The Problem With Civility

The problem with civility is not the civility, it is the whining about civility.

This type of comment galls me no end:

Civility, to me, does *not* mean being ‘nice-nice’.  No.  If you see me posting something you disagree with, well… go for it!  Tell me you disagree, tell me why, and I will try to justify my position.
Civility, rather, means treating one another with respect.  Civility means knowing that, as LBJ said “When two people agree on everything, one of them is doing all the thinking”

Civility means being polite; it does not mean being silent.

Civility means assuming that other people are of good will, even if they disagree with you.

Civility means being willing to entertain the idea that you are wrong.  (well, except me, of course.  I’m never wrong).

“How could you think that you ignorant baboon!” is not civil.

“F*ck you” is not civil.

“Only a Republican could think that” is, given the nature of this site, not civil.

“I disagree, because I think XXXXX” is civil.

Civility does not shut down debate, it opens it up. It allows people to venture unpopular positions, knowing that they will not be shot down.  It allows people to disagree without risking friendship.  It encourages those who are usually quiet to speak up. 

Let’s disagree.  But let’s not be disagreeable.

The problem with this is that the folks who write this type of comment will wield “civility” like a club in an attempt to stifle debate. I know it. I lived it. I came here because I felt confident we would not buy into this faux bullshit. Based on the reaction to the comment, I think I may very likely be wrong. More

I responded to this comment as follows:

When can assumptions be rejected? (0.00 / 0) [delete comment]
IP Address:

“Civility does not shut down debate, it opens it up.”
Demands for civility to avoid substance do shuit down sicussion,. I have found in my expereince that the demands for civility are almost always more stifling than than the incivility itself.

Your write:

“It allows people to venture unpopular positions, knowing that they will not be shot down.”

Um, why should anyone fear being shot down? And if they do, maybe they wouldbe better of not venturing unpopular opinions.

“It allows people to disagree without risking friendship.”

What kind of friendship do you really have if disagreement puts it at risk?

“It encourages those who are usually quiet to speak up.”

This is a valid point. But I do not believe the tradeoff of the lectures on civility and the stifling that does is a worthy tradeoff. 

“Let’s disagree.  But let’s not be disagreeable.”

This is an empty platitude. I’ll watch to see when people insist on “civility.” In my experience, it is always to peiople who disagree with you and NEVER to those who agree with you.

You being everyone here.

In short I strongly disagree with your comment because the words you write NEVER match the actual demands for civility.

I can say without hesitation that I suffer more personal attacks than most, USUALLY from people decrying my incivility.

Hell, I get attacked at sites I have not frequented in months if not years, if not ever.

NEver have I seen anyone complain about the inciivlity aimed at me EVER.

I do not care for your comment.

I guarantee you many, and I venture to say the person I responded to will find my response uncivil and a problem.

And if that view becomes a prevailing one then this site will not be what I expected and I will not be here much at all.

I think this is just the kind of bullshit “concern” we do not need. If we are going to be concerned about this, then include me out. I want no part of it.


Skip to comment form

    • Armando on September 16, 2007 at 6:07 am

    But I am now actually glad I did not.

    I think this is a central issue.

    If we are really going to get bogged down in civility “concern,” I would like to know now before I get attacjed to this place.

    Cuz I will be leaving.

    • SallyCat on September 16, 2007 at 6:10 am

    I think we need a distinction between what is considered uncivil and what is consider assholish.

    There’s lots of crap that goes around the internets, and lots of it is because people insist on being right without making their argument. Too me not making the argument is uncivil and walks right up to the edge of asshole.

    my .02

  1. Any topic whatsoever can be discussed with civility. Civility is the outcome of a decision made by the participants in the discussion. Without a commitment to civility by both parties, all parties, civility dies. Regrettably, those that depart from civility are prone to thinking that they are not the defecting party…

    One can discuss any topic whatsoever with civility. Any topic. Civility is a choice. At some point, one may state, “At this time, I must withdraw from discussion, having realized the impasse that has been reached. I hope to rejoin a future discussion in good will.” This is how peace talks happen. People hating each others guts, killing each other, working it out.

