around and shamelessly promoting his part in the Salvation Army’s effort, as if they couldn’t survive without him. Locally, there’s dozens and dozens of volunteers who take time out to help the cause and most of them aren’t in it to promote themselves. If I were to spend a couple hours tending a kettle, I may mention it in passing just to give my loyal readers the heads-up but that would likely be the extent of it.
Personally, I won’t boycott the Salvation Army kettles; usually I’ll drop a buck or some spare change in if I see them at a store. Since I don’t generally shop where Joe tends to collect it’s not an issue, but if he’s at other locations where I do make my grocery run I’ll decide then whether to drop some cash in his kettle or not.
Then you have the second comment, with minor editing:
Wow… this is from the latest post on PMG…
So is this stunt really to help the Salvation Army? Nah, it’s a modern day internet shakedown. I will bet money that after this publicity stunt is done with, he’s going to chastise those who did not help out. All these businesses are kissing his … ass so they aren’t the subject of his future attacks.
You really want to associate with people like this?
Again, I go back in part to my first answer regarding multi-participant websites. Certainly I don’t agree with the tenor of some things placed on PMG nor do they always agree with me (case in point: Harris vs. Kratovil.) Unfortunately, I don’t have the option to moderate comments on PMG posts but I do ask that people refrain from some of the nastier allegations of a sexual nature when it’s my byline at the top.
With that being said, every other one of those contributors has the right to their opinion and I’m pleased that they generally take my side when my site is demeaned on that other blog. And while I don’t often grace the pages of Pro-Maryland Gazette it’s nice to have that outlet available to me when I feel the need to post a piece on the state of affairs in the local blogosphere.
If you’ve read there recently you’ll note that I did offer to have myself delisted as a contributor there if Joe followed through on the request I made of him. Bearing in mind that I haven’t yet perused the local blogs today since I was away, thus far that request has gone unanswered as far as I know.
Hopefully this answers the questions, and I’ll now remove the comments from my queue. It’s relatively rare that I don’t put up non-spam comments but given the fact they were well off-subject for the post in question this required further explanation. I originally approved the first comment but when the second one came in I made the editorial decision to pull the first one and address both in a separate venue.