| Submitted by |
Comments: |
Name: spity
From: spity
E-mail: cooxia@ocealo.com
|
hi??
|
| Submitted by |
Comments: |
Name: Nevaeh_Arkansas
From: Nevaeh_Arkansas
E-mail: h.a.gge.r.stonp.e.r@gmail.com
|
I think greater interaction among groups would result (mix up the tech bloggers and the marketers and the VCs and the usability people and, hell, even the sex bloggers)  and really spark some awesome conversations.
|
| Submitted by |
Comments: |
Name: Peyton_Hawaii
From: Peyton_Hawaii
E-mail: h.a.gger.s.t.o.n.p.e.r@gmail.com
|
It’s entirely possible that I copied that individual number across incorrectly (and that the index was correct), but when I did the query just then it returned a Technorati Rank of 37, so as you say there would be no change in the rank, but an improvement in your index.
|
| Submitted by |
Comments: |
Name: Hannah_Ohio
From: Hannah_Ohio
E-mail: h.agg.er.s.t.o.nper@gmail.com
|
It would also make it a lot harder for bullying to take place, since anyone stupid enough to try it would be taking on a potentially even bigger community, as well as whoever happened to be hosting you. (Anyone who did host would have your back 100% and be able to manage comment moderation and such so you'd never even have to see the garbage.)
|
| Submitted by |
Comments: |
Name: Taylor_Oregon
From: Taylor_Oregon
E-mail: h.agg.ers.to.n.pe.r@gmail.com
|
Having said all of that, I wonder if Ande's idea isn't the best (regardless of what format you choose to go with for the blog). If it was still public with no comments, but you cross-posted entries in a private forum, you could allow people to respond and discuss in a controlled/private environment, but still keep the blog itself public. I'm not sure how much extra work that would be for you, but if it was negligible I would say that's the best option for running your site the way you have and seem to love, but keeping the riffraff at bay.
|
| Submitted by |
Comments: |
Name: Natalie_New_York
From: Natalie_New_York
E-mail: h.a.g.g.er.st.o.n.pe.r@gmail.com
|
What is really infuriating is his denial that he was attacking the Tea Party. He was “only reading a WSJ article” on the floor of the Senate. Hannity could have done a better job of hammering on THAT giant piece of brazen hypocrisy.
|
| Submitted by |
Comments: |
Name: Valeria_Massachusetts
From: Valeria_Massachusetts
E-mail: ha.g.g.e.r.sto.n.p.er@gmail.com
|
It makes sense about not continuing with "business as usual" — I couldn't do it, either. But I can't see ghost writing as being satisfiying for someone with as strong a voice as yours. Being an evangelist for the likes of Apple or Adobe might be cool, but would that let you continue with the stream of consciousness riffs that have obviously been satifsying for you — and been so energizing for us, your readers? Don't know.
|
| Submitted by |
Comments: |
Name: Faith_Kentucky
From: Faith_Kentucky
E-mail: hagg.ers.tonper@gmail.com
|
I’m not sure what you have against “The Five”. I mean, four of the five panel members are on the right. The only creep is Bob Beckel. I admit, his creepiness makes the show a bit harder to handle. But Greg Gutfeld makes up for it! I LOVE him!! Beckel will probably have a stroke or a heart attack on the show one day and they can just shove him off the stage and continue on.
|
| Submitted by |
Comments: |
Name: Khloe_Nevada
From: Khloe_Nevada
E-mail: ha.gg.e.rs.tonper@gmail.com
|
I hate to see us lose your input but I wonder if simply publishing articles with no comments enabled and having a members-only forum wouldn't be a good compromise. There's something about the immediacy of the response form and the lack of accountability available from anonymity (oh, hypocritical me) that seems to encourage people's awfulness.
|
| Submitted by |
Comments: |
Name: Aubrey_Tennessee
From: Aubrey_Tennessee
E-mail: hag.g.e.rs.t.on.p.e.r@gmail.com
|
I always wondered if the Manchurian Candidate – McLame – would make an appearance. I think he is a victim of Stockholm Syndrome, too.
|
Ster van de Avond Guestbook
