Most comments
Top active contributors to the Journal-World’s online article comments:
1. Marion (Marion Lynn), 15,997
2. just_another_bozo_on_this_bus, 13,047
3. Multidisciplinary, 9,707
4. merrill, 8,308
5. The_Original_Bob, 7,831
6. Godot, 7,318
7. bearded_gnome, 7,206
8. justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller), 5,692
9. Agnostick, 5,490
* Numbers are since 2005, when LJWorld.com started using online comments, to July 22.
Reader poll
They spend a lot of time online telling the world what they think, but their identities remain a mystery.
And as The World Company Web sites — including LJWorld.com, Lawrence.com and KUsports.com — approach their one-millionth comment, it appears they’d like it to stay that way.
Of the more than 15,000 commenters who submit roughly 680 comments per day to LJWorld.com, the vast majority choose online identities that don’t include their real names.
Recently, World Company Citizen Journalism Academy fellow Dave Klamet compiled data on the top 10 most frequent contributors to the online article comments section.
LJWorld.com, the Journal-World and 6News asked the top currently active contributors from the list to participate in an article about comments. But, in order to take part, as in all 6News and Journal-World stories, they would have to reveal their identities.
None of the seven anonymous commenters (two of the top 10 use their real name and one user is no longer active) agreed to reveal themselves. They cited various reasons, such as employment concerns and possible retaliation for their comments.
Commenters and the journalism community continue to debate whether the shield of anonymity for commenters is a positive or negative aspect of the online world.
“(Anonymous blogging is) free speech or a free shot at character assassination,” said David Perlmutter, former Kansas University journalism professor and author of the book “Blogwars.”
Perlmutter, who said he used anonymity on occasion when commenting, understands why people choose to remain anonymous.
“You don’t have to take responsibility, but you escape retribution,” Perlmutter said.
LJWorld.com’s most frequent blogger, Marion Lynn, who has made about 16,000 comments since the site enabled them on stories in 2005, doesn’t buy the rationale that users who remain anonymous cite.
“I use my real name, what’s yours?” said Lynn of his response when fellow commenters attack his views.
Lawrence Mayor Rob Chestnut said that he occasionally read the comments on articles pertaining to city business and has had anonymous commenters attack him and his views. But it’s not the attacks on public officials that bother him. His main concern, he said, is some of the inappropriate comments made about those not in the public eye, who are featured in human-interest stories.
Chestnut considers those instances similar to letters to the editor, which require the author’s name to be published.
“The folks ought to have to put a real name down there,” Chestnut said.
A way to promote dialogue?
Perlmutter compares the blogging phenomenon to the earliest newspapers, where people with a point of view would simply create their own newspapers. Now with blogging, those with something to say can circumvent the expense and hassle of printing their own newspaper.
But Perlmutter said he didn’t think the ease with which people could anonymously blog necessarily led to better conversation.
“It cuts off dialogue,” said Perlmutter, citing the frequent back-and-forth personal attacks some commenters engage in.
Chris Crandall, a KU social psychology professor who researches how people express prejudice in society, said there were other factors that contributed to why people chose to comment anonymously.
“There is concern for retaliation, but to a certain extent, anonymity is liberating beyond that,” Crandall said. “It is good not to have to justify one’s self.”
Crandall said that in anonymous situations, people might be more likely to express prejudice, but they might also be more willing to help others. He cited situations in which people chose to secretly donate to good causes.
“There’s a freedom in it,” he said, “for both good and bad.”
And for those who enjoy that freedom, they’ll be able to continue commenting anonymously on LJWorld.com, said Jonathan Kealing, Journal-World online editor.
“I expect we’ll continue to encourage users to become verified and reveal their full name,” he said, “while at the same time allowing users to remain anonymous.”
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
witchfindergeneral (anonymous) says…
Get bent, Chestnut. Ahh, the joys of anonymity.
Don't you regret using your real name, Marion? It seems to have drawn you into a fascinating dispute (which, by the way, includes accusations of criminal activity) with a blogger who may or may not be posting on ljworld.com:
http://ikillspammers.blogspot.com/200...
What's your take on this, snap_pop_no_crackle?
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
Speaking of chicken Hawks.
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LCsiW...
dmcclain (anonymous) says…
Marion,
Congratulations on taking ownership of your views and the words you type for others to read.
I think the article missed one of the main reasons others need anonymity. The word coward comes to mind.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
At least girlfriend took off the Blu-blockers for his mug shot.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
BTW,
still
having
a
wonderful
internet
life
despite
the
empty
threats
of
sad
old
wind-bags
.
true_patriot (anonymous) says…
The emphasis on quantify over quality is interesting.
sustainabilitysister (anonymous) says…
I could, if I chose, change my anonymity with any of my posts but I choose not to. Chestnut's remarks sort of rub me wrong.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Anonymity allows for a more candid discussion, and allows people to censor themselves less, because they have less fear of personal retaliation. This can lead to a more honest and open debate in matters of public concern.
Although I agree with this article, this mitigation of fear of personal retaliation can potentially decrease dialogue and alter how we engage in public debate in general if most users simply engage in personal attacks. So, what I try to do is engage in a discussion with those I have seen from previous experience know how to argue, and avoid talking to those who like to engage in personal attacks. Those who often engage in personal or ad hominem attacks, like the child who often acted out in class, usually is looking for attention. Responding to these people, even by stating how ridiculous their comments are, is giving them what they want, and ignoring them will often make them go away (at least in the short term).
While arguably this extra work may cause potentially casual users not to engage in this form of discussion because they don't know which users typically use personal attacks. However, I think one can often tell from the initial post or response from a user. If the post or response is illogical, is a personal attack, or the user is clearly trying to incite you, then it is a good rule of thumb to avoid responding that user. The difficulty that many have, and so do I on occasion, is that you feel the need to respond to every attack or idiotic comment to justify oneself. One must avoid this impulse to survive in the blogging world.
What I told myself early on in blogging, is that failure to respond to a comment doesn't mean the uncontested claim is accurate, and anyone who believes so are themselves ignorant, which sometimes you just can’t fix. Plus one's objective can't be to get everyone else in the world to agree with your position. It must be to opine, or engage in an actual discussion. If that isn't your objective then one must ask themselves if they really think they will be successful in altering everyone's attitudes and opinion through this sort of medium.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Nick's former BB, bronze, recently got disappeareded from this forum for trying to out another poster.
Nick brags about outing people.
Is there any wonder why so many posters choose not to reveal themselves here?
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
You don't have to justify your comments to anyone if you are anonymous, so I choose to remain that way.
Is it a little cowardly? Perhaps. But my views may be different than what people who know me would perceive, and I don't want to have to explain myself. I consider some of my views personal, and it was enough hassle when my extended family found out my politcal views were different than theirs. I want to avoid that at all costs.
If it was good enough for Benjamin Franklin, it's good enough for me.
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
Chestnut's comments rub me wrong also. Being able to comment on an article, LTE, or poll gives you some sort of outlet when reading...and it is interesting to read others' take on everything. Comments on Friday usually take a turn toward halarity and I don't see at least half of them posted if we were required to use our real names. In all, it is a comment on a small newspaper's website and in the grand scheme things, means very little...if we are anonomous. If we were to reveal names, then an (intended) innocous comment could offend someone and get the commenter fired from their job, or possibly prevent their election.
Hell, I get on the LJWorld site to read the comments more than anything...and I imagine the number of commenters would be cut by 7/8 if we had to reveal our names.
Informed (anonymous) says…
Well said, mom. Or, should I call you Silence?
KS (anonymous) says…
People want to stay anonymous because they are using company computers on company time. The boss could track down their use and fire them. For the record, I don't. Judging from the stupid names that some folks call others on these forms, I would never want my real name out for fear of life or limb. Afterall, look what some have done to Palin. There are some pretty stupid people out there that will do some pretty stupid things.
DanAlexander (Dan Alexander) says…
Lots of folks can spout opinions in this small town, some of us just have the cojanes to put a name behind an opinion.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
Nice job Marion, it takes courage and conviction to do what you did. YOu take alot of knocking form people on here for your opinions. Hang tough.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Worth repeating:
"Marion
Posted 7:58 a.m., November 27, 2007
Suggest removal
Tell you what snap, I got a $5 bill that says changes are coming to your internet life and another $5 bill that says you won't like those changes!"
http://m.ljworld.com/news/2007/nov/25...
Girlfriend's never settled up.
Keith (anonymous) says…
"ironhorse66 (Anonymous) says…
“choses to reveal his identity because he believes it gives him credibility…”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep…"
He said credibility, not credit ability.
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
Interesting, the LJW highlights the poster who is one of the biggest offenders of the TOS. I guess when you get around 16,000 posts nothing else matters. Perhaps they should have chosen a more distinguished picture to make their point.
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/9408...
TomPaine (anonymous) says…
So Marion is the official poster child for the New Non-Journalism, the apotheosis of the slapdash citizen pundit with nothing better to do than troll through his day making random remarks about random news items, a sample of the level of discourse the new media have encouraged and hope to build their future on.
A shallow article about meaningless numbers and a trivial issue, given big play on the front page. Almost as enlightening as the astrology column in the "Go!" section. This is how newspapers are committing suicide, by trying to morph into the print version of "reality" TV. Will Bozo get voted off the blog? Will Marion post in the nude? Stay tuned!
The photo illustration couldn't be more apropos of this cheap breed of ersatz celebrity and peek-a-boo reporting. Marion gets his fifteen minutes in the spotlight, over and above that of the anonymous posters only because he is willing to be an overt knucklehead instead of a covert one. What a role model. Maybe he could get a fan base and start tweeting instant impressions of his current online snark-fests. Next sideshow. Bring on the bearded lady...
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
Congrats on the article, marion. I didn't know what you looked like, but it is nice to put a face to the comments you've shared over the past couple of years.
I agree, hang tough and continue being you.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"Since we are brothers, we have alot of the same views, not too uncommon for brothers"
Care to offer a differing opinion, Autie?
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
I wonder if this was the article I was e-mailed an invitation to be part of. At the time I was in the top-10 of the other list (the frequency list, not total posts lists), although Shaun didn't say why he chose the ones he wanted to write about. But he did say he was "looking for people who would be willing to reveal their identity." So I'm not surprised that the story turned out to be about just one person - only one other in the top-10 lists is a verified user, I believe. Kinda' hard to get an anonymous user to identify themselves and explain the reasons they remain anonymous, isn't it?
And for all those who are feeling so superior because you do use your name, there are legitimate reasons having nothing to do with retribution from the crazies (although that *IS* a legitimate concern) to remain anonymous.
missmagoo (anonymous) says…
This is a lovely article Marion you should be proud of it! Nice to meet you, by the way.
twinetowngirl (anonymous) says…
You have to give marion credit...he spends a lot of time looking up information to post...whether you think it adds to your comments or not...and I notice not a lot of people think he adds anything, and not a lot of people agree with him.
