This should be pretty obvious, but it bears repeating: This is my blog, and I write what I want to, about the subjects that are of interest to me, in a way that I am comfortable with, on my own schedule, beholden to no one.

If that interests you, great. If you think this stuff is boring or of no use to you, that is fine also — there are millions of sites out there, go find something that gets you excited.

You are welcome to participate here so long as you follow a few simple rules.

If you do not care about the discussions here but only hang around because you are attracted by the page views — is “comment traffic whore” a meme yet? — then do not be surprised if and when you finally wear out your welcome. Behave like a cad, and you will no longer be welcome here.

GYOFB

Once I become convinced you are here for no other reason than the traffic or to enhance your own Google page rank, we are finito. It literally takes two clicks to delete your user name and every one of your past comments (as someone very unhappy will attest to).

When deciding whether to go for more comments versus better comments, I chose the latter. Hence, the required email address, moderation and minimum etiquette. The comments here remain are on topic, and relatively free of spammers and trolls.

Tonite, there is one less troll amongst us . . .

>

Previously:
7 Suggestions for Scott Adams (November 27th, 2007)

Information Triage (April 2011)

Category: Weblogs

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

21 Responses to “GYOFB”

  1. Mick Lovin says:

    Where is the like button? I especially love the new phrase “comment traffic whore” you and Josh are doing an Awesome job!

  2. Ducky62 says:

    What’d I miss?

    I only find a few regular commenters here to be even slightly interesting or informative. Andy T,
    and Mark E Hoffer being foremost among them. I only come here for the Posts. I often wondered if that Invictus dude was running the bulk of the comments as multiple troll personas. Keep up the good work!

  3. Nick says:

    You’re right ! After all this is indeed your blog. I’m mostly here for the posts you make. A good discussion is always interesting, as long as it stays informative and structured.
    Keep up the good work, this is one of my favortie blogs ! Might come to see you in Brussels in a couple of weeks

  4. I haven’t posted in a while but as I was rereading your rules, what about us bloggers that have more than one blog and log in under one blog name but have an important article they think you may be interested in or may relate to the discussion at hand?

    I log in under my Swarm The Banks name and URL but I wrote what I think is a disgustingly important article about the Mississippi River flooding. http://dailypuma.blogspot.com/2011/05/barack-obama-knowingly-cut-mississippi.html

    Technically I’m a link whatever whatever, but I did a bunch of research on the article and think the result is very important from an economic point of view.

  5. Swarm The Banks:

    As long as your comment is tangentially related to what is being discussed, that is fine, as is whatever link you want to embed on your name .

    But, if regardless of whatever is being discussed here, from Microsoft to Foreclosures to REM, your comment is POMO POMO POMO well then, its adios muchachos.

    There are plenty of blogs that appreciate blind meaningless rhetoric. This isnt one of them.

  6. Invictus says:

    @Ducky62

    No, I was not. And am not.

  7. tselliott says:

    @Ducky62 — sigh…

    @Invictus — you consistently and constructively add to the discussion. thanks.

    @BR — I appreciate the fact your postings, comments, and the occasional moderating that you do here. It’s beneficial to all of us. The anonymity of the net is frequently more of a curse than a blessing.

  8. Bruman says:

    Wow, Barry. I support your policy, but I must admit, I’m curious as to what was said to provoke such furor of a response. I figured someone would just be de-listed quietly in the night.

    I’m not insisting on a response, I’m just reflecting the feeling of “Wow, Barry sure got mad at something, I wonder how bad it must have been.”

  9. MattD says:

    Barry,

    Thank you for all you are doing. I knew you had balance when you noted somewhat in passing that your invitations to be on Kudlow would be limited because you are too nuanced. It took me a long time to believe in zeitgeist but we indeed live in a black and white, “facts aside” age. You, Brad DeLong, Mark Thomas, and several others are my intellectual heroes and provide a breath of fresh air. You insist on clarity, facts, and solid analysis. I don’t know how many of your readers are shocked at the strange anti-thought time we live in but you are setting the standard in this relatively new blogging venue.
    Thank you. Thank you. — Matt Douthit

  10. post26 says:

    Hey Barry, did you and Kedrosky get together and decide May was the month to put your foot down on BS commentors?

    http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/05/bitchy-readers.html

  11. DeDude says:

    Those policies have made the blog comment sections a lot better.

    It should not be that hard for people to respect since there are regular posts that invite us to share links. You can always pump your favorite subjects and own links into those.

  12. DeDude says:

    So if you are a SIOB (Single Item Obsessed Brad), then put your link in the comments whenever Barry ask “what are you reading”.

  13. Geegun says:

    Props.

  14. PDS says:

    Whew…thought I got canned!

  15. zot23 says:

    Good for you Barry. Please don’t ban people if they disagree with you though, that always makes a site worse long term and not better.

  16. MaxMax says:

    Yaaayyyy!!

  17. Ny Stock Guy says:

    Your blog is perfect the way it is. Don’t change anything.

  18. Julia Chestnut says:

    It’s reached the point where I comment in very, very few places. All of them are moderated. All of them tolerate a great variety of views, and none of them tolerate enormous screeds on some tangentially related topic, or long block quotes from some political philosopher.

    It’s not that my commentary is so earth shattering – I’m well aware how banal it generally is. But that feeling of being genuinely engaged in exchange with someone is kind of valuable to me. So much of the web has turned out to be that wasteland of uncharted disaster marked “Here, there be dragons” on ancient maps.

    And yet. . . .the web has genuinely saved me before. It is hard to find like-minded individuals in the real world, especially on topics that are simultaneously very important and volatile. It is a great public service, to me, for someone to put themselves out there, like a porch light, and invite wanderers and bugs alike. Thank God for Barry and my other friends I haven’t met — and pass the Off.

  19. Hi Barry, when a blogger registers for your blog so that they can post a comment on your blog, the link is already embedded within the name, (which is a very generous option that you provide.). However, if we were to change the signature link specifically for one topic, does that then change the signature link for all prior comments that a blogger may have made on your blog in the past?

  20. peter north says:

    Just testing to see if mostly-retired adult movie performers are still welcome… If this posts, YEAH BABY!

    @Invictus: Count me as one usually silent visitor who values your posts and responses to questions. Thanks.

    @BR: Thanks for trying to neutralize some of the persistent BS out there on the interenets. I’m sure I am less ignorant than I would be, thanks to you and your stubborn insistence on needing real evidence, not just a titillating theory.