« On a lighter note... | Main | "Fact-Check That! »

January 25, 2005

Comments

wow. what an incredibly stupid position to take. even if they don't share the sentiment, it should be clear that many other people do; and that maybe they'd be better off just going with the flow on this one, instead of painting big red "I'M A STUPID PRICK" signs on their foreheads.

yeah, everybody knows they don't like Jews. but being a dink about it surely isn't going to help anybody like them.

chow flung

took me a few reads to stop seeing that as something from a Chinese menu.

Apologize? Never.

The choice they made was not rash or without thought. It is consistent with their conduct to reject all things Jew. It is not an isolated event. It the fabric of their hate. Jews/Israelis want to send aid to Iran for earthquakes: shove it. Jews/Israelis want to send personnel to Sri Lanka: shove it. A special UN Assembly session commemorating the 60th anniversary of liberation of Nazi death camps was not supported by 43 member states: shove it. This is not about Zionism, Palestine, or Israel. It's about hate for Jews in any form.

Thanks, Edward :)

Dumb beyond belief.

It's about hate for Jews in any form.

Yes, it would seem that way, and it's time for them to be openly criticized for it by Blair, Bush, etc., etc. It's shameful.

It is absurd.

That's really the best way I can look at it - the kindest thing I think anyone can say about it.

A couple of years ago a national Holocaust memorial service was planned for schoolchildren, intended to remind them, 50 years later, of the forgotten victims.

Only, the city council who planned it themselves decided to forget some of the victims: the gay men, the gypsies, the disabled. They were not mentioned once in any of the material provided for the schools, nor were they mentioned in the service itself. And this was protested by representatives of the forgotten victims - who pointed out the irony of it, and the horror, that atrocities could so easily be forgotten.

I think that it is too easy for people to forget the horrors and the atrocities visited on the Palestinians by the Israelis: they are not, for the most part, reported in the Western press. One must dig to find them, just as - for years - it was necessary to dig to find any accounts of the victims of the Nazis whom official history chose to forget. (I studied the period 1919-39 when I read history at school: I will never forget the painful shock when I realized that my teachers had chosen to obliterate the gay victims of the Nazis from the version of history they thought appropriate for schoolchildren.)

We can protest that some victims are more memorialized than others. We can protest that some atrocities are considered of more weight than others. We can protest that some victims are considered more important than others.

But it's utterly inappropriate to do it by trying to make a Holocaust memorial a kind of one-size-fits-all memorial service for all the atrocities and inhumanities committed through history.

I agree that it would be only decent if Jews, remembering how their people were dehumanized and demonized, took part in a memorial service for other dehumanized and demonized peoples, including the Palestinians: but this isn't the way to persuade them, or anyone.

i'm looking forward to the forthcoming right wing threads denouncing the many Christian denominations on their refusals to acknowledge the horrendous amounts of gay deaths in these very same camps. Funny that these people also neglect to recognize the vast amounts of left-wing people killed in these purges, they were the first ones arrested.

Can we just say that right wing Christians hate gay people and liberals in any form too?

Jesurgislac states: I agree that it would be only decent if Jews, remembering how their people were dehumanized and demonized, took part in a memorial service for other dehumanized and demonized peoples, including the Palestinians

That would be a good idea, yet I know of no occasion where Jews, Israelis, or Zionists having been invited to a commemoration or memorial service for dehumanized and demonized peoples have declined. Do You?

If you ask do they go to memorial services for Hamas, Jihad, PLO, etc., k.i.a., of course not.

There has been no natural disaster in recent memory where Israel has failed to offer expertise and supplies regardless of whether Arabs and Muslims were at the other end. When Palestinians are wounded in their own internecine warfare, as well as that between the countries, often Israeli hospitals and doctors are furnished and preferred on the ground. Where humanity is the question, there is been no equivalence.

This is just appalling.

Marty, I was aware I could have phrased it better.

My point was intended to be that while I can feel for British Muslims who feel that Palestinian victims are being forgotten, I disagree entirely with the decision made by some British Muslims to exclude themselves from a Holocaust memorial service because it's explicitly to do with the Holocaust, not a generic memorial service to all victims of inhuman atrocities.

I don't want to pick a fight with you over Jews-are-better-no-Muslims-are-better: I have no feeling that either religious group is "better". My feeling about religion is still what it's been for years: No religion is intrinsically evil or intrinsically good. It's what you do with it that counts.