Sometimes i think he gets bashed about just because he is Marion Lynn. I often wonder if what he says, coming from another poster would be accepted better by not having his name attached to it. I cant say I always agree with him, but we all have our opionions. Some of us just choose to not take the bashing road that unfortunatly has become very well travelled.
Keep your head up Marion....post on
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
"You have to give marion credit…he spends a lot of time looking up information to post…"
Not really, google works pretty fast these days.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
“I expect we’ll continue to encourage users to become verified and reveal their full name,” he said, “while at the same time allowing users to remain anonymous.”
I really don't think that running an article about Marion will "encourage" anyone to use their full name. In fact, i believe it has the opposite effect.
This article kind of makes me think that the days of anonymous posting at the LJW will be ending soon and I will have to take my Klondike bars elsewhere.
TheSychophant (anonymous) says…
I didn't realize Marion was that cute.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
Ronda,
Didn't I tell you I knew you weren't Marion?
;-)
*Side note*
Many, (not all), posters give out enough information about themselves to be identified by anyone willing to pay attention. Others put out false info to mislead those who would 'out' them.
Quite the game............
Good article Marion!
salad (anonymous) says…
"some of us just have the stupidity to put a name behind an opinion."
-fixed
You'd have to be completely nuts to give up anonymity when there's no need to. There's no shortage of whack-jobs in this country; why walk around with a target on your back?
The X-files said it best, "Trust no one...."
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
dmcclain (Anonymous) says…
"I think the article missed one of the main reasons others need anonymity. The word coward comes to mind."
____________________________________________________
Were you shooting for irony, there, dmcclain... or did it just sort of happen?
Nice article... imaginative picture.
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
Marion - I am for the most part, impressed with the people who willingly reveal their real names, you being one of those people. I choose not to because I have a unique name that doesn't lend itself to even having a chance at being anonymous. I am more than willing to take responsibility for my comments and barbs/baiting that I express on LJW. All that I ask is that those who want to know my identity reveal theirs.
autie (anonymous) says…
“Since we are brothers, we have alot of the same views, not too uncommon for brothers”
Care to offer a differing opinion, Autie?
Well, TOB, that would be Roger's take on that. I guess it depends on what chair you happen to be sitting in. I find that my brothers views on many subjects are pretty much antipodal to my own. I think the only thing we agree on is who our mother was. Now on the other hand, I have a few brothers of the blog that I discovered I have a great deal in a common with and enjoyed it immensely. Everything from beer to politics, ribs to sports...
Irish (Leslie Swearingen) says…
I am in favor of being utterly transparent so that is why I use my own name. Now. I have been changed for the better as a person since I started to make comments on here.
I have learned not to get bent out of shape when someone says something about me. If they are anon then I don't necessarily take them seriously.
As for the open and honest some comments seem to be just argument for the fun of it. It doesn't really mean anything.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"I am in favor of being utterly transparent so that is why I use my own name. "
Your first name is Irish? Hmph.
"Everything from beer to politics, ribs to sports…"
From fishing to brown liquor...
autie (anonymous) says…
It took me a minute to think about that brother thing at first. I guess I got a little stirred up in that other place.
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
I am Sparticus!
But you can call me Ronaldo Agustín Santiago Thiago Lautaro Valentin Ignacio
Gootsie (anonymous) says…
Posting on these boards is entertainment to me. If it was something important, you bet I'd use my real name. But it's not. It's fiction.
Congrats to those who want to use their real name; congrats to those who don't. Whatever.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
" am Sparticus!
But you can call me Ronaldo Agustín Santiago Thiago Lautaro Valentin Ignacio"
Can I still call you R_I?
autie (anonymous) says…
jeez, and I thought anonymous posters had an identity crisis. rastlvi
KansasPerson (anonymous) says…
Marion,
How did they take that picture?
I can't make it out.
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
I also choose not to use my real name as I have family in Lawrence and I am rather liberal and they are rather not. If they were to read the comments, they would know who I am by my screen name and I am comfortable with them knowing my opinions. I just don't want my comments thrown in their faces by others who recognize our family name.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
What Snap said.
And what TomPaine said.
jrlii (anonymous) says…
I'm anonymous here.
I'm not sure it makes that much difference, 'cause it is very rare for me to see a response to what I have written, since I think along different lines than most people do.
On the other hand, I'd be much more reluctant to comment on many subjects because "Big Brother IS watching" whether you believe it or not.
Not that on-line anonymity is very secure, it makes it just a bit harder for potential persecutors.
OK, I may be a bit paranoid, but what libertarian isn't?
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"This article kind of makes me think that the days of anonymous posting at the LJW will be ending soon and I will have to take my Klondike bars elsewhere." Blue
I don't think so. Unless the LJW wants to see 680 comments and associated pageviews drop 1000%. That wouldn't look too good to online advertisers.
I'm still not sure what LJW is up to, but I have no idea why they would want to tinker with this too much. They need to hang around the KC Star's commenting section for a few days to understand what they have here is a far superior product.
jayhawkerjoel (anonymous) says…
I am not by nature a confrontational person. I like to believe that when I express an opinion, I have given it careful consideration before opening my mouth or hacking away on the keyboard. I try to express my opinions without being disrespectful to others, because I know that my perspective may not be the only valid one out there, and that opinion is just that – the expression of perspective.
Unfortunately, many others find that the expression of someone else’s opinion is a window to personally attack that person. I have relationships with people who may not (or frequently do not) share my opinion. Out of respect and concern for these people, I remain anonymous because there are so many wing nuts out there that have nothing better to do than tear people down. Whenever I feel the need to express my opinion and reveal who I am, there is always an Op/Ed page I can write to.
If Marion somehow feels superior to other posters who choose to remain anonymous, well, good for him. I don’t want my family and friends exposed to the vitriol that may start because I chose to express an opinion. In this forum, I am not too concerned about my “credibility.”
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Good one, ironhorse.
altarego (anonymous) says…
I'm afraid to reveal my identity because of the swarm of business such revelation would cause out at the new Hooters on the SLT.
was_freashpowder2 (Alexander Neighbors) says…
the few, the Brave, the posters with real names.........
sunshine_noise (anonymous) says…
Satirical (Anonymous) says… Anonymity allows for a more candid discussion, and allows people to censor themselves less, because they have less fear of personal retaliation. This can lead to a more honest and open debate in matters of public concern.
and i agree..why?... because people are too judgmental to be too honest in your face. even if it is a difference in opinion people judge other people by that opinion as well as what they wear, by their weight, job title, who they associate with and where they live. i doubt people take people at "face value" anymore its not policially correct.
i stay anonymous because i know i'm contentious compared to folks here in the midwest. i know how you people feel about east coast folks (that we are rude, too out spoken and outgoing FOR midwestern conservativeness). its taken me 10 yrs to learn how to manuver around you people, and still i run into folks who just freak when i speak up, out and up front honest - they just can't handle it. but i'd rather be around honest outspoken people than people who hide the way they really view things. to me those are the kind of people not to trust cause you never really know if they are friend or foe.
mae (anonymous) says…
if you'd like to further kill the journalist career, you would write an article like this.
ljworld.com would die without consumers. and consumers do not want to be identified.
duh.
/although i will point out that everyone's readily id'd easily by anyone in the know!!! ;)
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
T_O_B,
Please continue to do so, my full name just wastes pixels.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
localgirl9 (anonymous) says…
I was anonymous because I worked right downtown and plenty of folks might have known me and come to share their opinion with me publicly, or it might have reflected poorly on my employer for me to be rattling cages. However, I have moved on down the Lawrence/Eugene space time continuum and am not afraid to say my name is Melissa Padgett, formerly of Third Planet fame. I think that anonymity can be a good thing, but most folks hide behind it so they can be hurtful with their comments. And that is the bottom line.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
mom_of_three and jayhawkerjoel, well put! I have so many different circles of friends, most would be shocked at what opinions I hold. I get those crazy right-wing forwards with regularity because so many people assume I agree with them. I don't. I recently got invited to a drunken float trip because someone assumed I'm into that. I'm not.
My kids have teachers I have to interact with and I would like to do so without my publicly stated online opinions being a first impression. I work for a number of people that I wouldn't want to know where I stand on issues simply because it doesn't matter.
Just because I don't put my name to my comments doesn't mean that I have no backbone or that my statements lack credibility. I'm probably more honest anonymously than I am in conversation. I've had too many people get hot under the collar right here in my living room when they find out I don't agree with them. I can't imagine them reading my hours and hours of honest posts.
none2 (anonymous) says…
This article is the perfect reason why one would want to remain anonymous. So many people love to trash Marion and his opinions. While I don't always agree with him, I think it would be a loss if he didn't post. However, he pays a high price for that.
If he ever wanted to run for office he wouldn't stand a chance in hell because his online comments aren't limited to "I want to kiss your babies". Do we really want all the comments to be at that level of mindless discourse?
I remember when the KC Star's blog on Sprint started requiring names. The real info stopped. Now really all you see is PR and their cheerleaders. Before that, people would really tell what was going on. Now for fear of loosing their jobs, all that info is gone.
citizenx (anonymous) says…
Can I just say...it was funny hearing people I've never heard cuss before start swearing like Tourette syndrome suffers when they saw Marion's face on the cover in full color. I think Marion is wrong to believe that using his name gives his comments credibility. The main problem with this idea is that...well...everyone knows who he is.
sustainabilitysister (anonymous) says…
I will continue to NOT vote for Chestnut. Too big brotherish, religious, and big business for me.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
This article still fails to explain why a few of those with their name posted are the most hateful, hurtful, antagonistic posters on here, who regularly violate the terms of service and conversational ethics.
It also gives credit to some for garnering accountability, when in reality they probably just want the celebrity, such as it is.
Googling my screen name shows my real name. (Also two stories that I wrote and posted on WeBooks)
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"It also gives credit to some for garnering accountability, when in reality they probably just want the celebrity, such as it is." Jonas
Ding ding ding. We have a winner!
grimpeur (anonymous) says…
What a self-aggrandizing article. This attempt to present the LJW forums as something more than entertainment is pretty lame. The post about online advertising as a function of hits by the few dozen who populate this board is right on.
Mr. Kealing, as long as the LJW is going to continue this charade of hit collector/Jerry Springer show thinly disguised as meaningful community dialogue, you should place the comments on a separate page and provide a link. The lack of sensibility in the comments and the lack of interest in actual discussion insult your readers, your writers, and their subjects. Nobody should have to read these senseless comments on the same page as stories of, for instance, the tragic death of a loved one. It's just wrong.
