What the heck is a "nautropath"? One who walks the path of water?

A nautropath is a "woo woo" doctor that I believe is an MD, but uses other natural ways of healing a person. All I know is they make people I know stop eating sugar and milk, which is the heart of the thing I hold sacred: chocolate chip cookies.

"we do not want mean, spiteful or downright cruel comments"

Those are truly subjective terms at best. What may be mean to you might not be to the majority. If you could provide examples, it might make for more productive discourse.

Karol - as my mother used to say, take a long, hard look in the mirror. The very rudest thing someone can do is presume to lecture anyone on how they should conduct themselves. It is elitist, it is arrogant, it is immature, and it reflects poorly on you and your character.

You owe a lot more to the people who visit Blue Oregon than they owe Blue Oregon. Without a doubt in, it is the reality of Web 2.0 that if the self-important whiners who are the core of Blue Oregon shut it down, something much better and more popular would take it's place.

As my mother also used to say when she had just about enough whining by anyone (and particularly someone who said they didn't have to stay and take this so we should just be glad they did): "There's the door, don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out".

I refer you to the enitre thread after Dan P's post on Gaza

OH GU, I look in the mirror a lot. It's fun usually and I like putting on make up!

And I understand your comment is meant to spark reation, not as a response to my post. AS much as you'd like to invite me out of this space, but there's no chance of me leaving. I'd gladly show you my ass, but I doubt you'd say the things you do behind initials as you would to my face.

Naturopaths (ND) are physicians in their own right. Some also get MDs and vice versa, but many only have an ND degree, which is a fully licensed and trained position. To obtain an ND, you must take years of courses including anatomy, nutrition, homeopathy, and more. It's a aholistic approach toward medicine, one that treats the cause rather than the symptom and it can be used alone or in conjuction with traditional, allopathic medicine.

Check out http://www.ncnm.edu/academics-at-ncnm/naturopathic-program.php for more info.

For what it's worth, I've gone to both MDs and NDs--both have their uses. And neither has ever suggested I stop eating sugar or milk--although I'd probably be healthier if I did. I'm with you on that one, Karol--I like my cookies!

As for the topic at hand, good luck with that. Most of the truly rude folks are anonymous---another reason I'm looking forward to Blue Oregon 2.0---how's that coming along?

Thank you for the nautropath clarity!

Blue 2.0 is coming hopefully in mid-spring. It's going to help the commenting thing, but until then, I'll put a cookie in my mouth.

I think the real problem is that obnoxious commenters drive away thoughtful ones, leaving only the crazies. I've seen blogs die because of it. I don't mind more active caretaking. I would prefer a sort of group moderation that at least allows others to minimize the counterproductive comments, if not remove them altogether.

Thank you Karol!

Has everyone noticed how little attacks actually helped any candidates in 2008? Pundits after the election were talking about the difference between "negative" (Obama saying McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time, a provable fact about voting record)vs. "over the line"--2008 attacks on Obama as a Muslim, sliming the McCains in 2000 because their adopted daughter has a different skin color than they do, Swifties, etc.

Some people here get carried away and seem to forget the futility of name calling. And would you really say the same thing to someone's face?

It is appropriate in terms of Karol's opening sentence, "Blue Oregon, our own personal watercooler, is a great space for a great many of us here in our fair state and beyond. "

If someone is paid to lobby an issue, we should know that, and also know if that person resides in Oregon or not. Someone who finally admitted travel among many states also ended up apologizing for "snarkiness". But I don't think asking "you sound like a think tank person, what is your actual experience with this issue?" is "trying to start a flame war".

How many people here would walk up to an actual water cooler and say to someone they should quit claiming they were ever neutral because "I knew you'd already decided who to vote for by your words before you actually said you had decided"? That was said to me here during the primary.

That is one of many reasons I comment using my initials. When I was on Dem. State Central Comm., I was called names to my face, incl. "not a real Democrat" because I refused to let someone else do my thinking for me, and having a finger jabbed in my shoulder or other attempts to make a point. The thing is, I knew who did it. And years later, if that person vanished from politics or greeted me as an old friend when they saw me more than a decade later, there was that personal history.

I worked among juveniles for many years as a substitute teacher. Some of them were more mature than some of the comments here. A friend I met on a campaign a couple decades ago used to say "manners cost nothing but they reap rewards".

The debate over the power of persuasion vs. coercion goes back to Aesop's Fables.