  2. But I think this is a self-indulgent and overly dramatic essay — hardly a “central issue.”

    Nor do I think that folks who make the kind of comment you quoted “always” turn out to be the worst offenders when it comes to stifling debate.  Sure, I have seen that happen, but it is not a given.

    And as was said in the essay below, plenty of folks have complained about folks bashing you — and I have been one of them in the past.  You are just wrong about this.

    I don’t find your response “uncivil and a problem.”  I just find it silly.

    • YetiMonk on September 16, 2007 at 6:15 am

    what were we talking about?

  3. Seriously, it’s all about debate and if we can’t have that without devolving into immature personal attacks we have problems.  Civil should mean stick to the issue at hand and don’t lash out when you’ve got nothing of substance.  Please don’t TR me.  (Do we have that feature here?) I thought my first comment ever at Docudharma should be in an Armando diary, so I appreciate the opportunity.  Cheers.

    • 3card on September 16, 2007 at 6:17 am

    Swing away!

  4. and what else the asshole brings. There are some people in this world to whom I find myself extending special dispensation to be objectionable, if there’s other stuff there that compensates. “Civility” can take a back seat on some occasions. Don’t know what one would call that. Some kind of easement.

    • snud on September 16, 2007 at 6:21 am

    English poet Alexander Pope:

    That character in conversation which commonly passes for agreeable is made up of civility and falsehood

    On the other hand, Samuel Johnson sez:

    When once the forms of civility are violated, there remains little hope of return to kindness or decency

    Perhaps both have a point?

    I know… F*** me!!

    • KrisC on September 16, 2007 at 6:22 am

    Do “we” have to fight about how to fight?  Be civil about being civil?  Just askin’…..
    Oh, quick, duck! 


    I’m outta here.

    • mickey on September 16, 2007 at 6:27 am

  5. direct responses to the content, disagreement , statement of your opinion.  nicely done.

    i dont think ive ever read anything youve written elsewhere….although i may have….the name ‘armando’ shows up everywhere…so i cant speak to your reputation for incivility or for any directed at you.  i do think you may be a victim of your reputation at this point, and that people open your essays prepared to fight with you.  hell, they prepare to fight with you before you even write one. 

    but i think youre smarter than to assume that one essay, especially one comment in one essay, is going to change the tone of debate people are accustomed to.  your concern about concern is amusing, though.

  6. at the, ahem, other site, of being lectured about civility by someone I’d never encountered before who unloaded on me with a level of incivility that I hadn’t even considered using.

    I agree with you.

    • Turkana on September 16, 2007 at 6:32 am

    need be careful with this:

    “Only a Republican could think that”

    unless it’s clearly the case, that’s a clear violation of turkana’s law.

    for example, if you argue against impeachment, as you have, because you feel it’s doomed to fail and a distraction from trying to end the war, and someone says you must be a republican, or an appeaser, or what not, that’s not sound argumentation, and it’s really a waste of the time of anyone who reads it. in the interest of civility, and not wasting time, it’s best to just call turkana’s law, and not say anything more involved, and move on.

  7. Are we supposed to get together for a great big group hug or tell one another to F*** off just for no reason at all? Will there be duels and monster truck rallies? Can I hug somebody and then tell them to F*** off? Is it more civil to say, Sir, I most kindly tell you with all sincerity and gestures of world peace to F*** off?

