I spent a little time this morning improving the comment system on Workbench. There's now a comments page that shows the 50 most recent comments submitted to the weblog.

After you submit a comment here, the site will store your name and home page link in cookies for 180 days so you don't have to type them in again.

I've also added a line to the site's moderation policy: "Comments that have nothing to do with the subject of a post will be deleted." There's too much off-topic noise here. I'm not interested in seeing every single post I write turned into an opportunity to rant against liberals or the policies I follow on the Drudge Retort. If you have a beef about the Retort or the liberal slant of the site, take it up there.

Comments that I delete on this blog are published for a few days on a new deleted comments page. So if you've posted something here that gets got, you can retrieve the text and post it somewhere else.

-- Rogers Cadenhead

Comments

"There's too much off-topic noise here. I'm not interested in seeing every single post I write turned into an opportunity to rant against liberals ..."

How about rants against conservatives? Will you be a bit more lenient in that consideration?

BTW, I want to thank Marina Gipps for her submission about Matt Drudge. I now have a published link to an example of the posts I try to mock when appropriate to the "subject".

You'll get some more hits from my frequent use of that link, Rogers. If you move it, will you let me know, please?


 

I think your efforts to work on your site is great. I wonder though at your leniency in being able to post under any name, and even able to use another's sign on ... doesn't that invite inane mockery and the infamous 'anonymous' hysteria so distasteful to political bloggers? Why a membership account on your other sites, but not here?

What's the real motive behind your spotty 'housecleaning', in not addressing that as well as the liberal bashing removal zone? Joking comments about the color scheme of websites?

... Not that your "Comments" page isn't a nice and handy touch, mind you ...


 

Why a membership account on your other sites, but not here?

If I thought enough people wanted user accounts here, I'd offer them.


 

"If I thought enough people wanted user accounts here, I'd offer them."

Rather than as a necessary requirement for posting. Right.

I had a bet with myself that you wouldn't remove Marina's rant to the 'deleted comments' zone. You won't remove Alan's efforts at dehumanizing "raperepublicans", either ... right?

That's true-blue yellow-dogism; however much it gives you the appearance of an hypocrite.


 

My, my. How respectful a tone Tadowe is suddenly adopting.

"...will you let me know, please?"
"I think your efforts to work on your site is great..."

Tadowe, sit! Tadowe, stay! Roll over, boy! Thatsagoodboy! Thatsagoodboy!


 

Bwahahahahha....Deleted comments? Dumps? What a fricking farce, get real Rogers, they mean nothing. You proved with Alexa that you only selectively enforce 'the rules'.

My question is why? Alexa is a whining, sniviling, crybaby that sprays ever corner of the Retort like a cat in heat. Is she another buddy of yours from the olden days like Bourne?


 

Well, since Rogers brought it up, I guess discussing the Retort, here, is okay?

We don't need to, because Rogers is in a fine pickle, right here!

Marina Gipps had a post removed over on the Drudge REPORT, and used one of Rogers threads about Matt Drudge to bash rightwingers on the scale I like to mock on occasion, and of which there are some fine examples in the 'recently deleted' zone. However, her post remains unremoved.

What can Rogers do? Remove her post like Matt Drudge? How could he look at himself in the mirror removing a liberal ranter's post according to his own rules?

So he hasn't ... he'd rather be known as an hypocrite by ignoring his own recent rules, than someone who would be like Matt Drudge did in removing a yellow-dog-democrat's (Marina's) ranting post. Matt followed Matt's rules, how can Rogers do the same with his own newly published rules? Yuck! Be anything like Matt Drudge!?! Shiver!

I mean, it is so pitifully sad what it does to the human character, this partisan political intransigence ...


 

BTW, Rex ... just notice how Anon's post remains unremoved, off subject, and a bash on a rightwinger? The comments even mock Rogers as some sort of master of a slavish, subhuman.

Rogers must be busy to moderate his own site ... removing his left foot from his mouth, maybe? ...


 

Tadowe, ever heard the aphorism: "You can dish it out but you can't take it?"

You can't bash Rogers all day long and then expect him to remove comments you don't agree with.

Flip
Flop

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and fight your own battles.


 

btw - It's not a bash, it's a compliment.

You're much more behaved now.


 

Anon displays his intellect, "You can't bash Rogers all day long and then expect him to remove comments you don't agree with."