More than once I have given up on BO because the discussions seemed juvenile or having nothing to do with my life. It would be an easy habit to break, and at times when I have been busy, it was an easy item to drop off my list of sites to visit.

As I understand it, there are people who read BO but never comment. A dear friend of mine (past 60 years old, never big on blogging) called me up last spring to tell me he liked what I had said regarding a primary. When I tried to relate that comment here, someone accused me of making it up---if that person really existed, why couldn't they post their own comment? As if everyone who reads this must comment on BO? Or was that just an example of a person full of themself and not thinking clearly?

I have a button which says COURTESY IS A POLITICAL ISSUE based on the line from the JFK Inaugural Address, "Civility is not a sign of weakness".

The candidate supported by the person claiming I'd made up what my friend said didn't survive the primary. So was it worthwhile to engage in that heated rhetoric?

Karol, I loved your response to GU.

And I understand your comment is meant to spark reation, not as a response to my post. AS much as you'd like to invite me out of this space, but there's no chance of me leaving.

Let's get a couple of things straight:

Provoking reaction is the last thing on my mind. Getting in the face of writers who don't have anything intelligent to say so they recognize what's wrong with what they said is the only point. Getting them to think hard and long about WHY what they said is offensive is my only interest.

At the same time, I have no interest in trying to induce you or anyone else individually stay or leave, or even to hold their tongue. It's purely up to him or her whether they have what it takes to stay in the argument and defend their position. No matter how stupid it is. If he or she can mix it up, they make the discussion more interesting. If they just want to whine how people aren't being nice to them when they are called out for saying something stupid or arrogant, then the discussion will be much more interesting if they draw up in a ball in the corner and snivel.

(Those are general statements of principle. Don't be as presumptuous as too many of the self-aggrandizers here and interpret it as directed personally at you.)

I read lurked through most of the comments in Dan P's recent little misadventure in ego and I thought it was one of the best and funniest threads Blue Oregon has hosted in the time I've been reading it. I was particularly amused at how badly Dan (as well as Carla and a couple of others) just got spanked. They got a good lesson in just how misguided their opinions are, as well as how wrong they are in believing they had any place telling others how they should think or speak. That was some good reading. Too bad you apparently are quite developed to a place yet where you could appreciate it.

I'd gladly show you my ass, but I doubt you'd say the things you do behind initials as you would to my face.

As much as I can appreciate your sauciness, let's just keep our relationship on an intellectual and political level. Don't kid yourself, I didn't say anything here I wouldn't say to you in person. The web is not a forum where people can look each other in the eye, and a lot of people would do better to maintain some anonymity in political debate. Anonymity has a privileged place in the legal precedents on political speech, by the way. Too bad Oregon-style progressives are just too backward and self-important to know about that.

Personally, I think many people actually sign there posts on the web because they are desperate for recognition. It's up to you to decide your own reasons. Web 2.0 and the blogosphere is not about much more than hyping the "brand of me". Obama owes his success in no small part to recognizing how to use that personality trait of on-liners to his advantage. Those who presume to lecture and put on airs of superiority say things to initials to fluff their image in the eyes of some that I guarantee they wouldn't have the guts to say if they were looking me, never mind the high ability people I try to learn from, square in the eye. I learn a lot more about their deficiencies.

One other lesson my mother taught me: Banish the word or implication "should" from your speech. Nothing is more obnoxious, or will ruin a relationship quicker, than telling someone what they "should" do --- as in telling others how they "should" not talk or argue in a manner we, in our own egotistical way, find unacceptable. Keep it to the substance, and have the guts and integrity to take it when somebody else does.

Typo: SU is GU, sometimes fingers can't keep up with thoughts. At least you know all three initials now.

LT - you have a very superficial sense of what is polite and what is not. That in fact makes you quite rude.

I agree with the call for civility. It seems that around the time it was obvious that Obama was going to win, a lot of people started piping with attitude. Overall I think we can agree that's positive and will quickly run its course.

