No Comment

So, I've tried to stay pretty quiet in this whole Gourmet Station dust up.  I said what I had to say, and I stand by it: I think this character's a stupid way to approach blogging when, IMO, there's so much more you could do by being "real" (whatever that means; apparently, "real" and "truth" have become meaningless terms here in blogoland recently.) 

You want to use a fey character to front your blog?  Fine. 

Doesn't seem to be a lot of interaction on that site, but, hey, maybe they just need more publicity, right?  Or, maybe nobody wants to interact with a fake lame character. 

But, that's your business; it's your blog, make it what you want.

But then you take down a comment by Shel?  I mean, duh?  I teeny pissing contest ensued, as you might imagine.  In the end, people decided to play nice (see the soothing comments) but the black and blue marks remain.

Here's what happened. 

On another site, Toby posted a list of women bloggers she liked.  Great.

Shel commented (and had his comment removed).  Here's what he said, as quoted elsewhere:

So is this first in a series? Are you planning next to do one one men bloggers? Then how about dividing bloggers by age, sex, race or whether or not they are right-handed or left handed. From where I sit, I'm much more interested in just seeing what people have to say than what their genital orientation is.

Was the comment a little smart-ass?  Yeah.  Snide?  Maybe.  Politically incorrect?

Am I missing something here?  What was so horrible about this to make Shel, "Diva Blogger Public Enemy #1?"  What was it that made it an "over-the-top value judgment?"  I don't see it.  Help me, here.

I think all of this goes back to the Gourmet Station thing.

Look.  The Gourmet Station blog got more traffic in its first weeks than it would have had it taken a more conventional approach.  Probably smart from that POV, but I don't see this genre as a long-term winner.  That's just me.

Toby and her friends probably have some "A-list blogger " defense for their decision to take down Shel's comment.  I'd like to hear it.  This wasn't spam, after all.  And it wasn't offensive.  A little snide, that's all.

To me, it's weak.  The essence of this blogothing is to let real voices be heard.  If they're offensive but on topic, it's OK.  If you don't like what they say, it's OK.  If the whole thing gets out of hand, it's OK.  That's what this is supposed to be about, right? 

Or, am I being narrow-minded again?

Comments

[david parmet]

What's really amazing is that people have the time to actually follow this all.

I mean, I've got to mow the lawn, get the kids dressed and off to school, pick up groceries... you know, stuff.

[Tom Guarriello]

I know...some of us have no life! That's it, I'm going outside right now!

[Paul Chaney]

I have no life. I'm a blogger.

Shel's comment was over the top. Mostly, it was uncalled for. The fact he recanted and apologized only speaks to the self-evidence of that fact.

Is there a law somewhere that says a blogger CAN'T take down a comment on their own blog? Didn't think so. They can do what they dang well please. It's their blog. Six Apart (and practically every other blog platform developer) understands that as well. That's why they build the functionality into the system.

[Tom Guarriello]

Paul, I didn't think the comment was over the top; that was my point. Apparently the idea of parsing blogs by gender struck him the wrong way that day. The fact that he apologized and recanted clearly means he rethought what he'd said and regretted it. OK. I know the feeling.

That being said, I still don't see what's all that offensive about his remarks, if I've quoted them accurately in this post.

Of course we all should be able to take down comments we find unacceptable on a site we author. I just disagreed with this one being that extreme. But it wasn't my blog, so I don't get to make that call.