  8. Can’t deal with folks who want to be nice. Waaaah!

    • pfiore8 on September 16, 2007 at 6:51 am

    control. to be reined in by this word civility.

    well, i have to agree with you Armando. it’s bullshit. i’ve seen this in the corporate world and i see it in the hapless approach of dems in washington.

    what i want to work from is sincerity. i know there are concerns about the wrong people coming here… i don’t have that worry at all, those raw people who haven’t been wrapped up neat and tidy often offer more honesty than those trying to hold the world together with civility.

    i don’t want political correctness and i don’t want to be stopped from a blazing argument … i WANT to get something out of it… move from where i was to someplace else

    give me brown paper packages wrapped up in string over shiny floral paper and bows…

    i want the truth from someone. i want what is honest. i want respect. i don’t want somebody else’s boundries to control my interactions.

    i have a track record. people know i can get angry, but i don’t disrepect anybody. and i’ve stood up for people being ganged upon by trolling parties… i hate that and i hate bullying

    armando, i don’t know you well enough. but it seems to me that is what you’re talking about. i’ve heard great things about you and i’ve heard also how hurtful you can be. i have no experience. i expect you to be respectful to others. i wouldn’t let you tear somebody apart any more than i would stand by and let them do that to you.

    respect. honesty… is enough for me.

    • 4Freedom on September 16, 2007 at 6:53 am

    Mom, I tell all who would discuss civility and “propers” to now and forevermore F**K OFF!

    • snud on September 16, 2007 at 6:56 am

    You gotta fight for your right to party?

    I’m a bit schizophrenic in that I usually walk away from most fights (or bouts of extreme “in-civility”) because they just aren’t worth it.

    Particularly on the Internet. I think some (present company excluded) take these things a little too seriously.

    Imho, picking one’s fights (or bouts of extreme “in-civility”) carefully is important because life’s too short to waste on assholes.

    Which is why we need a new president.

  9. I, for one, really appreciate your insight into any number of topics. As a scientist, I particularly appreciate your demand that people back up their statements with facts. I also think you’re fun whenever I’ve encountered you in light-hearted threads. I’ll take back my Wrong! if you don’t think it’s funny.

    You can certainly be a hot head, but I’ve seen you be provoked by countless people. On the big orange, everyone had an opinion of Armando, regardless of whether or not they’d scrapped with you.

    I’ve also seen you apologise to people in various situations. Not many people do that.

    So, my advice is to ignore people who are trying to provoke you, and to continue to provide your insight into important political issues.

  10. because they think they are heads and shoulders above everyone else.

    A Pinche Tejano original.

  11. is to only attack the argument and never the arguer.

    God knows I can be an extremely tough nut when I get going on an issue, but even in my most vituperative moments, I always try to avoid making it personal – even when my adversary fails to show similar restraint.

    Rip the comment to shreds but leave the commenter alone, and you won’t have to worry about complaints about civility Armando.

    Just a little friendly advice to take or leave as you choose.

  12. Awesome flashback, man. Can we do it again tomorrow? Fuuuuuuuck yessssssssssssss!

    Fuck, fuck fuckity fuck fuck


      • Armando on September 16, 2007 at 6:40 am

      with folks civility lecturers.

      I want to shame that out of this place.

    1. That sucks. There are some, um, over-exuberant folks on the Big Orange, but I’m still a fan.

  13. is this.

    If you will be so kind.

      • FireCrow on September 16, 2007 at 8:09 am

      is the inbred cousin of the old “my jesus is better than your jesus” argument. Both are people trying to impose their particular belief system on another. It doesn’t work.
      Police your own side of the street and wear armor if you have thin skin. Armando is right about this.

    1. On my own, I intended to be civil before reading this diary.

      In return, my intention is to consider withdrawing from discourse,a nd so withdraw as warranted, with anyone I believe to be uncivil.

      So, in this framework, I’m not telling anyone else what to do or say or be or feel.
      I’m just stating my intention clearly, without ambiguity, that if anyone speaks or acts here in a way I consider uncivil, I will not be one of their correspondents.

      That framework allows anyone to do or be or say whatever they want. If they do or do not realize the consequences of their actions (meaning, that another may consider them uncivil, and withdraw their social interaction), that is just the nature of things. If you are requiring that anyone on this site must refrain from pointing out that anyone else is being uncivil, that might be an unrealistic expectation, but one you are free to express nonetheless, and one I and others are free to differ upon.