I can feel for British Muslims who feel that Palestinian victims are being forgotten

Isn't there an International Solidarity Day with the Palestinian people or something like that?

bold off?

Let's try again

bold off
strong off

Isn't there an International Solidarity Day with the Palestinian people or something like that?

There is, but it doesn't receive anything like the same kind of attention or funding that Holocaust Memorial Day does.

But the appropriate response to that is to try to level up, not to drag down.

Honestly, I'm torn between anger at the rudeness of it, and irritation at the bad strategy of it.

Honestly, I'm torn between anger at the rudeness of it, and irritation at the bad strategy of it.

How about the intent of it?

Can we just say that right wing Christians hate gay people and liberals in any form too?

Well, uh... no.

just as - for years - it was necessary to dig to find any accounts of the victims of the Nazis whom official history chose to forget. (I studied the period 1919-39 when I read history at school: I will never forget the painful shock when I realized that my teachers had chosen to obliterate the gay victims of the Nazis from the version of history they thought appropriate for schoolchildren.)

I can't remember how young I was when I learned basic WWII history, but I think it was when I was still talking about "cooties". I think that the difficulty most people have about teaching the extermination of homosexuals by the N*zis lay in the timing of the teaching of sex education by either parents or the schools. I'd want my kids taught as early as possible not to hate others different from them. That may end up being before I'm ready to teach them about why homosexuals were ostracized and how their Love differs from the love my kids have for their like-sex brothers and sisters.*

When revisited in high school, I remember learning about the homosexuals, gypsies and others.

Finally, I think the first people arrested by the N*zis were those who refused to register their firearms, or, upon having their registrations revoked or not renewed, refused to give them up. Those whose registrations were not renewed were typically those (Leftists, Homosexuals, Jews, etc.) who ended up in the camps.

*This ain't no threadjack attempt, just a remembrance and an attempted explanation based on my personal experience.

Bigger picture:

It has never been done before, but the U.N. General Assembly Monday will hold a special session to mark a historic anniversary. The gathering will mark the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps in 1945.

A resolution asking for the special session was sponsored by the United States, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Russia and the European Union. It was backed by 138 of the U.N. member states.

That's 138 out of 191.

Questions, comments?

Stan LS: How about the intent of it?

I see no reason not to take Iqbal Sacranie's statement of the intent of the action at face value.

Do you know of any reason to so mistrust Iqbal Sacranie? What else have you read that he wrote that makes you feel that when he says the intent is
to boycott the ceremony because it "excludes ongoing genocide and human rights abuses around the world and in the occupied territories of Palestine" he means anything but what he says?

What does "excludes ongoing genocide and human rights abuses around the world and in the occupied territories of Palestine" have to do with the 60th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz???

Try to picture a Jewish group trying to inject Holocaust (or suicide bombings, if you like) into the Palestinian Solidarity Day for a second.

Just wanted to point out that I don't find the quote from the Muslim MP as far off the mark as Edward appears to. I think this ties in to the earlier thread "Why They Hate Us" thread. I take what the MP says to show a desire to participate in the world at large. In other words, recognition of human rights is more important than any inherent antipathy towards Jews.

More on Iqbal Sacranied (gotta love google):

"Then I asked Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the MCB,whether he thought that any public statements about Islamic terrorism, or any speculation about the number of Muslims in Britain who might support Islamic terrorism, would constitute incitement to religious hatred. He said: 'There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered by this provision'."

"Try to picture a Jewish group trying to inject Holocaust (or suicide bombings, if you like) into the Palestinian Solidarity Day for a second."

The commentators at your local Jewish paper must be very different than the ones at Philadelphia's Jewish Exponent.

Dan, eh?

Stan,

Since their archives require paid subscription, I cannot provide examples, but it would not be at all out of place for them to make statements that a Palestinian Solidarity Day should be counterbalanced by statements from survivors of suicide bomb attacks.

Ok, perhaps suicide bombings are a bad example since the two are related. How about Holocaust in Palestinian Solidarity Day?

I take what the MP says to show a desire to participate in the world at large. In other words, recognition of human rights is more important than any inherent antipathy towards Jews.

In another context I'd agree JerryN. Here though it serves to potentially give the boycotters a morally objectionable loop hole IMO. They should attend to honor the Jews who were killed. Full stop.

"Ok, perhaps suicide bombings are a bad example since the two are related. How about Holocaust in Palestinian Solidarity Day?"

