What's this Blog About?

Politics in Wisconsin as they roll up to every level... and some other thoughts that may cross my mind are explored here from my lefty point of view. My values shape my opinions. You'll always find them in here. Let's have some fun exploring why Liberal values are American values!

Your comments are both welcome and encouraged!
(The watercolor is called Magnolia Tree for Momma, by Audrey Crawford)

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

More on The Confluence and Censorship...

I posted this today... here:

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/monday-in-the-filter-no-one-can-hear-you-spam/#comment-26597



Renee, on May 27th, 2008 at 1:37 pm Said:
Since I’ve been permanently banned from this site, simply because I make really good points, I changed my email address to post out here… I’m guessing temporarily because this will get pulled down as did my other posts, none of which are disrespectful, but that did make sound logical contrary points that you are not allowed to read out here…


I am NOT trolling, but feel I’ve been mischaracterized due to the fact that my comments are continually being pulled and I am being bashed without opportunity to respond back.


If you went to my blog last week because of a post in the comments here (that I did not originally make, I was invited to this site…) and want to read the whole story, it’s here: http://www.crawfordstake.blogspot.com/ second story…


I was pretty upset when I found this post by The Proletariat...
http://proletariat.wordpress.com/2008/05/24/obamafacism/

As you can see, my comments are "characterized" here by Henry and responded to based not on MY comments, but instead on comments made here http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/friday-truth-or-fiction/#comment-24954 about what someone SAYS I said, but that I did NOT say... The problem here is that what I DID say was taken down by riverdaughter and I was blocked from posting...

The story I wrote on the original censorship is here... http://crawfordstake.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-wrong-with-these-people.html

I just want the record straight here. I did NOT say what they are saying I said on that post! What I did write is paraphrased (since I can't even see it, since it was taken down) on The Prol's page linked above...

I did want some sort of vindication, and so a few hours ago I posted that above to the Confluence's readers... Admittedly it was more confrontational and I had to use a different email to post it since mine is still blocked, but the point is that once again, what I wrote was removed from the site...

I just wanted to challenge the concept that Proletariat put out that the Confluence allows comments from Obama supporters. They do not. In fact I bet if YOU posted a link to this post, you would be permanently blocked there also.

I'm not sure why this bothers me so much.

Perhaps it's the fact that I have been discussed, linked to, commented on by friends without knowledge of my original words, and bashed without an opportunity for comment or to defend myself...

but perhaps even more than that is the concept that the conversation there is so one-sided that the site has lost all credibility (I found another example by the way... on the same page listed above that I was blocked on today, another person referred to as "the dude" had his post removed and all you can find if you search the page for "dude" is the comments telling him -as I was told - to "get lost" but not the original post of what he said... this is a pattern on this site, not a one time event...),

or maybe it's just that my feelings are hurt, my comments have been mischaracterized, and as on any playground, when your feelings are hurt and you've been lied about, you just wanna scream your case from the rooftops so all the other kids know the truth...



Update: I figured out how she's blocking comments...




This is actually pretty funny!!! She has a "spam filter" on her comments... If you scroll down the bottom right side of the page, you can see how many "spam comments" have been blocked on her site... as of this afternoon 5,520... She had about 618000 hits by then, so I ran some ratios...

I have about 4% of her total number of blog's lifetime total hits, but accounting for that, I figured it out and being generous I have about .004% of my visitors who left spam. She has .9% of her visitors flagged as spammers. That means that she has 225% MORE spam comments per visit on her blog than I do on mine.

Clearly her definition of spam is significantly different that mine. And she is bragging about how well her spam filter is working on top of this. So if Prol needed any more proof, here it is!

Now I've had this site for oh about 3.5 years now and I can only remember one true spammer on my comments (not that I want any LOL). Many I didn't agree with, others that frightened me a bit (a white supremacist had some choice words to say once-even those I left up too...), but true spammers, rare, very rare...

Okay, I'm done obsessing on this, but if anyone Googles "The Confluence", they should pull my multiple posts on this and at least some truth will be out there on the irrationality of all of this...

4 comments:

riverdaughter said...