Way to pump up your own comment board, though. It was bad enough when stories and LTEs started referring to these forums as actual sources and grist for their own fake stories. Now the forums themselves are news? Sorry, folks, but LJW is simply confirming what most observers already knew. Sad.
Convergence of all the worst forms of public interaction: money-driven "journo", attention-seekers, ignorance, fear, anger, recrimination, loneliness, and sloth. Is this what they give out the prizes for? Well, congratulations, then.
There is nothing that requires anonymity on these boards except the ability to shout nonsense and insults with no responsibility and no accountability. Anybody who claims that anonymity allows them to speak truthfully is just plain lying or lazy. You want to make a difference? You want to tell the truth? Then get off your arse, go outside, and talk to your representatives, your commissioners, your civic employees, your children's teachers and principals, your school board members, and your fellow citizens. That's how you make a difference; that's how you make your voice heard; that's how public discourse is conducted. These comments make no difference, lead to no discussion nor meaningful insight, and do nothing to forward discourse on public matters. So let's stop pretending they do.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
What jonas said.
sinverguenza (anonymous) says…
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
"I'm still not sure what LJW is up to..."
Me neither, but this is what LJW has come to:
http://lawrence.craigslist.org/npo/12...
orks (anonymous) says…
Here is an honest question. Is it bad that when people who comment ramble on for more than a paragraph, I get bored and move on?
SandCoAlmanac (anonymous) says…
I don't live in Lawrence, and haven't for quite some time, but I am newly drawn to the blogs for more information than is sometimes written in the articles. For example, I'd like to thank 'altarego' for alerting me to the presence of a Hooters on the SLT somewhere. I didn't know that. I choose to remain anonymous out of respect for some relatives and friends who live in Lawrence.
Somewhat like 'jayhawkerjoel,' I'm not a confrontational person. I was done with that forty years ago and won't go back. Also like 'jrlii,' few people respond to my comments and I'm fine with that. I post rarely anyway and only do it to express myself at that particular time.
Somewhat unlike 'ironhorse66,' I was not suprised that Marion is male. I assumed he was male from the spelling of his name. I assumed if Lynn was female, his name would be spelled "Marian." But, in my typical nonconfrontational mode, I have to admit that was a guess.
However, unlike 'was_freashpowder2 (Alexander Neighbors),' I don't claim to be Brave. Maybe, unlike 'autie,' I don't admit to having an identity crisis, although going through Viet Nam and two divorces might give me a good excuse.
I don't think I'm superior to anyone since I don't know what that means.
Nor am I afraid to admit that I'm a 'scaredy-cat,' a la Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon). A lot of 'Brave' people are no longer here and some of us more cautious ones live to post another day.
As DanAlexander (Dan Alexander) suggested, it's possible I don't have the 'cojanes' to not post anonymously. However, I remember them as 'cajones' -- when they functioned normally.
I suggest that 'KansasPerson (Anonymous)' ask Nick Krug how he set up the photo. He's a gifted photographer and creative photoillustrationist who can tell you, if others haven't already. I think it involves downloading a photo to Marion's wallpaper.
TomPaine: if we could vote the astrology column off the island, I'd do it. I'm sure it won't get disappearded, though, since I assume it pays for that space. I don't read the astrology column for the same reason I don't watch infomercials. There's nothing 'real' to be learned. Marion posting in the nude, however, would be too real for me, so I'd skip past that too.
OK. Time for sleep. If anyone read this, thanks.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
"Anybody who claims that anonymity allows them to speak truthfully is just plain lying or lazy." Is that the "nonsense and insults with no responsibility and no accountability" you speak of?
I do plenty of talking to my representatives, commissioners (I've emailed them several times as well as shown up for meetings), civic employees (why I just called one yesterday, thank you very much), my children's teachers and principals (I'm one of their favorites!), school board members (ok, you've got me there) , and fellow citizens (I happen to be the neighborhood busy-body who is always walking up and down the sidewalk picking up trash, watching people's homes while they are on vacation, entertaining the neighborhood kids & fixing their bikes, throwing bar-b-ques, and keeping everyone up to speed on the abandoned development behind our houses).
Yup, I'd say I'm pretty involved.
I did notice you didn't sign your post with any name, but I fully support your right not to do so.
Calliope877 (anonymous) says…
Chestnut ought to grow some thicker bark...
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
oohmgrover (anonymous) says…
http://lawrence.craigslist.org/npo/12...
Wow, that is horrible. The writer really has a problem with punctuation, doesn't he?
Oh, and the fact that he baited unemployed people into his post is pretty jacked up too.
wtflawrence (anonymous) says…
What loser would have 16,000 comments? Get a life and get off the computer pal.
riverat (Joe Hyde) says…
I could be wrong, but my understanding of how the on-line postings work is that the Journal-World knows the identity of each person who posts comments here. The poster's identity is kept private, or the person's real name is listed, at the user's discretion. Good system, for the most part.
My only suggestion to the Journal-World is that the site administrator begin filtering out all posters who indulge in aggressive name-calling. I frequently read comments on this site that, if they were ever hurled at another person face-to-face on the street, they would be fighting words.
The Journal-World is a family newspaper. As such, I feel it has a responsibility to apply the same high editing standards to people posting comments in its on-line section that it applies to its own staff writers, and to Letter-to-Editor submittals sent in by citizens.
The rule should be: Whether you remain anonymous or choose to go "clear name", if you verbally abuse another poster with personal invective and name-calling, your user registration gets the thumb and you're gone for good. Institutinig this rule, and enforcing it, would result in posts that still retain every bit of the writer's "topic emotion" while forcing his or her argument to be better thought out and more clearly articulated.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
I don't recall mentioning names, Right-thinker.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
you know, Chestnut lists the instance where he thinks it appropriate to name yourself, but he doesn't mention WHY you should.
isn't that interesting?
in fact, Chestnut is most likely illustrating why I choose to be anonymous.
thanks bo-bo
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
None2 writes: "So many people love to trash Marion and his opinions."
___________
This has nothing to do with whether he is anonymous or not. It is because of the tripe he posts.
For instance, Marion extols on this forum his personal acquaintance with, and the great caliber of scholarship of, and admiration for, one David Irving: I summarize from this citation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ir…
Irving's reputation as an historian was widely discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books in 1996. During the trial, an English court found that Irving was an “active Holocaust denier,” as well as an antisemite and racist, and that he “associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.”The judge also ruled that Irving had “for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.”
MyName (anonymous) says…
I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about whether people give their names out. It may feel better for some of *them* to speak their minds or attack people from behind anonymity but if they're being stupid or petty then it's obvious.
That being said, I would be more likely to put my real name out there on a local site than I would on one of the bigger blogs, and I think other people would too.
And oddly enough, even though I didn't know Marion IRL, I was familiar with him (and a few other posters) from the larryville.com boards even before he started posting over here.
That's one of the odd things about the internet is if you keep your screen name, people can sort of know who you are even if they don't know you IRL. Which can be good or bad.
Informed (anonymous) says…
No, riverat, the JW does not know the identity of each person posting here. If needed, they could get the IP addresses and even the MAC IDs of the computers being used, but that's pretty much where it would stop. That info would help them narrow down quite a bit of information if it were needed for a criminal investigation. But, no, they don't have the identity of each person -- unless they have revealed it, intentionally or not.
KansasVoter (anonymous) says…
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
"no hatred has ever been witnessed like from the left during most of the Bush years….nothing even compares."
ROFL.....Thanks for the laugh! That was a good one!
Sagecasey (Troy Taylor) says…
16,000 posts over 4 years, sorry marion, all I can say is get a life.
salad (anonymous) says…
I noticed that the only people who seem to think that those who use their real names are "brave", "courageous", "honest" etc....., are those who ARE using their real names.
Sorta violates the rules of bravery if you call it for yourself don't it?
Similar to how it violates the rules of nick names if you give one to your self, or refer to yourself by your nick name.
Several people have quite correctly pointed out that these comment boards are:
fiction
entertainment
silly
a true representation of what people actually think
an outlet for self-seeking celebrity
NOT a forum for actual debate
KS (anonymous) says…
How many of you out there are currently on company time and using a company computer making these posts? You know your boss has the right to look at anything you do on that computer.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Why would I answer the question, Right-thinker, when dropping cryptic phrases produces such bizarre and entertaining rants?
And I use that name because it's the one that fits you the best, as every thought you have is bent to the right somewhere between its inception in your mind and its transferrence onto the computer screen.
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
Informed, It is my understanding that what was stated by riverat, " my understanding of how the on-line postings work is that the Journal-World knows the identity of each person who posts comments here. The poster's identity is kept private, or the person's real name is listed, at the user's discretion. Good system, for the most part." is correct.
Jonathan can clarify certainly. The world company would require a subpoena to release that information.
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
riverrat, you ignorant sl*t!!!
Sorry, couldn't resist the old SNL debate line there...
Marion from the picture is an older gentleman (I pictured him more middle-aged) and probably retired...hence less worry about consequences from revealing his real name. A younger person with a nice, budding career has more to risk. I used to have a blog under my real name, and even though I was careful when writing it, I decided it was better to get rid of it as I would hate to lose my job because a boss disagreed with me.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
I'm surprised the article didn't mention how many times Marion has had posts removed for violating LJWorld's rules about harassing comments, or how often Marion's posts are allowed to remain despite his obvious and frequent use of intentionally obfuscated profanity.
Has any other "blogger" had seven of his own posts removed from his very own blog? I suspect only Marion has that "honor."
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"the Journal-World knows the identity of each person who posts comments here"
How?
mrf (anonymous) says…
My favorite comments so far are the posts that go on for paragraphs about the idiocy of this topic. Oh the irony is killing me!!
If you feel the need to make long-winded offensive comments over such a harmless topic, get a life. Once again Shaun, you obviously struck an emotional chord with the readers of ljworld.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
username:
email address:
password:
password (again):
is all that is required to get an account.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Tom: "If calling Obama, Pelosi and Reid (whatever I call them) and saying 'far-left loon” or “corrupt liberal media” is hateful, well, all I can say is think back on the Bush years, specifically between about '05-08 and tell me the left didn't post some of the most vile BS ever found."
Tom, this should be pretty obvious to anyone with children, as you claim to have, but two wrongs don't make a right. If you hated what you saw happening toward Bush, why would you turn around and act exactly as those you hate?
Second, do you notice that the things written about Bush really kicked in after '05? That means this is after he proved himself to be a pretty awful president, not before. You and others here have been writing the most hateful things since well before Obama took office. Your motives are truly suspect, especially given your very recent rant that he was only elected because he is a black man. Again, the race of all previous presidents bares out the fact that Obama won despite the color of his skin, not because of it. (If you believe so many voted for him for being black, is this because you know you voted against him for the same reason?) Time for a reality check.
jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says…
Just to clear things up--
We don't know the identity of all of our posters. We do know the identities of many of our commenters, though, because they've chosen to identify themselves to us, either through the verification process, or merely to ask the staff questions or let us know about problems. Any of the latter contacts are kept strictly confidential.
