True.
There is a great deal that is positive about this medium.
Any thread can get out of hand I think, and oddly it’s often ones we least expect.

I am certainly not condoning the language or name calling in that thread.

Some of us want to learn, listen to different viewpoints and dialogue, even debate occasionally.

But if you look at most pundit blogs a couple of things come up.

One, not many women or men in are willing to put up with the name calling etc.
It is verbal abuse.

Two, if a pundit writes to bring you around to their point of view and commenters are so willing to mock, what’s the point?

If you read Laura’s thread, she didn’t deserve that, and I’m sorry it happened to her. The hurt is real.
Does the pain of changing ones opinion need to include that kind of harm?

Three, those of us outside the US don’t have to cast a vote in November, so we are ridiculed and dismissed. Why is that ok?

And four, how does this ridicule further one’s faith or the faith of others?

It’s difficult being torn to shreds in your comments and then told you are ‘allergic’ to legitimate criticism.

It’s kind of like war, actually. Like, I can do anything I want–I can blow your head off with God’s full blessing. Their god is nobody I want to have anything to do with.

I think though there is a positive side to all this. In the past, some of the people who are now arguing online had no exposure to each other. The technology of blogs, egroups etc has cut down some boundaries of communication and we are now experiencing the birth pains of that. Never before in history has someone like me in Australia had input and interaction on some hot political issues with people in other countries on a daily or even hourly basis. The immediacy of the medium also means that when you are hot and emotional, you can click on “send” too easily.

The world is bitterly divided over the Iraq war. But, I suspect that our technology has added to the division and allowed a forum for the heat to be experienced in a new and sometimes painful ways.

But, despite the pain at times, I think we are involved in something exciting and beneficial.

I like your comment about some blogs being echo chambers where dissenting voices are unwelcome. That is what I get the most email about. Readers get discouraged very quickly when they are trashed or not heard.

As I read E-blog (I like the group aspect) and other Canadian pundits, I know that as we gear into election mode, our rhetoric may get heated in our back and forth. I hope at the end of the day politics won’t over ride respect. I’m not prepared to accept that blogging has to go the way of many use-threads etc.

What good is the currency of blogs (links and traffic) if verbal thuggery takes precedent?
Flaming in comments may ‘enrich’ the blogger in the short term, but in the longer term guilt by association only loses the very people that I think pundits may wish to reach. Spectacles are a dime a dozen and get tiring real quick. Blog on!

When I put together the E-Group blog at BlogsCanada, I purposely recruited political bloggers from as wide a spectrum as I could. The debate gets slightly heated from time to time but seldom, if ever, gets ugly. Of course, we mainly blog on Canadian politics - hardly as emotion-stirring as the Iraq war, the US Patriot Act or the suitability of George W. Bush as leader of the free world.

I have, however, blogged on those topics in my own blog and while dissenting opinions have been expressed in the comments section, they’ve rarely been obnoxious. I think the blogger needs to set the tone. If he/she sees the comments deteriorating, some refereeing would be in order. I can’t help but wonder whether some bloggers tolerate or even encourage rudeness for the sake of spectacle. Links and traffic are the currency of the blogosphere and the sight of a nasty comments war gets people looking and pointing.

I have had angry people comment on my political posts. I refer them to my site policy and give the ‘play nice’ warning. I have to say once I give that, the commenter simmers downs or leaves.
I acknowledge I have lost my temper a few times, and have been quick to apologize.
I don’t see any option as a believer or as a member of a society.
I had a reader threatened by a blogger, and will not permit others or myself being abused here. Interestingly I haven’t had to delete anyone once I’ve given the play nice warning.
Thanks.
In any email correspondence with you and in your posts you are polite, respectful and highly intelligent.
I’ve seen you step into your comments and moderate. Is that what it takes?
I’ve received angry email from a pundit the past few years who has behaved as badly as their commenters. (His comments degenerate faster than yours do!) I’ve also had apologies from pundits that took time to dialogue and clear up misunderstandings. God bless them.

I honesly wonder why your commenters don’t afford you the same courtesy you show others?
Have you noticed many start off well and then get crazy and rude and right off the rails? If they can start off well, they can show self-control all the way through or walk away. They aren’t children.

Anton Hein of Apologetics Index gave me invaluable advice. He gets some scary, rage filled people writing him, and will not tolerate abuse, models respect and set firm boundaries in love.

Regardless of what happens, and regardless of who is right or wrong, we always benefit from taking these kind of situations to Jesus. The Holy Spirit brings peace (See Philippians 4:4-9). Conflict, on the other hand, is not of Him (see James 3:1-18). Our natural inclination is to defend ourselves - or even to go on the attack. But the way of the Spirit is different…