  14. It’s a blog I’d like to see become the tip of the sword of the progressive movement.

    If we piss each other off now and then, what are the consequences?

    Hurt feelings? 


    Meanwhile, half a million human beings are dead in Iraq, an ass-kissing chickenshit calls that progress, the global economy is on life support, Cheney is targeting Iran with “lost” USAF nukes, Russian bombers are probing US and NATO airspace, and global warming is killing the planet. 

    Consequently, civility on blogs is down to #12,354 on my list of concerns and dropping fast.


      • Armando on September 16, 2007 at 6:50 am

      Take care of your own house and stop telling others how to do it.

      Personally, I have never been more uncivil AT THIS SITE than I have been in reation to reading that sanctimonious civility lecture comment.

  15. I always enjoyed your ranting and raving on dkos (well, not always), and I thought it was too bad when you seemed to disappear.  When I took a peek at this site, I thought it was a good sign that you were here.  Taking a look at this diary, I see that you are your cranky old self.  If I wave a red flag in your face, do you shoot steam out of your nose?

    1. and i guess that middle paragraph of mine up there kinda rambled and never got to the point.  that’s pretty much MY inescapable reputation…

      anyway, i dont understand what it is youre worried about.  are you worried that there’s an invisible civility line and you may cross it…or that people wont engage you at the risk of generating incivility…

      i understand that things like ‘civility’ can be vague and arbitrary.

      however, at this site buhdydharma is the bottom-line, “judge judy and executioner” in issues of dispute.  your issue is probably with him.

      stating, as you have above, that you dont even want to read comments like that seems unreasonable to me.  (again, i dont know your past)  someone’s right to respectfully posit an opinion is one of the bases of the site. 

  16. I will not be civil. I will not be civil. I will not be civil. I will not be civil. I will not be civil. I will not be civil. I will not be civil. I will not be civil. Must… not… be… too.. nice… Must attack.

      • Armando on September 16, 2007 at 6:58 am

      It is not even about me. “Civility” will be used to create NEW baggage HERE.

      I think you are oblivious on this one Turk.

      I think you just do not understand the problems that will be csaused if this is not stopped.

    • snud on September 16, 2007 at 8:23 am

    when I’m this tired but it seems to me this is mostly a question of degree.

    I think it’s entirely possible someone could be so uncivil in a response that it’s a bit precipitous to say one should never respond to it and just ignore it.

    Hopefully that won’t happen but it might; in fact, it probably will eventually.

    If someone feels they’re being persecuted then I suspect Buhdy, etc. will be more than willing to listen to both sides.

    I understand the “once bitten twice shy” thing about what happened at another site but it seems to be a difficult thing to enforce particularly (largely) at the request of one individual: How uncivil must one be for it to not be ignored? Because if certain people set their minds to it, they can really go out of their way to be disruptive assholes.

    Certainly a thick skin is helpful in political discourse. And I think when one goes all “ad hominum” on someone by  attacking the poster rather than the argument, things generally devolve quickly.

    Conversely, one needs a thick skin to put up with and/or simply ignore the “Civility Police” just as much as some may need a thick skin to put up with those who weren’t born with a permanent happy-face glued on and Prozac coursing through their bloodstream.

    It cuts both ways it seems to me. There will be people who feel they’ve been slighted in an un-civil exchange and are free to go and there will likely be people who feel others are being too thin skinned with similar options.

    I wouldn’t beg either to stay if they’re not comfortable.

    At any rate this site is what? Less than a week old? Another humble opinion but it seems a bit early to see what policies will be formulated and how these issues will work out.

    Yeah. I know. I’m full of shit. But I’m still hitting the sack. G’nite all.

    1. steeplechase roller derby.