As for IP addresses, we do log those. We do not, however, use them to identify posters for internal or external purposes, unless compelled to do so in court.
You can see more about our privacy policy, here: http://www2.ljworld.com/privacy/
Jonathan Kealing
Online editor
autie (anonymous) says…
I sometimes worry about the identity of the cousins. It's always the cousins.
Katara (anonymous) says…
jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says…
Just to clear things up—
We don't know the identity of all of our posters. We do know the identities of many of our commenters, though, because they've chosen to identify themselves to us, either through the verification process, or merely to ask the staff questions or let us know about problems. Any of the latter contacts are kept strictly confidential.
As for IP addresses, we do log those. We do not, however, use them to identify posters for internal or external purposes, unless compelled to do so in court.
You can see more about our privacy policy, here: http://www2.ljworld.com/privacy/
Jonathan Kealing
Online editor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since you are on here to clear things up, can you explain why your staff chose to write an article that highlights one of your biggest violators of the ljw tos?
How is it that Marion is allowed to continue to post on LJW when his comment history has tons of TOS violations? When about 1/3 of his 16,000 posts were simply the same post copied and pasted into every single article that was online (check from 2006-2007 when Marion was "assisting" enforcer with her legal issues related to her now deceased dog)? When he threatens to out other posters? When he posts a blog that is just to insult another poster (and got yanked)?
Most of us get our comments removed if we cuss (even if we use symbols to somewhat obscure the word), yet Marion's still stands (example: he frequently tells other posters to kiss his behind in a much more profane way). Most of us would be bounced from the board for trying to out other posters but Marion is still here even though he does this quite frequently.
Why is it that the LJW refuses to enforce their very own rules in a fair and even-handed way?
Does one get special treatment here if one posts constantly? Does one get special treatment here is one attends the Citizens' Journalism Academy?
Why should people bother following your rules when you allow one of the biggest violators remain here?
Have you even read the 16,000 posts of Marion's? Perhaps you all should actually take a look at them before you start printing articles that highlight the quantity of them?
Would it be easier for you if I just went through them & flagged all the violations by Marion so you have an actual idea of the quantity of violations involved?
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Marion writes: "I 'AM' Nick Danger"
After all the times you proclaimed otherwise? I'm shocked I tell you, just shocked.
Nice way to nullify the point of this story. I guess this whole non-anonymous thing doesn't apply in all instances. Another case of selective credibility. Interesting.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
"Would it be easier for you if I just went through them & flagged all the violations by Marion so you have an actual idea of the quantity of violations involved?"
katara, I figure you'd wear out your keyboard before you were half-way finished with that project.
Also, don't forget that marioni's own stinking pit of a forum has been flushed down the memory hole multiple times.
Informed (anonymous) says…
Thank you for the clarification, Jonathan. Based on what happened with the Boardwalk Apts. fire investigation, I deduced that was the case.
As you know, even identifying the IP address and MAC ID only gets to the computer (or router) used. Even if I post from home and post from work, there's no absolute way of knowing that *I* am the one doing the posting: I could have given someone my username/password for my JW account and I could have even gone so far as to also give someone my username/password to log in to my work computer. Now, granted, that is pretty extreme, especially considering we're talking about comments on a newspaper's site, but it's still possible.
So, again, NO, the JW doesn't know who I am. Although, over the years I've given enough personal info for anyone who cares to figure it out. Except, I don't think I'm all that important that anyone really gives a rip!!
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…
jonas_opines FTW.
If this article was a person's first experience with Marion, it would give them an entirely different view than the reality of his actual behavior.
shaunepec (Shaun Hittle) says…
Who'd have figured that an article about comments would generate a lot of comments....
Regardless of the debates on here about the many issues, I appreciate what all you bloggers do by keeping up on the articles and giving your two cents....anonymous or not.
Shaun Hittle
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"How is it that Marion is allowed to continue to post on LJW when his comment history has tons of TOS violations? " Katara
This question has been asked ever since the LJW started the message boards. No one has ever received an answer. So, it is obvious to deduce he has compromising photos of Dolph and a zebra.
Seriously, I have no clue on how he is allowed to post. I've given up wondering about it.
Katara (anonymous) says…
ironhorse66 (Anonymous) says…
katara-
I sent an email last week asking J Kealing the same questions…never got an answer back. go figure
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've asked the same thing over and over again. The last couple of times the LJW removed those comments.
My questions are legitimate questions.
Why is Marion treated differently than all the other posters on LJW?
If you are going to set up rules that people are required to follow in order to have the privilege to post here, then those rules need to be enforced consistently and fairly.
It is a slap to the face and a huge insult for all of those who do try to follow the rules to have an article that highlights one of the worst violators of those rules.
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
Tom - you are the only person here who can make my head spin like Linda Blair. I'm sure you do believe that "the left is generally the crowd complaining about who is posting what. That's the way I see it and firmly believe it to be true. The left is intolerant and want nothing getting in their way. " Yet you are the one poster I've seen here who could probably make a left-wing conspiracy out of an article about a kitten being rescued from a tree.
oliveoyl (anonymous) says…
Wow...this was front page newsworthy? Can this paper get any lamer? Super disappointed.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Carnival sideshows used to keep a geek around because he'd attract a lot of attention.
Katara (anonymous) says…
Part of the 16,000 comments... the same post stuck on all the most discussed topics that were online on 10/28/05. 12 comments that are all the exact same post and people complain about merrill's copy & paste. Why was Marion allowed to spam the forum?
http://www2.ljworld.com/users/Marion/...
http://www2.ljworld.com/users/Marion/...
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
As I said, Tom is the only one who makes my head spin like Linda Blair. Marion and a few others simply causing a bit of eye-rolling, certainly not up to the standards reserved for my own mother. We all have people that push our buttons. Marion obviously pushes a lot of buttons. I usually get there too late to see the contents of any posts that are removed. I don't know, maybe Marion is tolerated because he does post so much and he gets so many reactions. He boosts post numbers which LJW can show to advertisers. I'm not saying that's what is happening but it could certainly explain why he is treated the way he is. Personally, his posts don't bother me.
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
Just a few comments as much has already been said.
JK: It's good to see this article, but I can't help thinking that you went for quantity over quality. Just my opinion.
*****
Marion,
Congratulations. Pretty cool picture also. (Well done Nick: http://www2.ljworld.com/staff/nick_krug/)
However, above you're quoted as,
*“I use my real name, what’s yours?” said Lynn of his response when fellow commenters attack his views.*
Just between us, but I've never seen you write that. However, someone else I know regularly says, "I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?" As some people say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
*****
altarego - Thanks for the heads up on the new Hooters on the SLT. I've been waiting for 4-1/2 years (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/dec...). Have you heard anything recently?
*****
Regarding anonymity here. Those of you who've read my posts know my views on that. It's a personal accountability issue for me.
I know there are crazies out there. Like some of you, I've been attacked by "he who shall not be named" in an effort to drive me from here. Oh well, I consider the source on that one and ... well, you understand.
*****
JK asked for input a few days ago to improve these boards. I said that identities must be verified before people can post. Posters can choose to hide their name if they wish, but I feel if you're going to say / write something you have to be willing to stand up and be accountable for what you said.
*****
Oh yes, my tag line.
I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
what Katara said!
I absolutely agree.
***
Informed,
buck up buddy. some of us *do give a rip* about you, so don't be such a gloomy gus, okay?
seriously, I do appreciate your comments.
***
Regular LJWorld.com commenter Marion Lynn is pictured Tuesday at his home. Lynn, who has recorded about 16,000 comments online, chooses to reveal his identity
because he believes it gives him credibility.
---well, Marioin believes all kinds of wacky things: Obama hates polar bears (and he actually seems to have 8 posts pulled from that blog of his); about the holocaust; traderoutes and the swine flu; we're all gonna die of the swine flu ; etc., etc., etc!
so why put this particular wacko thought of his on the front page?
the reason we take offense at Marioin posting his google searches is he is selfaggrandizing and acts like he is all knowing, an expert in everything.
shall we list the areas in which Marioin has claimed to be a shining expert? obviously cars he is an expert.
finally, having his picture on the front page, maybe it'll help Marioin in the pursuit of the opposite sex. it seems all his bloviating claiming to be a real ladykiller is just fantasy. so maybe the newspaper coverage will improve his odds?
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
and who can forget:
in the past Marioin has outed the victims of a sex offender.
he loudly speculated that North Lawrence was a haven for sex offenders. that North Lawrence welcomed and protected sex offenders.
these should have gotten him TOSsed off, let alone the many dozens of other occasions.
Informed (anonymous) says…
Aw, thanks gnome. I certainly didn't mean it in a gloomy gus way (which I'm pretty sure you understand), but from a standpoint of misplaced self-importance.
I may disagree with many of the posters here, depending on the topic at hand, but there are also times I agree with those very same posters. Anonymous? Makes no never mind to me. My skin's pretty thick.
Katara (anonymous) says…
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…Regarding anonymity here. Those of you who've read my posts know my views on that. It's a personal accountability issue for me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And that is just plain silly. If the argument that you put forth in an online discussion can stand on its own, then why the need to put your name behind it? It will be still be valid regardless of whose name is next to it.
Having your name on a post does not add credibility to it. A real identity next to a post does not make the person more qualified to say it. You can have a real name next to your post and still know nothing about the topic being discussed.
ralphralph (anonymous) says…
I love the free discourse on this site. It is a primary reason I frequent LJWorld rather than Topeka and KC newspapers. I have made stupid and inappropriate remarks in weak moments, and without fail the other posters have slapped me down -- not with censorship (unless the comment was WAY over the line), but with more free speech of their own -- that is, if they disagree or find my thoughts inappropriate, they don't whine that I shouldn't be allowed to say it, but just tell the world that because I said it I am a buffoon and an imbecile and an accumulation of excrement. I guess if I'm looking for verifiable truth and accountability, I'd be drawn to identified posters whose qualifications and biases I could examine and consider; but for good-old-fashioned bandying about of ideas, the anonymous forums are the best for getting a lot of people involved, with little inhibition.
Thanks, LJW, for allowing this wonderful, if sometimes unrefined, exchange of ideas and BS at your virtual water cooler. Plus, you sometimes can enlist a lot of unpaid reporters to bring information (albeit unvetted) to your readers. Keep it up, and keep it anonymous.
Signed, ..... are you kidding? I'm not saying.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Wait a second ... didn't someone once threaten to sue some of us if we called him "Nick Danger," and now that same person is admitting to actually being "Nick Danger"? Nice credibility there "Nick."
