Gothamist: Chelsea Bouncer Indicted for Three Other Murders

Seamus

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:15:05 -0500

Hey CHUD thanks for the post, now we all know for sure that you are a tool. You can change your IP to go around the ban, which Jen email me and said "I could not weight until you changed your IP address - thanks for doing so!" HUH? Thanks for the proof of your grammar!

Seamus

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:08:34 -0500

Hey CHUD can you please show us how to bath with a toaster and please post afterwards. -PS Chud-your post makes you seem like a real tool. -Also you can change IP address to avoid tracing. -why the ban Jen?

Seamus

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:29:06 -0500

Seamus

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:25:06 -0500

bklynd

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:09:32 -0500

I see erasing a typo comment as pretending that the mistake never existed and failing to acknowledge that the readers are doing free editing. I suppose if Gothamist sent out a nice "thank you" email first that would make it all good (and generate plenty of good will among readers). And, granted, I've only seen it happen once, and I have seen Jen post acknowledgements in the comments. Now, if they'd only delete those pesky double-posts!

bklynd

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:00:29 -0500

I see erasing the comments as pretending that the errors never happened and failing to acknowledge that the readership is also doing free editing. If Gothamist fired off a "thank you" email to every commenter when they wiped away the evidence I would be cool with that. (And, granted, I've only seen this happen once, and I *have* seen Jen write an acknowledging comment more than once.) It's not like they are otherwise scrubbing the comment boards for relevance and readability - if that were the case they'd delete your double post. ;)

christina

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:13:07 -0500

Do comments that regard grammatical errors need to stay on the comments board? If the errors have been noted and corrected, does it really matter? Maybe it isn't necessarily "censorship", it's just trying to keep comments on-topic. No, I don't know if this is why they disappear, just curious why it matters in the end. I'm open to being convinced otherwise. I just cant see, personally, why I'd want to read a bunch of comments about mistakes if they are no longer relevant.

christina

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:08:41 -0500

Do comments unrelated to the topic need to stay on the comment board? if they are pointing out grammatical errors, and the errors get corrected, do they really need to stay? Perhaps it's just a matter of trying to keep comments on-topic. (I do not know this for sure, I'm just throwing it out there.)

C.H.U.D.

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:47:30 -0500

Maybe you were banned for being an annoying prick of a grammar nazi with no life beyond correcting blog postings? "Actually, it's suicide attempt." Actually, why don't you show us what you mean by bathing with toaster?

bklynd

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:20:11 -0500

Huh? How can you be banned if you are posting? Not a very effective ban I guess. But yes, I've seen comments that pointed out errors in un-proofread posts disappear, which I think is a little uncool. And what's a doucebag, anyway?

Seamus

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:13:52 -0500

Sorry not a doucebag, just pointing out grammatical errors, right Jen? She won't even respond to my email asking why I was banned. The last post was about the "suicide try" which I posted its actually "attempt" not try and BAM! I am banned. Check all post for "Seamus"

mihow

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:22:34 -0500

Somehow, I doubt Jen bans people if they correct her. Maybe for being a douchebag, but not if they correct her.

mihow

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:12:42 -0500

Sounds like this guy needs some mental help as well. (What does correcting Jen have to do with any of this? Sometimes I feel very confused here. heh. But usually only when I actually try and read the comments. But I'm assuming I'm not alone.)

Seamus

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:54:02 -0500

Better watch out Gothamist readers, if you correct Jen, she will ban you!