Posted by: Karol Collymore | Jan 15, 2009 8:50:50 PM

I refer you to the enitre thread after Dan P's post on Gaza

I'm not sure you're the one to make the point. As a longtime reader here (as opposed to poster) it seems to me that a lot of name calling has started at your end. In particular I'm pretty sure that about 2 or 3 years back one of the protagonists of the aforementioned saga was summarily labeled a troll by you. At any rate, the disturbing part is that it seems like a trend that comes from the chic left (not implying) that uses circular logic to define what makes people uncomfortable. It usually comes down to what makes you uncomfortable, which isn't a high journalistic standard. I would bet that the low ratio of posts:reads is more extreme with more extreme views. Unfortunately this impression is reinforced by your not mentioning the constant, rude, repetitive shouting that goes on every time the word "carbon" is mentioned. I have managed blogs with pretty good circulations. People tend to self police if you allow enough reign. One can ask how much there is a tendency to resist people's natural ebb and flow in and out of here because that isn't a good Dem donations model, so I'll just ask. The best policy I've found for editing material is "no violence, expressed or implied". Other than that, "sticks and stones"...

I don't want to get into a debate about more subjective terms, so I'll let you speak for yourself. It doesn't really make the point one way or the other, but I think most people reading this will have a feeling one way or the other, and this piece gives the same feeling, if that makes any sense. At least it goes to the "den mom" point about it being a kind of identity. Personally I'm wary of "Canadian Nationalism". You know, where you can't find many real differences except that they rabidly point out all the ways they're not like Americans, a kind of identity by negation;eg., "Most of Canada lives near the US border and shops at US chains. 'Yeah, but we would never have elected George Bush or invaded Iraq'." True. Great. It still doesn't tell me how you are Canadian. If you think outrage or "what are these dummies" posts are fun to defend, try putting forth a positive proposal! Funny how I would bet that is easier. I'll go back to lurking.

United By Our Hipster-Hating Bonds

Last week, I believe I had three instances of the so-called “hipster racism.” I will only talk about one since it is pretty reflective of the other two. I was at a hip bar in the hip section of North Portland. I was sitting with some people new people and a couple old friends. The new people were all dressed in old-school Wranglers and tight graphic tees that made references to certain - allegedly funny - things. While I was amazed at how similarly they all looked in the hipster style, I immediately felt out of place in my loose-fitting blouse and pants. That was OK, I rolled with it. I’d wear my ironic t-shirt next time.

During our cocktails, one of the people referred to a Black person as a Negro. I immediately said something, making it clear that it was not OK to use that word. I got blank stares, a “you are too sensitive,” and then they returned to conversation. Now, I was never excluded throughout the evening and shared some laughs with these guys. As soon as the word “Negro” was uttered I felt very separate and different, and not just because my shirt didn’t have writing on it. What intrigued me more was that no one else - save my friend who is a member of the GLBT community - understood or defended what I said.

The next time she encounters some emaciated half-wit on a fixed-gear who thinks it’s ironic to use the word “negro,” I would advise Collymore to beat him up. Hipsters are weak and full of ennui from too much indie music. They won’t fight back.

(see how I threw "nautropath" in for you, Portland and Eugene people?)

Eh, eh, Beavis. She said "naturopath". 'What's a "naturopath", Butthead'? Ah, eh, eh, I think it's a cross between an Osteopath and a Sociopath. Yeah, eh, eh.

Gaia is the naturopath, from the Latin natura, nature, and the Greek πάθος, suffering. Sorry, it's the only thread where you can say something pro-environment without having to deal with "billy" for the rest of the thread. It is interesting how one noticing the current lack of manners would not mention that. Dicey to be signing off like JK...ewww.

Blogging commenter etiquette - attack the message, not the messenger.

Posted by: Kevin | Jan 15, 2009 11:16:54 PM

Those who presume to lecture and put on airs of superiority...

Kinda tough to see the keyboard through that log in your eye?

I wonder, could Kevin take us through what must be just an absolutely sparkling chain of logic that leads to this kind of smart aleck word-gaming?

Could he demonstrate for us the equivalence of a lecturing demand everybody else should conform to a self-centered notion of how they should interact, and an exposition that while such haughty people are quite free to conduct their arguments anyway THEY choose, genuine civility is giving everybody the same courtesy of allowing them to make their arguments the way they prefer and answering on the substance?

Not that Kevin gets it, but there is a wide gulf between the imperative ("should") and the descriptive ("should" is obnoxious). I think it would be quite illuminating about a syndrome that seems to afflict the people who believe they are the opinion leaders here. (And who also seem to believe they have the right to demand people defer to their opinions simply because they are their opinions.)

Is it tough to see through the fog in your brain Kevin?

Barry Goldwater used to say (in his older years, after having been quite strident as a presidential candidate)

"You catch more flies with honey than by hitting them over the head".

That is similar to the way I was raised.

If someone thinks I was raised superficially because they have the revealed truth, or that I am totally wrong in something I say and should realize the error of my ways, that is not my problem.