Ralph Reed -- why is the former leader of the Christian Coalition hanging out on the ljworld site? Just asking.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Also see: outingbulkerbiz
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"Wait a second … didn't someone once threaten to sue some of us if we called him “Nick Danger,” and now that same person is admitting to actually being “Nick Danger”? Nice credibility there “Nick.” "
Yes, he has repeatedly threatened to sue the LJW to get my contact info so he could sue me. All that apparently failed. Marion Lynn is Nick Danger (and several others). But, we knew that aleady, didn't we?
Anyhow, I don't have any intention of pissing on his parade today. He got an article written about him. Good for him.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…"Carnival sideshows used to keep a geek around because he'd attract a lot of attention"
__________
You have it in a nutshell Snap. Why does the LJW let Marion persist despite rampant violation of the Terms of Service, his abuse towards other, and behavior like what Gnome pointed out regarding sex-crime victims?
Answer: Because its all about eyeballs.
Marion is a one-man Glen Beck/Dick Cheney/Rev. Sharpton/Jesse Jackson. He stirs $hit up, with no basis, and made up facts, and we all make lots of posts in return. The end product is lots of eyeball-views on the server site, and the LJW goes and sells advertising based in part by these eyeball counts.
Marion makes money for the World Company. Lucre trumps TOS policies. (Sorry Mr. Kealing)
Yes, people want to see the sideshow geek. And the bearded lady, and the wolfman, and the hermaphrodite. Marion is just the next one in line.
workinghard (anonymous) says…
Once somehow I stumpled upon the list of users but haven't been able to do it since. Does anyone know how to get to that part of the site?
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
Yes Marion has threatened me several times too. And he loves to cite the law. Incorrectly, usually.
His legal ignorance is surpassed only by Cool/Adriadne/Rusty2/Spiderman/Coltrane/Bronze/etc....
He also promises sure revolution in local elections, which doesn't happen either.
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
beatrice (Anonymous) writes…
"Ralph Reed — why is the former leader of the Christian Coalition hanging out on the ljworld site? Just asking."
*****
Common mistake beatrice. Suffice it to say though that I've had my name longer and, quite frankly, am better looking.
**********
katara. re: your 1608.
Sorry that you don't seem to understand my point.
I agree, a credible discussion / debate (note the use of the word as some don't) should stand of itself, whether or not you're "qualified" to write on something. As you said, "A real identity next to a post does not make the person more qualified to say it." It is though a personal accountability issue. If you say or write something, then you should be willing to be accountable for it. If you're not and choose to remain anon simply for that reason, then I hold your comments suspect. That's the way it is, sorry.
There are those posters who for good reason wish to remain anon and I respect their reasons (abuse victims, public figures and so on). (Yes, I've been in contact with some of them and some of those have told me why.) That doesn't make their statements any less credible.
If you have good reasons for remaining anon, then fine; more power to you - I respect that. But, I can't respect your reasons if you simply don't wish to be accountable for what you say / write. You notice, I said I can't respect your reasons, I did not say I can't respect you - I don't even know you.
************
I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?
wordgenie8 (anonymous) says…
I've lately opened a gmail account under a fake name, thanks to the nosiness of Mr. Kealing and others. I actually value my privacy!! Democracy is about choice, no? Once your name gets out on the net you can easily lose control of it and therefore how you are seen by others-- thanks to those infinite, unstoppable forwards. On rare occasions I do use my real name to state a strong opinion, but at this stage of my career it seems inadvisable even to let unknown others know exactly which issues I hold strong views on, let alone what exactly I believe. Moreover, as an open-minded and provisional thinker I uphold the Whitmanesque right to self-contradiction and quick-change artistry anyhow.
The only other small town paper I've blogged on besides the LJ World allows posters to fill in a new and self-chosen moniker every time they post. Of course, if you ever got way out-of-line they could still trace your IP address, but I do appreciate the enhanced anonymity. They monitor free speech and civility on the the blogs though, so one does well not to speak too vehemently should he/she wish to see the comment in print.
It's a total joke most people(especially here in Lawrence) might be more generous under the cover of anonymity. I've never anywhere witnessed such a diabolical craving for gratitude. Try not to force others to live a lie by such greedy grasping for thanks from complete strangers,please. People from these parts often can be observed enacting such public, offensive, and hypocritical dramas about being good people. It's actually all seems to be about ego strokes--a story you tell yourself to comfort yourself--not really about wanting to help folks you are a long way from understanding or connecting with. If you so fiercely desire to help others, kindly mind your own business, gain some self-restraint and don't cop to such insulting and alienating bigotry the moment you open your mouth.
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…
Great post Katara.
The article mentions that of the top 10 posters, 7 remain anonymous, and one is no longer active.
That no longer active account is "logicsound04", my previous screenname. It was--in my opinion--unfairly yanked when I decided to use profanity to call attention to the LJWorld's lack of response to the outcry over a very tasteless article by Chuck Woodling. Now, when I say I used profanity, I don't mean I got ticked and cussed in anger.
I mean that I intentionally posted string of profane words in order to point out that the LJWorld staff was simply ignoring people's concerns over the article. I suggested that my post would be removed far more quickly than the week that had gone by without so much as a peep from the LJWorld staff about how to address people's displeasure with the article. I even posted the exact same post without any profanity in direct succession, so that there would be a record of the point I was making. Lo and behold, my post (and account) were removed within the hour, but still no concern whatsoever about the actual article from the LJWorld online staff.
When I then emailed Kealing asking what was going on, I received a, quite frankly, snooty reply about how he won't tolerate such juvenile behavior on the site. However, as Katara has pointed out, he is more than happy to allow Marion's juvenile posting history.
And oddly enough, when questioned directly about this apparent contradiction, censorship is the M.O.. I don't know if the decision is Kealing's or the directive comes from his boss(es), but the selective application of the TOS stinks.
The fact that the LJWorld would publish this fluff piece about Marion really takes the cake. I think Boston_Corbett (and others) have it right when the point out that Marion's free reign is all about money.
P.S. - I'm curious how long this post will remain.
Calliope877 (anonymous) says…
No offense to those who made the "Top Contributors" list, but if I personally had made it on to that list, I'd feel like a total loser and try to find another hobby.
But maybe that's just me...
beatrice (anonymous) says…
This article has me thinking that I dump my cloak of anonymity. I too want to be considered credible, just like Marion Lynn and Tom Shewmon. So here goes ...
My real name is Diana Prince.
There, I've said it! What a relief! I finally feel like a real person, exposed for all to see who I am. Thank you LJWorld for making this day, this moment, possible!
Katara (anonymous) says…
A blast from the past for all you folks...
3 February 2006
at 9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion Lynn
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
To move a bit off the topic for a moment, I am compelled to reply to the repeated accusations of “shameless self promotion” on this forum.
If one takes into consideration post count, I am only very low on the radar.
A search this very morn revealed these numbers:
One_More_Bob: 2206 posts.
The_Original_Bob: 1653 posts.
Merrill: 1455 posts.
Off To The Right: 1198 posts.
Cellach: 995 posts.
Badger: 778 posts.
Marion: 741 posts.
Both of my accusers offer to the gentle reader more than DOUBLE the number of posts that I have made to the LJW forums.
And we were discussing “shameless self promotion”, I believe…….
Thanks.
Marion.
gl0ck0wn3r (anonymous) says…
Richard Heckler may have posted 8,308 times, but he only wrote eight of them.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"I've lately opened a gmail account under a fake name, thanks to the nosiness of Mr. Kealing and others."
I've always thought Kealing was fair and gave responses to questions. My only quibble would be why Marion is still allowed to post, but I'm over that now.
"No offense to those who made the “Top Contributors” list, but if I personally had made it on to that list, I'd feel like a total loser and try to find another hobby."
No offense taken (I'm like #7 or something). However, you need to take into account that I, and many of the other top 10 list, have been posting since the LJW commenting system started. Also, I've never been banned. As previously mentioned by others, many posters have been disappeaerededed numerous times only to come back with new names. Right Thinker, Bronze... whatever, someone compiled a list the other day. There were 10 - 15 people. A more accurate account of loserdome, would be to look at the post per day (ppd) list that was created. Some people are posting 12 - 15 times a day. I was somewhere around 4 which put me outside the Top 20.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Good one, glock.
Katara (anonymous) says…
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says… If you have good reasons for remaining anon, then fine; more power to you - I respect that. But, I can't respect your reasons if you simply don't wish to be accountable for what you say / write. You notice, I said I can't respect your reasons, I did not say I can't respect you - I don't even know you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You wouldn't have any way of knowing a person's reasons for posting anonymously unless they told you. And frankly, it is none of your business as to why they choose to post anonymously.
You posted that you respect someone for posting anonymously for good reasons (Who are you to judge what is a good reason or not?) then you turn around and further state that you can't respect a person's reasons. This makes no sense. You cannot have it both ways.
If you can't respect the argument when it is a valid one regardless of what name (real or anon) is by it, then why should I respect your response to it simply because your have your name next to it? Just because I can look you up in the phone book or google your name to harass you for your response? Or I can find out your workplace and harass you there? How is that really honestly holding you accountable for what you say? Being harassed or stalked because you posted on the internet is not a form of accountability.
Katara (anonymous) says…
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
This article has me thinking that I dump my cloak of anonymity. I too want to be considered credible, just like Marion Lynn and Tom Shewmon. So here goes …
My real name is Diana Prince.
There, I've said it! What a relief! I finally feel like a real person, exposed for all to see who I am. Thank you LJWorld for making this day, this moment, possible!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your bravery and courage has inspired me too, beatrice. I too wish to unlock the chains of anonymity.
My name is Inigo Montoya.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"Your bravery and courage has inspired me too, beatrice. I too wish to unlock the chains of anonymity.
My name is Inigo Montoya."
Same here.
My name is Sir Horatio "Saltyballs" Schglinenbergon
Katara (anonymous) says…
Interesting that the man who claims to post only under his real name had an anonymous account here on LJW. Should we add that to his post total?
The reason he gave for this anonymous account? He couldn't sign into to his Marion_Lynn account so he created a new one. So much for the credibility and accountability for having an account in one's actual name.
http://www2.ljworld.com/users/Swampfo...
beatrice (anonymous) says…
"Ya know, I have about half-a-dozen people who rely on me for mostly all of their incomes."
So, do you include their pimp in that total or not?
Katara (anonymous) says…
Marion,
There is absolutely no need whatsoever to save any of your posts. It is all here on the LJW in your comment history. And yes, I know about your Swamp Fox - Francis Marion dealybob because you posted about it back then. Duh.
The point is that you have consistently bragged that you post under one name (your real name) and only that name and you were lying. You lied to the LJW about this and now they have written an article that is factually incorrect.