Unfortunately, the Palestinians think the two are related, as well. They express the view that the international community made amends to the Jewish people by supporting the creation of Israel, so that their suffering is indirectly related to the Holocaust.

Dantheman,

Which part of Iqbal Sacranie's statement mentions all that?

Edward - I see your point. However, it may well be the case that we're not at the point where many members of the Muslim communities in the West can respond as you'd like. If it takes invoking the other victims of the Holocaust to provide cover for them, at least it gets them engaged.

If it takes invoking the other victims of the Holocaust to provide cover for them, at least it gets them engaged.

Sadly, I see your point too.

Stan: What does "excludes ongoing genocide and human rights abuses around the world and in the occupied territories of Palestine" have to do with the 60th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz???

Wouldn't you agree that Auschwitz is included in genocide and human rights abuses round the world?

Edward: Here though it serves to potentially give the boycotters a morally objectionable loop hole IMO. They should attend to honor the Jews who were killed.

Why do you feel they should explicitly not attend to honor the gays, gypsies, disabled people, and Communists who were killed?

I have a problem with anyone who attends a Holocaust memorial service with the intention of not honoring all the victims - as some of the people who were killed by the Nazis somehow deserved their fate.

I know this wasn't what you meant to say. And (if it needs repeating) I think that the decision by the British Muslim Council to boycott the service is plain wrong. But I don't feel that any group of victims of the Nazi holocaust deserves to be forgotten.

Curses.

"as some of the people who were killed by the Nazis somehow deserved their fate."

was intended to read

"as if some of the people who were killed by the Nazis somehow deserved their fate."

(I don't normally bother to post to correct small typos, but that one changes the shape of the whole sentence.)

Jes: Yes, it is, but the fact that Auschwitz is an instance of genocide doesn't explain why, when we commemorate the 60th anniversary of Auschwitz, we have to commemorate the victims of all genocides (or, for that matter, all the things in the world that share some trait with Auschwitz.) It seems to me like saying: in the US Martin Luther King day is a holiday, but we should refuse to join in this celebration since there are other human beings, Liberace for instance, not to mention Slarti and Edward and even you, who are not being celebrated, and aren't you human too?

Jes,

Wouldn't you agree that Auschwitz is included in genocide and human rights abuses round the world?

Ofcourse. Go on.

It's interesting how Edward's and my perspectives differ. He titled his post "Britian's Muslims Miss the Point", I would've titled it "Britian's Muslims make a point".

I don't agree at all with the decision made by the Muslim leaders but I do think the point made upthread needs to acknowleged: the efforts of the rest of the world to atone to the Jewish victims did have the effect of creating another group of victims, the Palestinians, and ,while the world continues to mourn for the Jewish victims, the Palestinian ones are largely ignored and their concerns are not always taken seriously. We do need to recognize that the Palestinians have legimate grievances right now and the failure of the world to respond to those grievances is part of the fuel for the alienation and rage behind terrorism.
But the boycott comes across to me at least as spiteful, bigotted, and ulimately self-defeating. It would be better for the Muslim leaders of England and elsewhere to promote a day of mourning for Palestinians after whole-heartedly participating in the memorial for Jews.

Why do you feel they should explicitly not attend to honor the gays, gypsies, disabled people, and Communists who were killed?

Jes, I assumed the Muslims not wanting to let the day be about only those killed at Auschwitz are doing so because they hate Jews or because it's not politically prudent for them to demonstrate that they don't hate Jews. I didn't assume that they were making a statement one way or the other about gays, gypsies, disabled peole and Communists.

You have a good point, but it's parallel to my intent.

Finally, I think the first people arrested by the N*zis were those who refused to register their firearms, or, upon having their registrations revoked or not renewed, refused to give them up. Those whose registrations were not renewed were typically those (Leftists, Homosexuals, Jews, etc.) who ended up in the camps.

The first prisoners were 200 Communists who had been taken into "protective custody" because they posed a threat to the Nazis.link

I believe that it was not firearms, it was political opposition (link)
Also, note here that prisoners were, in the early days, released from Dachau. Please note the "Directives for discharge" written here

I realize that this is a bit OT, but I strongly disagree with the statement that it was firearms registration. If you have any links that suggest otherwise, I hope you can post them.

...the efforts of the rest of the world to atone to the Jewish victims did have the effect of creating another group of victims, the Palestinians...

Uhm... Didn't someone start a war or something?

Stan,

"Which part of Iqbal Sacranie's statement mentions all that?"

Please stop moving goalposts.