        • Armando on September 16, 2007 at 8:46 am

        Very true.

  17. you make four actual points.

    You write:

    Demands for civility to avoid substance do shuit down sicussion,. I have found in my expereince that the demands for civility are almost always more stifling than than the incivility itself.

    But, to what degree are “demands” for civility attempts to shut down discussion and to what extent are they “requests” to allow better and more open discussion? 

    You insist that in your experience it is “almost always” the former. This is not my experience in the least, either in the blogs or in daily life. 

    So, why should I accept your experience over my own?

    You write:

    why should anyone fear being shot down? And if they do, maybe they wouldbe better of not venturing unpopular opinions.

    Why should people fear being shot down?  Are you kidding?  Does not this question answer itself?

    And, in truth, they might be better off not venturing unpopular opinions, although I am not the least bit certain that we are better off for not hearing their unpopular opinions.

    You write:

    What kind of friendship do you really have if disagreement puts it at risk?


    And finally, something about it only being the people who are in disagreement with a person who demand civility from that person?

    I am sure that this is true.  We’re human beings.  We’re generally not upset about the incivility of those who agree with us.  We are flawed, flawed creatures.

    While it is obvious this issue is important to you, I do not see that it is important to the great majority of the rest of us, however.

    Do as you will, Armando.

      • Armando on September 16, 2007 at 7:10 am

      we do not do civility lectures here.

      Thank you for respecting our rules.

    • wu ming on September 16, 2007 at 8:27 am

    civility and incivility are far less problematic issues than transparency of rules and heirarchy.

    the problem with policing rules about civility is that they so often hinge upon subjective judgement calls.

    the same is true of “proof,” most of the time. there are interpretations and assumptions lurking behind most forcefully-stated so-called objective facts, that you gotta peel back before you even get into the question of the production of knowledge, authority and authenticity of info, etc..

    mostly i dislike it when people act like jerks, so i try to model that in my own behavior. focusing on attacking arguments and supporting facts is an easy way to contain the fury of a good table-pounding debate to where people don’t get driven away.

    1. Somewhat to my slight regret at this point….money has never really entered into my decision making on larger issues!!!

      • Turkana on September 16, 2007 at 9:55 am

      provides endless meta threads, with hundreds of comments and thousands of page-views. without some good assholery, a site can’t make a living.

        • Armando on September 16, 2007 at 8:07 am

        This is a general point brought by a specific comment.

        This “This diary is just plain wrong.  And it’s ironic, as I would normally agree with the position against civility concern.”

        is nonsensical. If you are with the position, you agree with the diary.

          • Armando on September 16, 2007 at 7:05 am

          Civlity lectures run exactly counter to what you just wrote.

  18. First off, I don’t know the avatar of Armando.  I haven’t read posts or comments by that author elsewhere, and I don’t come to this discussion with knowledge of any history.

    Secondly, I come to blog discussions with the notion that I will only be able to get an approximation of the meaning and intent from the author’s message due to the limitations of the medium (no ability to see visual nonverbal cues, to understand the context of the author’s comment, etc.).

    Thirdly, I come to blog discussions with my own set of filters, limitations and unique perspective. Messages from others get to me only by coming through those filters.

    As a result, I have to come to discussions with some degree of tolerance of ambiguity, the assumption of trust, and the genuine desire to engage in discussion and debate which will move the argument or thesis forward.

    To that end, I went back to re-read the definition of civility, and I discovered that there are many, and that they apply to different contexts.

    To the extent that civil discourse means politeness, well, that does have some import because some compensatory mechanisms are needed for the limitations described above.

    But here’s my perspective:

    I personally value the inherent worth and integrity of every person.  It’s the personhood and not the person’s actions that are inherently worthy.  To that end, I try to use respectful terms when referring to people – because I inherently respect them for being

    I will use the most precise language I can to argue a point – facts, logic, reason and congruency. In doing so, there is no need to attack the personhood of anyone.  The facts speak for themselves.  The logic, reason and congruency builds the argument and strength.