You can justify your signing up for an anonymous account all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you did and you have consistently misrepresented yourself as being truthful about your accounts.
Spin that if you can.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
I'm not a Jackal, I'm a Jet! And when you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way, from your first cigarette, to your last dyin' day. ...
By the way, I'm the sick one after you were all salivating over your keyboard the other day discussing Catholic school girls as if you are the character in Jethro Tull's "Aqualung." Funny.
Marion writes: "One really has to go far out of one's way to get s***canned by me if one is trying at all."
LJWorld Use Policy states: "But if you use inappropriate language (even when typographically obfuscated), or make potentially slanderous or libelous comments when using this site and its features, or engage in ad hominem attacks on fellow commenters, people mentioned in stories, contributors or any employee of The Lawrence Journal-World or The World Company, we reserve the right (but assume no obligation) to remove any and/or all of your contributions."
So lets see -- you attacked me after a harmless joke and called me such a hateful thing as a "jackal." (To my people, given the origin of the word, "jackal" is one of the most hurtful and hateful things you can call someone.) It is a direct ad hominem attack. You also wrote "s***canned," which is clearly inappropriate language although typographically obfuscated. The context bears out that you didn't mean "soupcanned."
Two violations of the LJWorld policy of use in one post, at least. Thanks for proving our point Nick.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Still
having
a
wonderful
internet
life
despite
the
empty
threats
of
a
sad
old
wind-bag
.
Katara (anonymous) says…
Gosh, Marion....speaking of saving posts...
24 March 2006
at 4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion Lynn
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Don't worry, I saved them all and have them loaded to my server.
Thanks.
Marion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I guess by your definition that would make you a stalker too.
3ofClubs (anonymous) says…
Marion,
Your hair! It's silver! And a nice silver at that. When did that happen? I remember you when it was dark brown. Of course, that was 1970. Where does the time go?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
marioni, face it. You are the guy in a pit out back of the circus tent. People crowd around to watch you bite the heads off chickens. They buy a lot of tickets which means money for the circus.
That is your only value to the circus.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"You, Sir or Madam, are not only a complete fool but in violation of federal law." Nick
!
beatrice (anonymous) says…
How is asking a question about something easily located in court documents violating federal law?
How do you know ironhorse had a boat?
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
Katara, re: your 1948.
First, you don't know who has spoken with me offline and who has not, so please do not presume to know what I know. I do admit that I have a bad habit, I don't talk about what people tell me. That's how I was raised and have spent most of my adult life. So again, please do not presume so much.
Not saying you're he as you've been here for a while, but the last one who spoke like that to me was "he who shall not be named." Your posts have a strangely similar method of personal attack. Call it argumentum ad hominem unless you're going to attack me for using it's proper name, then you can call it "attack the person, not what the person said." I say this as I have been ridiculed anonymously for calling something by it's proper name.
For me it is an accountability issue. Please reread what I wrote, I said nothing about credibility. Credibility comes when you develop a logical argument, do not attack the person, can back your argument with reliable evidence, and do not engage in juvenile playground bullying. You may say something entirely credible, but in my opinion I have to give it a second look because of the anonymous post.
As a final note, I don't have numbers as the research idea just came to me, but I'll wager that the vast majority of personal attacks and threats come from anonymous posters. Not just against me, but in general. That is one reason I call for accountability. Would you mind joining with me on that research? That would make an interesting blog.
**********
I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?
Katara (anonymous) says…
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…Not saying you're he as you've been here for a while, but the last one who spoke like that to me was “he who shall not be named.” Your posts have a strangely similar method of personal attack. Call it argumentum ad hominem unless you're going to attack me for using it's proper name, then you can call it “attack the person, not what the person said.” I say this as I have been ridiculed anonymously for calling something by it's proper name.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interesting. Because I disagree with you, you resort to insinuating that I am someone who you have posted about harassing/stalking you here on LJW. You've mentioned "he who cannot be named" many times. What was that you were saying about personal attacks and argumentum ad hominem?
Again, someone stalking or harassing you for posting your opinion on the internet is NOT accountability for your words. You advocate that others open themselves up to that happening in the name of accountability. And you refuse to respect their comments because they do not want to expose themselves to that risk (of which you have posted about here on LJW as being a victim of.).
You say it isn't about credibility but about accountability yet in the same post remark that even though someone may post something credible, you give it a second look because of it being anonymous. That does make it about credibility, not accountability. You would have no idea the reasons why a person would post anonymously, yet presume to assume that it is because they wish to avoid accountability for their remarks. I am not sure that you really honestly understand what accountability means.
Katara (anonymous) says…
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
As a final note, I don't have numbers as the research idea just came to me, but I'll wager that the vast majority of personal attacks and threats come from anonymous posters. Not just against me, but in general. That is one reason I call for accountability. Would you mind joining with me on that research? That would make an interesting blog.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It would be interesting research however there are several verified users here/or were that would prove your theory wrong.
Marion (Marion Lynn)
enforcer (Kathy Gragg) - no longer on this board under this name
Irish (Irish Swearingen) - queen of the "go to Hell" remarks
Groenhagen - no longer on this board for now
That's_Mr._Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon)
These are the most frequent posters who are verified with their actual name and probably account for over 50% of the daily posts on this forum.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
"Commenters and the journalism community continue to debate whether the shield of anonymity for commenters is a positive or negative aspect of the online world."
Anonymity serves the unbridled conversation. Ideas independent of person-alities. One wonders whether eliminating screen names altogether might better serve this end. All "Bobs," as it were. But that would probably be too disorienting... sort of like loading the LJW main page and finding Marion's face grinning back at you.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
Quantitas magna frumentorum est.
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
Katara,
I didn't insinutate anything about you having stalked me here. I said your style of writing and personal attack is similar. That's it. If you choose to take it beyond that, then that's OK. But, you're saying that, not I.
*****
You read into what I said. I did not say I refuse to respect comments because they post anonymously. Here's what I wrote:
"You may say something entirely credible, but in my opinion I have to give it a second look because of the anonymous post."
I don't see anything there about not respecting what someone wrote. You continue to discuss my writing about (personal) accountability and credibility. Perhaps, because someone is less willing to be personally accountable for what they wrote, I see their comments as less credible. I had not really thought of that. Maybe the two do go hand-in-hand --- interesting.
*****
My offer still stands about the research. I did not hypothesize that ALL personal attacks come from anonymous posters, I hypothesized that the vast majority come from anonymous posters. I do grant you though that had I said "all" then your response would be entirely correct.
**********
I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
misplacedcheesehead (anonymous) says…
Ralph Reed, shame on you!!! You are saying you don't think those of us who post anonymously are credible?
And here I was going to say that yes, you are quite good looking, although I have to say that Marion is sort of handsome. Ah come on folks, if Ronda can think that McCain is sexy, let's name the sexy ones as such. (Yes, Mr. Reed, I mean you.)
One question, Ralph. Do you prefer boxers or briefs; we're all dying to know.
Please folks, don't be too hard on Ralph Reed. He has been starved for stress-relieving activity for too long. Well, I'm just guessing. (hee,hee,hee)
And Ralph, don't get your undies all in a bunch because of the views of others who don't agree with you. Rumor has it you dated a Republican in a former life!!!
Katara (anonymous) says…
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
Katara,
I didn't insinutate anything about you having stalked me here. I said your style of writing and personal attack is similar. That's it. If you choose to take it beyond that, then that's OK. But, you're saying that, not I.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can read what you said. You compared my style of writing with a person whom you have posted having stalked you. How is that not a personal attack? Or an insinuation that I would engage in the same because your name is posted? And then go on to pretty much lecture me about argumentum ad hominem? Really?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…You read into what I said. I did not say I refuse to respect comments because they post anonymously. Here's what I wrote:
“You may say something entirely credible, but in my opinion I have to give it a second look because of the anonymous post.”
I don't see anything there about not respecting what someone wrote. You continue to discuss my writing about (personal) accountability and credibility. Perhaps, because someone is less willing to be personally accountable for what they wrote, I see their comments as less credible. I had not really thought of that. Maybe the two do go hand-in-hand – interesting.
~~~~~~~~~
The fact that you are giving it a second look based on the anonymity of the post is a lack of respect.
I really don't think you understand what accountability means. Accountability is being responsible for your words. One can still be responsible for your words without having your name next to them. It means being able to back up what you say. It means posting truthful items. And those can be done without an actual name.
For example, do you honestly think that Marion is accountable for his posts? Particularly when the LJW refuses to enforce their own rules when it comes to his posting behavior? How has Marion's verified name given him accountability? He posts untrue things frequently and when called on it, resorts to the personal attacks. Yet, he is not held accountable for his posts that violate the TOS. Accountability for his posts would mean that the ones that violate the TOS would be removed and if he incurs many violations, being bounced from the forum.
Marion outed victims of sexual abuse. Where has he been held accountable for this? Your theory that people are held accountable for their posts because they are verified is bunk. The names in my previous post prove that theory wrong.
Katara (anonymous) says…
Cont'd
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…My offer still stands about the research. I did not hypothesize that ALL personal attacks come from anonymous posters, I hypothesized that the vast majority come from anonymous posters. I do grant you though that had I said “all” then your response would be entirely correct.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would encourage you to re-read what I said. You suggest that I did not read your post correctly but you certainly did not read the last part of mine very well.
I did not claim you said all or imply you were talking about all anonymous posters. You said that the majority of personal attacks and threats come from anonymous posters. I named several who are prolific posters on LJW (and I would say comprise a large quantity of the total posts on this forum. Afterall, one boasts 16,000+ posts and the others have used multiple usernames to post here) and made the statement that those individuals would prove your theory wrong (i.e. they have a tons of posts and a ton of personal attacks & threats). Does that make sense?
misplacedcheesehead (anonymous) says…
Children, children!
This is getting to be too much fun.
Mr. Reed, relax. It's going to be okay. Katara does not have to agree with you. The sun will still rise tomorrow, and so will you.
Hey, where's your angry comment toward me? After all, I accused you of having dated a Republican. I figured that would get a rise out of you.
Uh hooters??? i'm telling your mother!
misplacedcheesehead (anonymous) says…
There once was a man named Ralph Reed,
Who could not stand opposing opinions.
So he blogged and he blogged. though he should be flogged, for keeping his sexy self from the minions!
(Disclaimer-the above limerick was written under the influence of sleeping medication. The above poster does not, nor have they ever "known". Ralph Reed.)
altarego (anonymous) says…
There is another dimension to this discussion that no one has addressed; what about google juice?
I've been on-line since the 80s, from BBSs, Compuserve, Prodigy, through to today's wizbang web 2.0, and I have NEVER once, and never will post a comment on a public forum with my real name attached. There are a handful of my friends who know who I am, and the rest of you don't care. This relationship is delightfully mutual.