Dantheman,

Who's moving goalposts here? Check the post and stay on topic.

Edward: Jes, I assumed the Muslims not wanting to let the day be about only those killed at Auschwitz are doing so because they hate Jews or because it's not politically prudent for them to demonstrate that they don't hate Jews.

I don't assume that.

I prefer to assume that Iqbal Sacranie means what he says. Because in that case, it's possible for those of us to argue the case against this tactic: to point out that it's rude, it's stupid, it's just the wrong thing to do.

If we start out from the assumption that Iqbal Sacranie is saying this because he hates Jews/he wants the Muslim community to believe he hates Jews, there is no possibility of useful dialogue, no way to use what Iqbal Sacranie actually said as a basis for an argument against this action. You should understand this: it's exactly the reason you gave for arguing that even if Sheikh Abdulrahman Al-Sudais wasn't sincere when he decried extremism and terror in his annual sermon, his words ought to be taken seriously.

There are already too many extremist Muslims who say that they hate Jews. It gains nobody anything to push a non-extremist Muslim (and Iqbal Sacranie is no extremist) into a corner and say "Either you're with us or against us!"

Really. Not.

Stan,

"Who's moving goalposts here?"

You are. After conceding that mentioning suicide bombing victims may be related to a Palestinian Solidarity Day and therefore potentially the subject of Jewish commentators' reaction to such an event, you then asked about relating the Holocaust to a Palestinian Solidarity Day. When I explained the Palestinians' thinking behind such a relation, you asked me if the specific speaker at issue mentioned it in this specific statement.

dantheman,

When I explained the Palestinians' thinking behind such a relation, you asked me if the specific speaker at issue mentioned it in this specific statement.

The "speaker" here is the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain. I'ld imagine that his explanation carries more weight then yours. Again, his explanation is:

“We wrote to the Home Office three or four weeks ago. We said the issue of the Holocaust is not really the concern. But we have now expressed our unwillingness to attend the ceremony because it excludes ongoing genocide and human rights abuses around the world and in the occupied territories of Palestine,”

He makes no mention of what you're talking about.

"We do need to recognize that the Palestinians have legimate grievances right now and the failure of the world to respond to those grievances..."

Of course the Palestinians have legitimate grievances. However, I don't think the world has failed to respond - responding has probably been the biggest single UN issue, the West has given $B to the PA and promises more, it was a factor in the Gulf War, ... Compared to other peoples with legitimate grievances (the Kurds, the Tibetans, and on and on) they've gotten an immense response. That said, Dantheman's 02:18 pm is well-taken.

Uhm... Didn't someone start a war or something?
Stan
I'm sure that you are aware of this, but I think it is important to note Allied complicity in the Holocaust. Beyond the question of the Swiss, we also have the handling of pre war refugees that forced Jews to take illegal measures (aliyah bet) before and during the war, the refusal, despite total air superiority, to bomb rail lines leading to Auschwitz and other camps, and the industrial alliances between IBM and Nazi Germany or Ford and the Nazis.

Again, I imagine you were just trying to be snarky, but it does not serve the subject well.

lj,

Heh.. Perhaps I should've been clearer with my quote. Here:

...the efforts of the rest of the world to atone to the Jewish victims did have the effect of creating another group of victims, the Palestinians...

It's just silly logic to begin with, the equivelant of sayng that you won't observe Martin Luthor King day because we aren't also celebrating every black person that ever did something good. The Palastinian's have some very valid issues, but as a Jew that lost relatives in Auschwitz this is a.) not a suprise, b.) horribly spiteful and c.) not very good political strategy.

It's a rather see through excuse for anti-semitism. Hatred dressed up in politicaly correct form and meant for a primarily European consumption. The Palastinian's would lose too much funding in Europe if they were honest.

I do not mean to imply that all Palastinian's think this way. I am sure there are good, decent Palastinians out there that want peace, they just aren't normaly given any voice and they probably won't be any time soon. There are fanatics on both sides of the table, from Islamic terrorists to Militant Settlers.

BSR,

I do not mean to imply that all Palastinian's think this way.

These are Brittish Muslims, not Palestinian.

You know what I mean, go pick nits somewhere else. :p

Jes - to me, the quote from Khalid Mahmood argues against your assumptions. It's clear that he thinks that hatred of Jews played a role in the call for a boycott. Had Iqbal Sacranie simply urged for broadening the scope of the commemoration to include current genocides and left it that, I could buy into your point of view. The boycott opens the door to Edward's and my (and others) interpretation.