    If the merit of an idea is strong, why distract or detract from it by inserting extraneous diversions of insulting someone else? Doing so actually weakens my argument, as it diverts attention away from the point of discussion.

    It’s at this point that I have re-read Armando’s post and thread comments. I think that perhaps, Armando is conflating the emotional reaction to an idea or argument with the person who is presenting it.

    Civility can be passionate; it does not attack personhood.

    Civility is built and sustained on trust and respect; it does not attempt to stifle reason, logic, science and fact.

    After all of this, may I suggest that perhaps Armando is seeking confirmation that passion and emotion are not to be stifled?

    Civility, by its nature, is intended to liberate and further argument. Its when labels and epithets are flung at the personhood, instead of at the weakness of an argument, that incivility occurs.

    Ergo, “I respect you, but I do not respect the weakness or fallacy of your flawed argument.  Here’s my evidence,” is the mantra of civility.

    “Fuck you,” in and of itself is uncivil.

    “Your argument is fuckery, and here’s the evidence,” is civil.

    As a mere mortal with limitations of perception, intelligence and reason, but with a desire to learn, to support my fellow human, and to live in a society – to some extent communally, I want to make sure that my words are used to their best effect.  If I spend them attacking the personhood of others, I take away from achieving that. If my personhood is attacked, I feel real harm – a betrayal of trust, and I will likely withdraw or engage in defensiveness instead of furthering discussion around the merits of an idea.

    /civility clarification

    Finally, Armando uses needy language throughout the post and the comments.  I perceive, although I don’t find objective evidence for it, that perhaps he is lacking trust from and for others. If so, that would be a very insecure perch from which to engage in debate and discussion.

    The use of epithets can be quite effective when used to amplify or color a point.  However, their overuse becomes numbing and can also be off-putting.  Since this is antithetical to the goal of advancing an argument, it may be useful to look at one’s intentional use of those terms and use them with intention and care. Otherwise, they may simply be shiny objects attempting to hide the weakness of an idea or argument or terms used to confuse holders of divergent views – cheap shots, cheap tactics.

    Civility could be debated ad nauseum, but I think that Buhdy has already addressed it fully, and that this discussion is moot.

    “Be excellent to each other.” Buhdydharma.

  19. It will take me hours to study and compose a thoughtful response, because I’ll have to go back through the other essay.  My initial reaction is this-

    If what you meant Armando, was that nobody can have the expectation that they won’t get their feelings hurt, and that there is no whining and complaining about hurt feelings I agree.

    In the strongest terms.

    If you’re not tough enough to withstand my saying your ideas are stupid acompanied by a Wrong! or a Hide without complaining about it OR worrying that it’s somehow going to negatively affect your “popularity” you are showing the same kind of craven cowardice we decry in our elected Representatives.

    Think about it.


    Maybe you’ll agree with me next time.

    But don’t expect anyone to act toward you in any particular way, because they don’t have to.  It’s up to you to control how you act.

    But maybe I’m missing the point.

    I hate everybody.  Good night.

    1. and trust the rest of us to get your back. And, more broadly, to denounce civility purists.

      1. I made a statement, and what I say is what I believe to be true. I aspire to a civil social discourse. If you are calling my integrity into question, please clarify your statement so that I may respond accordingly.

  20. vintage aravia. didn’t you have some opening salvos on “community” here? you should have clarified in a longer drivel: “On the Offensive Community”

    You’re stuck between a stoned and hard-on place. pride prevents you from popping in on peeder’s place, yet you’re clearly unhappy with jeralyn’s jail.

    still, you can’t solo. who would you blame?

    you’re a blockwrecker and remarkably nostalgic. the golden days of bullying at dk are gone.

    1. I threw that in just for effect!

      Look at it this way.

      Am I repudiating you?


      Did I repudiate plf. Yes, in relative merit to the severity of his alleged lecture that…..