Those who suggest a real name lends credibility or accountability to a post suffer an incomplete understanding of the fundamentals of civilization, rendering their own credibility moot.
altarego (anonymous) says…
Ah rests ma case.
Katara (anonymous) says…
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
Katara, you are one who sees political disagreement as a threat. Show me my posts with threats and personal attacks. As it stands, you're a liar. Hahahahaha!! We know who you are. Former thread hijacker and to claim 4 or 5 other posters account for over half of all posts. You're a liar.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for proving my point, Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You.
If you want further proof, here you go...
http://www2.ljworld.com/users/Mr_Nanc...
And if you know who I am, then post it. I double dog dare you.
And then I and all the others on LJW who actually know me will giggle ourselves silly because you are so incredibly wrong.
RKLOG (Mark Andrew) says…
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/jul...
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
You still owe me $10 for your misguided bet about my internet life, deadbeat.
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
Whew marion looks like Katara(anonomous) has the hots for you. Be safe and lock your doors.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Looks like the most banned poster on LJW is back again.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Ralph, I think it's time you took a look at your theory on anonymity and credibility/accountability, and reevaluated its merit. You've had plenty of data in this thread by which to do so, and it's pretty clear that your hypothesis has some problems to it.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
I would like to see a limit on how many times a person can post per day. I think this would make the Blog more diverse and interesting.
The problem now is that there are a few people who try to dominate the Blog with a flood of political rhetoric that is not helpful at all and simply irritating and unpleasant.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
Mario: "Te futueo et caballum tuum."
Equine leanings, now?
That's a haunch up from your usual fare.
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
Again, the main ones, other than a few conservatives calling for some sensible guidelines (including myself–use name a must and pay an annual membership fee) are the left, namely the more far to the left, calling for some censorship in some form.
_____________________________________________
First of all there are not any real conservatives on here. If they are here they are not posting and those that call themselves conservatives wouldn't know sensible if it bit them in the butt.
I find it amusing that some think that posting with your real name serves some sort of purpose when in reality many of the violations of the TOS are committed by those that are verified or that have been verified in the past.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
What's that buzzing noise from the direction of Emporia? It's Willam Allen White spinning in his grave at the thought of what journalism has become.
workinghard (anonymous) says…
I think this was a ploy by the LJW to get people to blog, driving up their numbers, and we should of boycotted it. It's too bad they had to resort to this kind of thing and we played right into their hands. Just my opinion. It would be a neat experiment if nobody responded to Marion's posts, their blogs would probably drop in half. It would be fun to see what happened. Well off to work.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
Workinghard is correct. Snap is correct. Grimpeur is correct. TomPaine is correct. Beatrice is correct. And others.
It's about eyeballs, money, and a continuing decline of the state of journalism and newspapers.
Marion is but an odd monkey with two heads in the newspaper circus sideshow, where he taunts the crowd throwing his biosolids around. In return the circus lets him trample on the rules. Because the crowd wants to watch, wants to yell back, and that makes the circus money.
Today he got headline status on the Barkers chalk board. He got to wear a Burger-King crown. And he smiled all day. I hope they gave him an extra ration of Grey Goose too.
It doesn't change the fact that he is still a two-headed biosolids throwing monkey freak on the side-show.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
1. Pride
2. Avarice (Greed)
3. Envy
4. Wrath
5. Lust
6. Gluttony
7. Sloth
#3 is entertaining to watch, wouldn't you say Marion?
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
Approximately post #225 for this story alone. Marion brings in the posts. And you all fall for it, every day. I am LMAO at the number of people posting to complain about Marion on an article about Marion's posting.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
Don't forget to include yourself J_G
;-)
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
I'm not. I just don't remember ever griping about Marion's posts. Marion mostly amuses me and occasionally makes me roll my eyes. He doesn't turn me rabid. That honor is reserved for Mr. Nancy Boy Tom.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
Nancy: "Again, the main ones, other than a few conservatives calling for some sensible guidelines (including myself–use name a must and pay an annual membership fee) are the left, namely the more far to the left, calling for some censorship in some form." ====== I am a proud 'lefty' but I agree with you. Carry on, brother!
PRG
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
Thanks, Paul. You once again make my point that Tom can make everything political. Sorry, will respond when my brain stops spinning from seeing a comment by Tom.
coolmom (anonymous) says…
well, regardless of everything else it sure got everyone talking didnt it?
was_freashpowder2 (Alexander Neighbors) says…
ironhorse66 (Anonymous) says…
hey Alex- is that a cannabis plant Marion is growing in his mothers house?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well according to the LPD that plant in the back ground is an illegal plant. Watch out you better get it out of your house fast or else the lpd will come for you and then charge you with a bunch of ridicules charges to which after 5 years you will not have a trial and the police and federal prosecutors will try to revoke your bond 7 times not because your a danger to the community but because you keep proclaiming your innocence and you make public what those people in charge are doing and you start to expose the illegal activities they are doing.
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
Just so I can clarify, Nancy's comment, as quoted above by Paul, is saying that the more than the far to the left want some censorship but we don't want to give our names? All I want censored is vulgarity and only because this is a family site.
shaunepec (Shaun Hittle) says…
To workinghard,
Come on, a ploy to drive up blogging numbers?
This article was originally intended to find out why the bloggers/posters comment. But, when no one would identify themselves, it turned into this article.
The commenters are simply an interesting story.
But, I suppose this post could be a ploy to further drive up the numbers...
EireishHawk (anonymous) says…
Jersey_Girl (Anonymous) says…
Just so I can clarify, Nancy's comment, as quoted above by Paul, is saying that the more than the far to the left want some censorship but we don't want to give our names? All I want censored is vulgarity and only because this is a family site.
_____________________________
Really? That's all you want? I want a few more commas and some proofing before you comment. If your intent is to "clarify" another person's comment, please try to do so in a coherent manner!
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
Eire - I did proofread. Please, enlighten me as to my missing commas.
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
Tom - I don't hate you and unfortunately, I'm actually from NJ. I just like to believe I was conceived there as I know I was not born or raised there. I have the constitution of a Jersey Girl, though. Your posts make my head spin because you seem to be able to make a leftist conspiracy out of an article about a kitten being rescued from a tree. Not everything is a political conspiracy, from the left or the right.
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
not actually from NJ, I meant.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
Cool, they're leaving the "pinkies" up again!
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
Why is this tread still up and running? Those that think they like Marion have already handed over their yada yada congratulations. Those that do not like Marion have already slammed him. Those that do not like each other are still fighting as usual.
It should be painfully obvious that Marion is given the freedom to do what other posters have been banned for. We may not like it but it is the LJW's forum and they can do what ever they please. We can either stay here jabbing and poking at them or we take our toys and go play elsewhere. Personally I like the idea of jabbing and poking because I can still play elsewhere and here too. That is unless they force people to be verified, in which case I will be gone in a heart beat.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
My suggestion for improvement for the blogs would be for the ability to "squelch" other posters from your own viewing timeline. Along with the ability for all users to view how many "squelches" are applied to any particular user.
People like Tom (and a few others) would get throttled very quickly, and they would see it. Everybody else would know too. They would either become more behaved, or more rarely (by choice) listened to. (and Tom, me walking away from you screaming at others in a public street is not censorship). These people would be ignored by more well behaved posters.
Less R v L screaming and yelling would occur, and I would be more likely to read more comments of the remaining more tolerant people.
But so long this a board that encourages the posting habits of Tom and ilk, it will remain a meaningless sewer in the street.
Does the LJW really want to foster a board to discuss community issues, current events, and news, or be a sewer?
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
Does the LJW really want to foster a board to discuss community issues, current events, and news, or be a sewer?
_____________________________________________
You will not be able to shut some of these people up no matter what you do. As far as your question goes, there are several who are scratching their ears about this. Maybe not in the same words or form. I am going to go out on a limb and assume that as with most things, no answer is as good as an answer. Therefore, we may want to invest in nose clips.
rrussell (Rex Russell) says…
Nancy Boy,
I don’t know anyone who knows me that would call me a liberal. None. So you can skip that one in your response. I have only asked repeatedly for common civility in debate and discussion. Not censorship. I have been reading your posts for a couple of years now; I’m convinced you’re not capable of that. As a matter of fact, you seem to get a perverse pleasure in the nastiness of your on-line persona. Not a personal attack, an observation. The result is that the personal attacks and counterattacks that occur displace real discussion and debate of a topic. You’re not the only one by far guilty of poor on-line conduct, just the first one that comes to mind. I have only repeatedly asked the LJW to actually enforce the guidelines we all agreed to. No censorship, just common respect and civility.
RobertMarble (anonymous) says…
Those who are too cowardly to post with their own names make up the bulk of these forums. Without them there would actually be intelligent conversation.
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
rrussell (Rex Russell) says…
Nancy Boy,
I don’t know anyone who knows me that would call me a liberal. None.
______________________________________________
Your only qualification to be considered a liberal is to disagree with any of the self appointed so called conservatives on this board.
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
RobertMarble (Anonymous) says…
Those who are too cowardly to post with their own names make up the bulk of these forums. Without them there would actually be intelligent conversation.
____________________________________________
I do not consider hiding behind a screen name cowardly when I consider some of the crazy whack jobs who post online. I don't suppose you have considered that a lot of the violations of the TOS of this forum are committed by posters using their real name.
workinghard (anonymous) says…
Wow, I got a response out of Shaun, now I'll spend all night trying to analyse why the post bothered him and not any of the others.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
I just knew Marion couldn't go without having one of his posts removed on this, his moment of fame story.
Has anyone done an exam of active posters who have had the most posts removed? (like it is any big mystery)
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
I should have guessed that marioni would get back to posting song lyrics again.
BTW
,
still
having
a
wonderful
internet
life
despite
the
threats
of
sad
old
wind
bags
.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
Marion writes: "Yep; another Pseudo-liberal/Neo-socialist who advocates for “choice” but incapable of making “choices” for him/her/itself. Needs software to make the “choices”. Pathetic. “Mommy! He's looking at me!” Pitiful."
______________
Dear Mr. Kealing and LJW staff:
Encountering hate speech, screaming infants, and rants from a soap box, when entering a public place intended for discourse and dialogue, and choosing to avoid those sources of irritation is quite logical and normal. And it certainly is not censorship. I suggest you read my suggestion about "squelching" above.
It is obvious that Marion fears he would be oft squelched. So he starts calling names.
Case in point, proved.
So is this board about discourse, about contributing to the community, or is it a forum for the widest and most infantile level of yelling and mud-throwing, which produces more page-hits?
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
I agree heartily with rrussell's 8:28 post last night.
Exactly the issue I have. If we could voluntarily squelch such offensive behavior, the abusers would either become more civil, or disappear by people choosing to not listen.