BSR,

But it's a valid point. This is not just some spokesman of a fringe group that lives in a war zone. The guy is the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain.

Britian? Is that the new liberal spelling? ;} BTW, on the topic at hand, Edward, we agree.

Britian? Is that the new liberal spelling? ;}

Dyslexics of the world UNTIE!!!

how knotty, tahts dylsexics...

LJ,

I knew that the first prisoners started in '33 which is when the N*zis came into true power. I "thought" that they would use the registration laws of '28 to go after the "undesireables" that they wanted put away if possible, but disarmed at least. I remember a prof discussing the irony of how the '28 law meant to disarm the N*zis and other "gangs" helped them consolidate power in '33 and beyond.

Upon searching I note this link discussing an opinion regarding the value of gun control to the N*zis. Hard for me to believe, but then again, we've discussed the difficulty of "walking a mile" already.

Of course the Palestinians have legitimate grievances. However, I don't think the world has failed to respond - responding has probably been the biggest single UN issue, the West has given $B to the PA and promises more

So you consider throwing a few dollars to the PA an adequate response to the situation? I don't. Today's news:

Qurie also complained about continued building of Jewish settlements and said Palestinians were "very, very angry" that Israel might enforce a 55-year-old property law that Palestinian officials said could lead to the confiscation of nearly half of all Palestinian-owned land in East Jerusalem.

"The application of the Absentee Property Law would strip the East Jerusalemites of their lands and property. This is how they put their hands on the land after 1948. This is very, very dangerous," he said.

The same law allowed confiscation of property of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who fled or were forced from their homes in what is now Israel at its 1948 creation.

-Reuters

The problem is not that the PA does not have enough money. The problem is that Israel and the US continue to take a rejectionist stance toward the rights of Palestinians.

Cri
Thanks for the link and the comment (as well as taking the time to google). What I took away from the rise of the Nazis was that the Communists were put into "protective custody", under the guise that they needed protection from the populace. This permitted the Nazis to set up a hierarchy in which Jews were then brought into the camps and became the lowest on the totem pole. Though I had heard of this sort of comment on Hitler and gun control, I never investigated it, because it never seemed plausible given my reading of history. My apologies if I came off too aggressively.

"The problem is not that the PA does not have enough money."

Actually, I thought the PA did need more money, haveing managed to waste so much through corruption.

"The problem is that Israel and the US continue to take a rejectionist stance toward the rights of Palestinians."

I don't think any one-sentence summary of the problem can be useful, esp. one that fails to reference all sides of the conflict, but I'd probably start with the fact that the PA kindergartens have posters of suicide bombers instead of Gandhi and MLK and Mandela.

I don't think any one-sentence summary of the problem can be useful, esp. one that fails to reference all sides of the conflict

Notice that no one in this thread put forth the Nazi point of view in reference to the Holocaust, either. I'm not implying that what has been done to the Palestinians is genocide - "ethnic cleansing" is a more accurate term in my perception. And the idea that one should give equal time to the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing is not an idea to which I subscribe.

felix -

Too often these conversations are (a la Gary Larson), "Blah blah blah ethnic cleansing blah blah blah." "Blah blah blah bombs on school buses blah blah blah". I've really no interest in participating in any more such discussions leading to contention instead of to greater understanding.

And anyway, since I find "the Nazi point of view in reference to the Holocaust" offensive in context, I'm especially dropping out for posting rules reasons.

And anyway, since I find "the Nazi point of view in reference to the Holocaust" offensive in context, I'm especially dropping out for posting rules reasons.

After re-reading both the sentence containing that phrase and the posting rules, I do not see how the former violates any of the latter. Care to clue me in?

What is being done to the Palestinians is they are fighting a war and losing. They have been offered a number of chances to end the war and have declined. Perhaps with Arafat gone their willingness to continue the war will diminish--but I'm skeptical.

SH, sounds like they're close to getting a hudna declared, and Israel is going to stop targeted killings. I for one am feeling optimistic. Maybe Bush will even use some of his man date to push both sides...

That's true, Sebastian. What is equally true is:

What the Israelis are doing is fighting a war they cannot win. They have had a number of chances to end the war and have declined: under Ariel Sharon, they have stepped up the war.

Maybe once Sharon and Bush are out of power, the Israeli willingness to continue a war they cannot win will diminish - but I too am skeptical, though I try to be hopeful.

