christinebarry.com

By Riverman on Oct 17, 2007 | Reply

Where are the Shiawassee County forums? Much cleaner layout though. How about putting the archives at one side of the page or the other?

By David Ball on Oct 17, 2007 | Reply

christine: The new theme is an improvement.

By Chetly Zarko on Oct 19, 2007 | Reply

I like the new look except for the missing blogroll link. Soured that I’ve tried to keep you honest with an occasional head-poke-in? You may want to check out the two new sites though - OaklandPolitics.com and OutsideLansing.com - I too am dividing my time and dusting up my old site (I still post there occasionally).

Regardless, I noticed your comment on the McCotter devil diary by someone on your BFM site. First, McCotter’s statement was out-of-line.

Second, I find your statement interesting:

That bit about CU being “leftist” really irritates me. I’m so sick of the way labels are used in disagreements. A group that criticizes a Republican is “leftist”; a word that brings to mind those unruly “anti-Americans” in the other Americas.

When the Democrats stand up for something, it’s “partisan bickering” rather than “debate” or “disagreement.”

That bit about labeling people conservative or right-wing bothers me, too. If you’ve read my writing, I’ve been a consistent voice against irrelevant labeling and name-calling from day one. Trent Wisecup’s use of “anti-American” - clearly a mistake (though the person to which he said it dips into ad hominem and hyperbole so much that he has no credibility either) and out of bounds.

But I laughed when I saw the owner of BFM complain being her “standing up for something” being called “partisan bickering” when she’d prefer it to be called “debate” or “disagreement”. If you wanted “debate” or even the pretense of debate, you’d have at least a somewhat more open access policy there (and I’m not saying you should let “conservatives” run rampant either). Otherwise, its’ fairly labeled the other thing. If you didn’t want to be “partisan bickering,” the website would chastise calling Republicans “miserable pricks” or any number of other things as it has over time, and stick to argument.

I’m not pointing this out to be mean or personal, and I hope you don’t take it that way. Your own writing there, and here, is usually more reasonable. But there you do it in a venue you sponsor that doesn’t have the adornments of “debate” and is intentionally partisan in its style. Then you complain about polarization. It’s like Jack Lessenberry - who’s far, far more of a hypocrite - complaining about polarization (when he is a master of the poisonous pen and one of the nastiest attack writers on the left). I guess polarization is only bad when you’re on the receiving end of the magnetic stick.

By Chetly Zarko on Oct 21, 2007 | Reply

There’s so much to say I can’t say it all, so I’ll leave some stuff out there.

First, its not my style to use other names.

Second, I didn’t argue Bishop’s block was ok. I argued that theoretically it could be ok under the right circumstances - clearly, by the end, Bishop’s staff was all over the place in their explanations and it was poorly thought through. But I suspect you’d agree that Bishop would have no obligation to guarantee, say, the KKK’s version of a blog transit over Senate servers. But regardless, the irony of BFM’s own (private, clearly legal) censorship policy was a worthwhile thing to point out at that time as a contrast to its own complaint. I hardly went about it in a mean or vicious way, and at all times repeated the point that it was within your rights.

Regardless, that people would use one issue disagreement to close someone down is absurd, just as it is absurd to close someone down based on the speculation as to why others (ML in this case), closed that person down. In this case, no public explanation by anyone has ever been made as to why I was originally (privately, legally) censored by ML. Relying on other people to do your (in reference to the individual responsible BFMers) thinking, particularly on how you treat people, is just wrong.

And if they get mad at you for bringing it up, you might think about what that means. I don’t think your raising the issue is disrespect, and their ire at it being raised is.

And I’m convinced that, unless I become substantially more well-known as you note (like a Leon), ML and BFM isn’t going to change its policy (because it has nothing to gain unless I’m a target). But when they lament about partisanship in forums outside those arenas, I’ll keep reminding them of the irony, just as I have here.

You shouldn’t be embarrased about participating on OL. My access policy is clear and almost completely open, so I don’t have to worry about those problems (and won’t when and if other people participate or take over).

And I’m still working out the kinks on Soap so it will be a while before I put dynamic feeds in, though they’ll be there someday.

By Kittty Tessin on Feb 5, 2008 | Reply

I think the dust must be settling as it looks pretty good to me.

I am enjoying reading the blog site and information included. Great job Chris