The air would be more clear for more productive exchanges.
witchfindergeneral (anonymous) says…
Marion Lynn says...
"You know, the Jackals have real lives outside of this forum."
Really, Marion? I'd imagine it's quite tough to lead a "real life" when you post 16,000 comments on a single site over the course of 4 years. As for the Jackals...remember: "it takes one to know one." You, sir, are a jackal if ever I saw one (see Boston_Corbett's 11:05 post).
witchfindergeneral (anonymous) says…
My mistake, Marion. I didn't realize jackals must be "kind of like" "liberals" (quotations added because there's no such thing as a real liberal, right?). Since you are a proud conservative, it might be more accurate to label you as "sort of like" a "Nazi."
Jackal or not, Marion, you seem to have no qualms with my claim that you don't have a real life (you don't).
Good day, sir. The real world calls.
RobertMarble (anonymous) says…
headdoctor says:
"I do not consider hiding behind a screen name cowardly when I consider some of the crazy whack jobs who post online."
.....guess what hd- those online posting whack jobs you're so fearful of are probably some of the same people you may work or go to school with, see at the grocery store, etc, etc...so unless you plan on living your life in terror and shut into your own home, you might want to grow some cojones and have enough courage in your beliefs to take ownership of your own opinions. a person's statements mean less than nothing if the individual can't even own up to them.
RobertMarble (anonymous) says…
headdoctor says:
"I don't suppose you have considered that a lot of the violations of the TOS of this forum are committed by posters using their real name."
*************
..irrelevent. please focus.
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
RobertMarble (Anonymous) says…
Those who are too cowardly to post with their own names make up the bulk of these forums. Without them there would actually be intelligent conversation.
and
RobertMarble (Anonymous) says…
headdoctor says:
“I don't suppose you have considered that a lot of the violations of the TOS of this forum are committed by posters using their real name.”
*************
..irrelevent. please focus.
__________________________________________
I agree that the bulk of this forum is made up of screen names but how can you declare that people posting with their real names will improve the quality of discussion when the the bulk of the violations of the terms of service are being committed by people using their real names. Hardly irrelevant when the main argument for posting using a real name is that it improves discourse.
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
RobertMarble (Anonymous) says…
headdoctor says:
“I do not consider hiding behind a screen name cowardly when I consider some of the crazy whack jobs who post online.”
…..guess what hd- those online posting whack jobs you're so fearful of are probably some of the same people you may work or go to school with, see at the grocery store, etc, etc…so unless you plan on living your life in terror and shut into your own home, you might want to grow some cojones and have enough courage in your beliefs to take ownership of your own opinions. a person's statements mean less than nothing if the individual can't even own up to them.
_____________________________________________
You are either very idealistic, or regardless of how long you have been an internet poster have very limited experience, or you are just incapable for what ever reason of understanding. As far as the internet goes, what is in a name? I have no idea if you are in fact Robert Marble. I have no intention of believing you just because you say so and frankly it doesn't matter who you are. If you make a bone headed post it doesn't make it any better just because you are posting with your real name.
You may think people are cowards that hide behind screen names but apparently you have not had your life turned into a living hell after some whack job takes the argument off line and makes it personal. If that ever happens to you, please get back to us and let us know how that worked out. I would be very interested to know if you still have the same thought process then as now.
Katara (anonymous) says…
Marion's response to witchfindergeneral's comment completely proves the point about anonymity. Even with a name next to your post, one cannot truly know if the person is who they say they are.
So much for the personal accountability argument put forth by those wanting actual names...defeated by one who claims to use his real name and makes a point in the article about how he uses his real name to question the credibility of anonymous posters...while bragging that he can be anybody he wants at any time he wants.
As for the internet being the "real" world...that is only true for those who cannot function well in the actual world.
Katara (anonymous) says…
Marion,
I have some very bad news for you. Buying products online such as groceries, clothing and the like has been going on for a couple of decades now and brick n' mortar stores have not gone away completely. And it is unlikely that they will.
There are still many, many people out there who do not own a computer and never will. Business will still cater to them too.
Fancy yourself the tech savvy guy all you want. If the electricity goes out for more than a few hours, you'll just be sitting alone in the dark with a chunk of metal. Batteries and generators only last for so long and even if you feel yourself so gosh darn prepared for everything, the majority of your clientele is not. That means your virtual cash register will not be ringing.
Call me behind the times all you want, but I can guarantee I can function in a world with no internet access far better than you.
parlet (anonymous) says…
I've noticed that the more people respond to comments by Marion Lynn, the more excited he gets. Rather than rising to his bait, why not just pass him by and find commenters who puts some thought into their posts? If you feed a stray cat, it'll hang around.
Stat_Guys (anonymous) says…
Well well well...
This blows everything out of the water.
Back from vacation.
Upon reading this I've done some digging. Our research was done using user profile starting dates in our calculations. Comments did not start on that sign up date as we thought.
They also did not start in 2006, nor in 2005 as the article states, but from what I can find, they probably started 8-23-2004 but that is yet to be verified.
In just a few minutes research I found one person who backposted on 9-1-2004 on a 8-21-2004 OTS, but I don't think comments were enabled at that time. I've contacted Jonathan to see if he can find out more information for us.
Stat_Guys (anonymous) says…
Actually, I was just kidding. It really only shifts things a tiny bit. I just wanted to join in on the eye popping mumbo jumbo.
mike_blur (Mike Blur) says…
Good grief. I don't have the time or energy to read all comments in this forum.
In the nearly 6 years I've been a verified user, I've never been personally attacked or felt threatened in any way, shape or form. Yeah, right_thinker (Tom Shewmon) has called me an elitist liberal, but those of you that know me at all would find that laughable.
A couple people (including an anonymous Top 5 poster) have even outed themselves to me on the street! I've even met Marion in person--and he was so nervous and jittery, he skittered away like a scared rabbit.
Regarding comments starting in 2005--I verified myself in 2003, and my first comment, according to my profile, was in August of 2004. I have commented before that, however; I remember signing up that day to post--2005 is incorrect.
Stat_Guys (anonymous) says…
We were hoping you would jump on that Marion.
We'll see you on here ► http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/you-a...
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
Another forum member evidently supports my suggestion to the LJW for a feature to "squelch" abusive forum members. I apologize for this member's inability to spell:
________________________
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Posts are like the televison (sic); if you do not like the program, change the channell (sic) or turn it off.
Thanks.
Marion.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
Anybody else get the impression bethree is a reincarnate of a previously disapearededed poster? With only 8 posts and a sign on date of July 26,2009 he/she/it seems vaguely familiar.....
just sayin'.........
Welcome back, ice (or whoever.......)
jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says…
beo, Roe-
I agree. I've banned him about five times now. And gone he goes again. He actually e-mailed me to tell me he'd be back and there was nothing I could do about it. We'll see about that, eh?
Jonathan Kealing
Online editor
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
"So is this board about discourse, about contributing to the community, or is it a forum for the widest and most infantile level of yelling and mud-throwing, which produces more page-hits?" === I suspect the page-ihit ssue is what drives this. Newspapers are dying in hard-copy; they need a new business model. Apparently, watching digital monkey poo being flung from cyber cage to cyber cage attracts the curious and the bored. There are a few sites where I post that seem to promote actual conversation about an issue or a news story, but they are relatively rare.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
I dunno, Paul. Whadda you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csQVvi...
Fort_Aubrey (anonymous) says…
Maybe the LJW should just rename this place:
"Marion and Tom's digital Monkee Poo forum"
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
_______________________
Marion Lynn Tuesday, July 29, 2008: "Tiller The Killer may well be headed for the Greybar Hotel.With any luck, the Kansas Angel of Death will be locked away for years and I hope that he does drop the soap regularly."
_______________________________
Marion Lynn Thursday, January 31, 2008 "Adolf Eichmann was anonymous, right up until he wasn't. So it is with the baby killers and those who advocate for Auschwitz On The Plains! They also have their "Wansee Conference" with Tiller as group leader!"
__________________
Marion Lynn Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tiller = Mengele.
_____________________
Marion Lynn Sunday, May 31, 2009
Maybe if one or more of those Lutherans, who are Christians also, as was Tiller, had possessed a concealed weapons permit, the Goodly Doctor might have been saved.
_________________________________
Marion Lynn Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Tiller charges a bundle for killin' all those babies so he has a lot of it to spread around; each dollar stained with the blood of a murdered child.
________________________________
Marion Lynn Thursday, January 31, 2008
Oh, well; there is nothing to weep about as fetuses are not "alive" according to "Pro-Choice" people.
Fetuses are only blobs of unviable protoplasm, much like an amoebae out of water.
Pull off the legs, suck out the brains, shoot in some acid and let'em rip!
Tiller The Killer; The Kansas Angel Of Death!
Support the selection!
Do not stand in the way of the extermination!
40,000,000 is only a number!
Just ask Joseph Stalin!
Wir müssen die Babies ausrotten!
_________________________________
Marion Lynn Thursday, October 26, 2006
Tiller is nothing more than a serial killer.
Tiller The Killer.
Thanks.
Marion.
__________________________________
Marion Lynn Thursday, October 26, 2006
Some info on The Thoroughly Modern Mengele; Dr. Tiller:
http://www.dr-tiller.com/
Thanks.
Marion.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
I think it is very sad that LJW has been acting as an enabler for marioni's attention addiction.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
I think it's hilarious that those who complain most about Marion are the ones giving him the most attention!
http://www.pinball.com/games/arabian/...
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
I look forward to the day when some people stop calling themselves liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans and actually start to think for themselves again.
Fundamentalism is something you need to grow out of so you can talk like a normal person again.
We might get some better people in government if we stop acting like fools.
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Glass the place as far as I am concerned.
____________________________________________
So, your answer is to turn the Middle East into the newest glass factory. Somehow I don't think you thought the plan through very well but why should I expect anything different from your posts.
Hint: All those fictitious automobiles you talk about require gas to run on. roflmao.
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
We have plenty of oil and if we run out in my lifetime, I wil lrun those “ficticious” automobiles on homebrew.
_____________________________________________
Home brew eh? Some how I doubt that your Lincoln will do that well on gluten free Gray Goose or home brew equivalent. I suspect you would get more miles to the gallon on that stuff than your car would.
BigPrune (anonymous) says…
Within the next 5 days, I will reveal my true identity for all the world to see.
I promise I'll be wearing clean underwear, no scotch guard necessary......for me
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Shouldn't the picture show a blank screen now?
iamtired (anonymous) replies…
http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e...
iamtired (anonymous) says…
http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e...
iamtired (anonymous) says…
True disappeareding: http://tinyurl.com/386x4qd
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
And now HWMNBN is sneaking onto LJW in the dead of night to rant and rave and boast.
LOLZ!
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.