Bush will even use some of his man date to push both sides

<humor type="juvenile">
What a difference the extra space makes in this sentence...
</humor>

SH, sounds like they're close to getting a hudna declared, and Israel is going to stop targeted killings

Israel will temporarily halt targeted killings while proceeding with the plans detailed above to continue its expansionist policies of expropriating Palestinian property. Obviously this will be resisted by the Palestinians. Israel will use this resistance as an excuse to resume acts such as targeted killings.

We've seen this all a dozen times before.

LJ

My apologies if I came off too aggressively.

Not necessary. I'm here to learn more about as much as possible. You help rather than hinder and I appreciate it.

What is being done to the Palestinians is they are fighting a war and losing. They have been offered a number of chances to end the war and have declined. Perhaps with Arafat gone their willingness to continue the war will diminish--but I'm skeptical.

Sebastian: Could you please, pretty please, read Palestine by Joe Sacco?
It is a personal account in the form of a graphic novel but it is the best book I know to *personalize* the palestinian situation. It is not a political analysis, it does not harbour solutions, but the combination of pictures and text had a hugh impact on me.

I am quite familiar with the arguments consistently made by the Palestians purporting to claim that they are being exposed to a holocaust. They are not and have never been exposed to a holocaust. Sacranie does in fact try to equate the holocaust with what the Palestinians are doing to themselves - try to read the hidden sentiment behind his message! He conveniently has always painted a one-sided picture where the muslims are seen as innocent victims! Actually, if you took the trouble to examine most hotspots in the world at the moment you will find radical Islamists behind most of the problems. My anger with the muslims is not that they are muslim, it is after after all just another faith, but that they live in consistent self denial about the extemists that come from their societies. The holocaust basically was the attempt to exterminate all European Jews- nothing more- nothing less - and it was conducted by the National Socialists in Germany with the assistance of many European countries. The Holocaust was official policy - the Palestinians have on the other hand behaved badly for a very long time and Israel has showed a great deal of tolerance - there have been numerous opportunities for peace, and every time (with one exception) the violence has been rekindled by the actions of a brainless and stupid muslim youth! While the real victims of the current farce being played out currently in the Middle East are the average citizens of the region, of all faiths, never forget that the source that generates hatred and an unwillingness to accept others of different beliefs come from the muslim side. Almost every day in Southern Thailand an innocent Buddhist man or woman is murdered by a piece of Islamic excrement (I cant be nicer). Why, because the muslims are not happy!!!! Tough Shit - I'd love to own an Island but I am not going to murder a Muslim because the government won't give me one. There is a serious illness in the muslim world if some idiot thinks he can murder innocent and unsuspecting people on his way to paradise - the london bombers are scum but they were born and bred in England. Something from the Islamic world turned them into murderous pigs - and there can be no tolerance or nice words for their religion from this point of view - maybe we can forgive but we can never forget. And it doesnt matter if you disagree with Bush and Blair about this or that .. We pursue change through dialogue, not through mindless and unfocused rage which destroys people who have absolutely no influence in your problem. It is also curious to note that while European aid groups do not distinguish between who should and shouldnt receive aid (is help is needed it is given) this is not the case of the muslim world. PerhapS i've been bitten by the redneck mosquito, but I do thionk that these people are a problem!!!

"Genocide day", would be so much better.

Opinionated Voice

Is there some reason ObWi doesn't close comments on posts after, say, two months, or 3 months, or somesuch? I seem to recall asking this several times before. (If the answer is "we don't know how," well, I'll reserve my answer for such a response.) It would save a lot of comment-spam-killing, among other virtues.

Gary: I suspect the answer is: we'd have to do it manually.

"Gary: I suspect the answer is: we'd have to do it manually."

Certainly lots of blogs do it automatically. Whether your system provides for it as a turnkey option, or you'd have to drop in code, I don't know, but is there something about this system that, to your knowledge, prevents that?

The additional thought I had in mind is somewhere along the lines that I certainly don't want to tell you guys how to run your blog, and hope I'm not coming across otherwise, but to otherwise suggest as gently as possible that perhaps finding someone to consult with on (I completely forget this second whether you use Moveable Type or Wordpress or whatever; apologies) on the system, given that blogs tend to require frequent tweaking or problems develop, might be quite useful. There are, after all, a few million people using each of the main blogging software sets.

But I'm saying the obvious, and there are likely problems I'm unaware of, and I'll try to shut up now, again, on this.

The comments to this entry are closed.