Thank you, Posted by: c2tbf | Jan 16, 2009 5:49:00 AM

I agree with the call for civility.

I think one thing that leads to nasty comments is that this blog does not cover many issues. It seems to selectively scrutinize the government and corporations. That kind of watchdogging gets people excited and childish. The media has failed and unfortunately this blog has a bigmedia tone. I elaborate on media failures at my Youtube channel: www.youtube.com/luddite333

Mean spirited? I think paying PERS folks more in retirement than they were making on the job is mean spirited to my pocketbook. I work as hard or harder than those folks, dont I deserve to retire at 52?

Mean spirited is a governor wanting to spend a billion more of our dollars in a crap economy. Or appointing your buddy to the cap and trade commission. Or even thinking that you understand global warming enough to saddle Oregonians with costs that will not lead anywhere. How do you be nice to someone who is supposed to PROTECT the public's interest, yet is so one sided that impeachment should be considered due to lack of common sense?

Mean spirited is bashing Bush for 8 years, and giving Obama a COMPLETE pass on his cabinet picks, warts and all. I dont see much mentioned here? Tax dodge, illegal immigrant house keeper? Keeping this quite as long as possible? Change? I am not seeing any change, just more two faced opinions on the left.

Mean spirited is expecting the private sector to sacrifice with more taxes and less employment while keeping every state and local govt job, perk, and program. Why aren't there layoffs in govt??????

Some folks NEED to be slapped silly, they deserve it.

"Some people here get carried away and seem to forget the futility of name calling. "

Then BO should lead by example and stop calling people "racist" or "xenophobic" just because you disagree with someones position.

ddave--you know for a fact that anyone on PERS will get more when they retire than they got when they were working. EVERY PERS retiree? The school library assistant? The part time teacher? The clerical or other state employee making $27,000 or less will retire on $30,000? Where did you get that information?

Under PERS, once a person retires they are restricted in the number of hours they may work for a public entity or they have to pay back their benefits.

Why do teachers "retire" and then go on a substitute list if they make more money in retirement than when they were working?

Do you think everyone who qualifies for PERS worked for a public employer their whole lives? Even teachers and others who were laid off during a recession? Or other government employees whose jobs were eliminated?

Now if you want to say Bush was infallible and you will nnot trust anything Obama does any more than you ever trusted Clinton or Carter, be my guest.

But voters and bloggers do have the right to disagree with you, and no amount of invective will change that reality.

Care to explain to your readers why this comment was deleated:

Posted by: mp97303 | Jan 16, 2009 11:50:37 AM

"Some people here get carried away and seem to forget the futility of name calling. "

Then BO should lead by example and stop calling people "racist" or "xenophobic" just because you disagree with someones position.

dddave wrote, "Some folks NEED to be slapped silly, they deserve it."

I'm going to call this abusive. Violent even. It exemplifies mean spirit. Those references you make to mean spirited reflect a true lack of understanding of what a mean spirit is.

The PERS issue is about how negotiation by organized labor has led these workers to decent benefits. Now that the economy has tanked we shoudl rethink them, but I decline to agree they be eliminated. Promises were made.

Also written was, "Mean spirited is expecting the private sector to sacrifice with more taxes and less employment while keeping every state and local govt job, perk, and program.

Why aren't there layoffs in govt??????" The writers here are the private sector and as citizens we will carry the burden of higher taxes in the effort to restore the economy. We believe we are sharing and you resent being asked to contribute because you disagree.

GU/SU wrote, " I was particularly amused at how badly Dan (as well as Carla and a couple of others) just got spanked. They got a good lesson ..." Here again we have mean spirited. Pleasure at what is perceived as abuse, "spanked".

This is disturbing. I am disturbed. The sadistic tendencies of these posts are unsettling to me. Why so graphic? Why violent? What progress can be made from these expressions of joy in the face of harm to others.

If we cannot take it get out is a common rebuttal to these remarks. Why should we take it? I disapprove of your persepctive on theis blog. I would not say "Snap, you've just been spanked" although I would suspect you do not know what just "hit" you because you fail to truly grasp the meaning of mean spirited.