      ….. WAS NOT  directed at you!

      Now then….YOU are an admin at this site who has posted publicly. That you do not want civility lectures.

      Have I disagreed with you on that?


      Do I want civility lectures?


      Do I feel there is a need to say officially….there are to be no civility lectures here. No, because I haven’t seen one.

      Would you LIKE me to say there are to be no civility lectures here?

      Weel I just did. And I will say it again right now. I would prefer it if there were no civilty lectures here.

      But am I going to penalize people for civility lectures…..OTHER than saying I don’t like them?

      Not at this point. No. But only because I see absolutely no need to.

      As I say, when you see a civility lecture, let me know. Plf was not telling other people what to do.

      If you think he was, you are wrong.

      1. group hugs, they can lead to orgies if there is enough beer.

  21. “Here come old flattop he come grooving up slowly
    He got joo-joo eyeball he one holy roller
    He got hair down to his knee
    Got to be a joker he just do what he please

    He wear no shoeshine he got toe-jam football
    He got monkey finger he shoot coca-cola
    He say “I know you, you know me”
    One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
    Come together right now over me

    He bag production he got walrus gumboot
    He got Ono sideboard he one spinal cracker
    He got feet down below his knee
    Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease
    Come together right now over me

    He roller-coaster he got early warning
    He got muddy water he one mojo filter
    He say “One and one and one is three”
    Got to be good-looking ’cause he’s so hard to see
    Come together right now over me”

  22. …but I don’t really give a fuck if you (or anyone else) can play nicely with the other children.

    And as for me, I’ll give as good as I get.  Not that I ever seem to cause nearly as much trouble as I think I will.

      • Armando on September 16, 2007 at 8:42 am

      Why not say we do not want civility lectures here?

      Why is it so hard to say NOW if you will be willing to say it later?

      Why not salt the ground on this instead of waiitng for the bud to sprout?

      I am now officially confused by your position.

      you seem to be ssaying you agree withme but will not say so offiially until the problem arises.

      Why not avoid the problem ALTOGETHER?

  23. I chose the wrong night to stay sober.

    1. The actual question at hand is not whether there should be self-appointed “civility police,” but whether there should be “‘civility police’ police,” which is what it looks like Armando is demanding of buhdy.  I know that Armando hates civility arguments, but I had not thought him such a fragile flower that he could only survive in an environment where he could be assured of not facing such indignities.

  24. to break the margins. I’m extremely disappointed. You must work much much harder Armando.

    On the other hand, it has the most comments of any essay posted thus far. Congratulations!

    Here is your reward:


    • Armando on September 16, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    from andgarden and Tracy because something in them was fouling up the formatting. I feared it would infect diaries below mine.

    Hope that is ok.

  25. I don’t think your investment risks crash here.  It is a different blog, different admin, different take on things. I followed you where you went because I believed in your stance and I wanted to learn from you, and I have learned a lot from you about politics. Never found you uncivil, but I come from a family who discussed loudly and my husband swore we were always fighting.  Write your stuff and be who you are, the site can handle it…….buhdydharma can handle it, he’s dealt with some pretty vile stuff before just winging it.  He has a gift I suppose.  Relax

  26. “Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama may joke about preparing for debates by riding bumper cars, but the 2008 campaign has been fairly civil so far — and that’s not necessarily good for U.S. voters. “

    Its no wonder none of the Dem candidates are exciting voters.  The milk and cookies play dates are dull.  We want blood.  Its time to start gouging eyes out and ripping arms off.

    The so-called fights that HuffPo and other blogs have manufactured are nothing more than kindergarden fights over crayons.

    LBJ would have already disposed of Obama and Dodd

  27. “The problem with this is that the folks who write this type of comment will wield “civility” like a club in an attempt to stifle debate”

    Armando knows the correct club to use is to be a moderator and threaten to ban people.

Comments have been disabled.