To Post or Not To Post

Dick, How come your affraid to comment on the dumb comments Vinny Seeley made in the Daily Mail in refrence to the lawsuit that has rocked the village and it's dissfuntional fire dept.? Looks like Vinny has screwed himself and every taxpayer in this town! His lawyer should buy him a roll of duct tape to help stop him from sinking himself and his convict friends!

The foregoing message is an example of what we hesitate to accept for posting in Seeing Greene’s Comments section. It also is an example of what fortifies our inclination to reject all anonymous comments. But as I write this I’m leaning in favor of posting. And one of the lines of argument is that the case is suitable for sharing thoughts about words and contexts, and hence about deciding what comments deserve to be posted.

Against posting is apprehension that ‘publication’ could be construed as endorsement or concurrence, and that it would give the comment an otherwise-unavailable boost in credibility. A naïve reader could be prompted to infer, from the fact of posting (by somebody other than its author) along with its substance, that key statements in this comment express what is common knowledge. In addition, the naive reader could be prompted to believe that the commentator’s value judgments are truth-valuable statements, are in keeping with reality, and express common sentiments. Those errors could be encouraged not only by the fact of 'publication' (even in a blog site) but also, oddly enough, by the absence of attempts to substantiate. When a speaker indulges freely in sliming people and in tendentious versions of events, we normally expect the speaker to take up the task of substantiation. If he does not bother to do that, we may infer charitably that what the speaker says, however scurrilous, is so widely and rightly accepted that substantiation would be idle. Consequently, that kind of reader would put some stock in the propositions that Seeing Greene's keeper has been silent on a cited topic and has been silent because he’s afraid to address it; that Vincent Seeley made statements to The Daily Mail and that they are self-screwing; that the village has been rocked (that being a figure of speech whose literal sense is so well known as to require no translation); that the fire department is dysfunctional; and that included in Mr Seeley’s friends are several convicts. Two of those propositions are readily verifiable; they are that Mr Seeley talked to The Daily Mail and that Seeing Greene has not commented on his words. They are true and trivial. The other propositions are far from being self-evident or substantiated. They are far from being common knowledge. Accordingly, the author is guilty of indulging in irresponsible sneering and smearing. But that status does not clinch the case for refusing to post the comment.

In favor of posting are several considerations: (1) Our basic policy is in favor of posting. The presumption then is against blocking. And we feel especially obligated to post comments that find fault with Seeing Greene. Moreover, this comment is no more vile than others that have been accepted. It falls short of being plainly, thoroughly scurrilous. It is not in the same league with some gross slanders (adulterer! thief! liar!) that are void of substantiation.

(2) For many readers the cited comment, with its mutilations of the English language, its casual smears and gratuitous assumptions, along with its craven anonymity, must be self-discrediting. And when a commentator's own words discredit his own position, readers should know about it.

(3) The cited comment may qualify as an instructive example of the casual responsibility-dodging smear. Thus: --DODGING *Vinnie Seeley’s comments in The Daily Mail are “dumb” (versus identifying what one deems dumb, and explaining). *Vinnie “has screwed himself” (versus identifying how his words are self-damaging). --GRATUITOUS ACCUSATORY EXPLANATION *Lack of comment on Seeley’s statements betokens fear (versus canvassing alternative explanations and eliminating them, or saying what is to be feared). --GRATUITOUS FACTUAL CLAIMS *The lawsuit has “rocked the village and its dissfuntional fire dept” (versus citing observed reactions to the lawsuit). *Mr Seeley’s friends, or a substantial number of them and particularly close ones, are convicts (versus identifying those people, the crimes for which they were convicted, their prison sentences).

The latter analysis, however, can be provided only if posting is accompanied by lengthy discourse about discourse.