The first time I posted here, regarding the attack on Lebanon by U.S.-Israel and the unqualified support for it by the DP, my comments were deleted and the threats against my wife and me were retained:

Posted by: J. Smalls | Aug 19, 2006 1:23:15 PM

Posted by: demionhesse | Aug 20, 2006 10:51:07 PM Kari: please explain why comments about Democratic Party policy are off-topic while threatening statements, love letters, and talk about tv shows is on-topic. Furthermore, you say, On-topic: Discussion of the event. Off-topic: Ranting about the Middle East, Ralph Nader, or anything else that has nothing to do with event. 'Nuff said." But I've noticed that you only deleted Peter and Harry's comments, and not the rants about the Middle East & Ralph Nader by those whose position agrees with yours. The hypocrisy is a bit much...

(It's interesting to note that Joe Rowe eventually saw the error of his ways and was one of the chief ranters against Blumenauer at his "town hall" (no Q and A allowed) at the Hollywood Theater last year.)

I've never asked that anything said about me be censored, even when people just made up nonsense about me or claimed that I was in league with the terrorists. If you can't stand the heat, just say, "Present."

Did something happen to some of the comments?

Sorry, dddave, NOBODY on Earth works as hard as a public school teacher.

I did 'em all -- managed a small business, waiter, cook, newspaper reporter, Fortune 500 executive, public school techer and I never worked harder than I did at PPS.

And, getting back to the original topic, I really enjoy your writing Karol, but "there is no polite in politics."

Ask Gore. Or Kerry.

Or... Obama!

The President-elect RAGED against the GOP hate machine and won, unlike the other two, nice, smart, brave... presidential losers.

It would help if there was a way to require that commenters actually know what the heck they're talking about...maybe a basic test of the facts?...that would cut down measurably on the misinformed rhetoric and bomb-throwing...

It's interesting that folks feel a need to respond to written BS (and therefore validate them in some manner) from people one would otherwise dismiss as representing the lunatic fringe, who seem to have the perfect outlet for their ignorance in the blogosphere...

A few things:

1) Anonymity obviously makes obnoxiousness not only easier but also penalty-free. Thus the onus is on those of us who post with pseudonyms to "keep it clean".

2) Some folks just want to vent their anger, or demonstrate their self-defined intellectual- or moral superiority. The last thing they're interested in is discourse. There is evidence of precisely this phenomenon in this very thread.

3) Having a single guru who scrutinizes every comment and enforces some sort of alleged standards is not necessarily a useful goal in and of itself. Example: Jack Bogdanski's blog, where he routinely blacklists people from posting (yours truly included), not because we've been rude, but because we've had the temerity to question some of his claims and the insults he throws at those in Portland metro public life. Thus Bogdanski has turned a blog that could be a true public service--highlighting the lesser known workings of local government--into an echo chamber that serves mainly to inflate his own ego. Kind of sad, actually.

Kershner sez: If you can't stand the heat, just say, "Present."

Harry, I'm perfectly glad to read your dissenting opinions. I'm not perfectly glad to read the insults that invariably accompany those opinions. Your comments tend to read like the stuff shouted out by street preachers, telling those of us who don't see things your way that we're damned to eternal hellfire. See my point #2 above about the difference between discourse and venting.

Kershner sez: If you can't stand the heat, just say, "Present."

Harry, I'm perfectly glad to read your dissenting opinions. I'm not perfectly glad to read the insults that invariably accompany those opinions. Your comments tend to read like the stuff shouted out by street preachers, telling those of us who don't see things your way that we're damned to eternal hellfire. See my point #2 above about the difference between discourse and venting.

Courtesy is a two-way street where people of goodwill come together to explore different viewpoints. Politics has been called "The art of compromise" for a reason. If you don't know all the options, you can't make an informed decision.

Wholesale deletion of posts is rude. Many of my postings were deleted. I did not offer personal insults nor violate the terms of use.

My sin? I argued against the Blue Oregon orthodoxy. It's much easier for the admins to delete a posting than refute it--especially if it conflicts with their business objectives. Deleted responses are visible in the "preview" mode.

The Democratic party isn't frightened by diversity or rational argument. The Democratic party is much bigger than Blue Oregon.

Blue Oregon should make it clear that this site is nothing more than a promotional arm for their financial interests. That way we don't waste our time crafting a response with links that will be deleted later.

That's the polite thing to do.

Have there really been no comments here since Jan. 16 or are they just not showing up?

Well said, Karol - and a reminder that healthy debate and dialogue doesn't have to resort to thoughtless attacks and rude insults. It only escalates and discourages lurkers like myself from participating.

Tom

So how much does it suck to have a technical glitch affecting comments in the middle of a censorship row? I believe John Lennon may have had something to say about that...