Renee, you have less spam because you have fewer visitors! You've been in business for over 2 years and have just over 25,000 hits. I've been in business for 5 months and I have, let me see, 27 times more visitors. Jeez, this is not rocket science.
The reason you were banned is because you were spreading the incorrect meme that Hillary Clinton was alluding to the possible assassination of Barack Obama in her interview with the Argus last week. This is false. The statement she gave is one that she has made before and it never got this much attention.
The Confluence has a policy of not spreading opposition research themes and talking points that are intended to destroy the character of any of the candidates. You violated that policy. Furthermore, it was not a topic that was open to debate. You were simply wrong. But you persisted in repeating these lies even when you were in the spam filter.
If you don't want to end up there, maybe you should spend more time critically examining what you want to say before you write it.
By the way, this is not censorship. Censorship is something the government does to its citizens to keep their voices from being heard. You have your own blog and plenty of other places where you may write what you think of Hillary's statement. But you may not repeat it on my blog, whether you temporarily misunderstood her comment, or were persuaded to believe things that are not true.
Now, you may put me in the spam filter. I don't really care. As small and obscure as The Confluence is, it's still a bigger billboard than yours.

Crawford's Take said...

Well, at least I finally got a response...

I may have less readers, but I have a very different theme than you do. My blog is not a one time flash in the pan thing, when this race is over, your blog will go the way of the Dean blogs... I've seen it happen before. Instead, I post with a longer term readership in mind. I post on policy, issues and a few fun things that are more of interest to me than any one time support of a candidate blog. I do not promote my blog much and figure if people find it, they find it. I also do not make it something that defines my importance in the world LOL. I do quite a bit of organizing and activism outside this blog and if you notice I only post a few times a month, not daily or hourly as you do. I find that kind of writing shallow. It's more important to me to have a steady and loyal readership and that what I post on issues has substance and standing. I also have not targeted a comment blog although I do allow them and do not censor them. And on that issue... I was not referring to governmental censorship, I have a clear understanding of that concept and your patronizing me over it is amusing. I was invited to your blog when it cross posted to me. I posted a comment that was mischaracterized (as you have once again done) and defended myself. You removed my comments but not the mischaracterization of them. This is why you either remove them all or leave them all. It is unfair and uncourteous to remove someone's post and not the comments to refer to it. You are new to the blogosphere, so I will forgive your ignorance of standard protocols and rules. In the blogosphere, unless someone posts something morally offensive or is abusive to other bloggers, most posts are left up as written out of common courtesy to the people who took the time to state their opinions. If you would allow dissenting posts, your blog would have more credibility. I was not spreading lies. I was stating what was the reality of the effects of her comments. As an african american, a white american, a woman and a democrat, I was offended and disturbed by what she stated...

Just remember as you are posting. Your blog holds it's own credibility. I have earned mine over time and with consistent and well written posts on important issues. My readers include many elected officials and political wonks and my opinions are well reasoned and although emotional at times, respectful at all times of the individuals I'm addressing. You can run your blog however you like, but you should out of pure decency at least put a disclaimer at the top that you only allow opinions you agree with and filter out dissent. This is the main point I'm making.

Unfortuneately I do not have access to the posts you've filtered, but I will post them all here as written if you would be courteous enough to send them to me at rcrwfd@gmail.com. At least then I would have a chance to be critiqued by my readers on my own words rather than someone elses' interpretation of them...

Thank you for posting here and no I will not remove your post. I don't believe in that unless you are personally abusive and ALL opinions are welcome here!

Crawford's Take said...

One other thing. I was not referring to the sheer volume of the spam, but the percentage of posters who leave spam. My definition and yours of spammers are very different as you have made clear here...

patrick said...

Ms. Crawford:

I know that this experience has been your first real foray into the world of crazy lefties. The tatics of riverdaughter are often the common tatics of the left you cling to so dearly. Maybe after Obama passes, you might consider joining those of us on the right. We'll listen and apply reason. We share most of your goals--securing the rights of individuals, protecting civil liberties, protecting the right to vote. The left is good only as long as you maintain that strict orthodoxy they demand.

We'd love to have you on our team:)

P.S. I'm still patiently waiting for my list of 20--but very patiently, so don't feel rushed.