As I mentioned, I expected him not to remove that post, even though I brought it to his attention (as he is asked be done). That is because it is not a rant against 'liberals', as he specified, and also because Drudge removed her ... he literally can't do the same to a fellow yellow-dog-democrat ...

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and fight your own battles."

Everyone who has been here for about a week knows I'm stand-up in my replies. This particular 'battle' is to notice that Rogers' political intransigence handicaps his character and intellect.

"btw - It's not a bash, it's a compliment."

Exactly my point! You will lie like this in order to pretend that your dehumanizing post was actually a 'compliment'. That's what the two-faced collectivists do as a matter of routine -- lie to dehumanize and revile for votes. Most are on your level of intellect, and your childish mockery makes a fine example to hold under Rogers' virtual nose ...

"You're much more behaved now."

Actually, your ilk doesn't like that very much. They would much rather I present them with a mocking rant, to remove, than to reason my insults. They become so wroth that they took it to the internet in libel. I'm so hated for reasoning my insults, that Rogers minions demonstrated what a pack of hate filled idiots they are by rioting in 'votes' over on Urbandictionary! Take a peek ...

Your original post, and this one, are about me as your subject. There is no attempt on your part to do anything more than mock and revile a neurotic obsession you've acquired over me. You make unsupported, unreasoned and unreasonable assertions in order to further dehumanize your 'political' target. No thread points ... no nothing. The perfect example of the post Rogers says he will remove.

Will Rogers' remove these rants, according to his own rules, or not ... that is the question to determine. You only complicate his response(s) and actions.


 

Anon is Bourne, Tad.


 

I'm not interested in seeing every single post I write turned into an opportunity to rant against liberals or the policies I follow on the Drudge Retort.

And blatant hitwhores, how will they fare?

You know, if you'd started this sooner, maybe your unruly ginger stepcretins wouldn't squeal so loud when the adults tire of their teething antics and exile them to DrudgeRetort for 'reeducation'.

high-street.org ;-)


 

"Anon is Bourne, Tad."

I don't support your personal attacks, Rex. I try and reason my opinions and assertions, however insulting, not just spout them like some Leftist goosestepping propagandist.

I doubt that Bourne is Anon, and since I think from his comments that he is much too smart to become such an example of hateful insanity.

However, Rogers knows and allows it to continue, whoever it might be. That's all I care about ... "For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar".


 

Two words, Tadowe:
Boo
Hoo


 

Rogers moderates, "Comments that have nothing to do with the subject of a post will be deleted."

Whoever Anon might be, it is abundantly clear that Rogers does not have the courage to stand by his own convictions. Partisanship, and personal dislike allow him to show his ingrained prejudice(s).

The "comments" Rogers removes (censors) is okay, but Palin better not try any such thing as a mayor interested in reasonable, not dictatorially intransigent employees when discussing public standards, for instance. That kind of hypocrisy.

That's actually a revelation of what Leftist, Progressives and radical Democrats will do with any "Fairness" doctrine: you will get along if you speak out against and hate republithugs, and with no other alternative ...


 

Workbench is not owned by the government (not yet anyways... but maybe it will be by the time George Bush is done Nationalizing the entire economy). Workbench is privately owned and operated by Roger Cadenhead. He is your God. He decides what is and is not appropriate. You are at the mercy of Him. If you cannot handle that, perhaps you should post somewhere else.

As Johnson & Johnson Baby Shampoo says:
No More Tears


 

Anon is Bourne, Tad.

Impossible. We banished him to the purgatory side of the cape code canal. That's not a typo.


 

Ha! I wish I knew what that meant.

Good to hear from you, Rex. How are things in the world of global finance? Still cashing big checks for your advice? Some advice you've been giving them lately!


 

"Workbench is privately owned and operated by Roger Cadenhead."

I think you must be Rogers! You purposefully misspell to misdirect!

That's why you haven't removed this off-subject spam! It is your inane effort to "get back"! I love it!

"... If you cannot handle that, perhaps you should post somewhere else"

That's sure Rogers fondest wish ... well, fond anyway ...

However off-subject the personal rants against conservatives, they will remain, but personal rants against liberals will be removed.

Whether you are actually Rogers, Bourne, or whoever, you are, all of you the same collective drone, marching in unison and displaying your ends-justify-the-means partisan hypocrisy(ies).

I actually feel sorry for Rogers, and his effort to censor rightwing, conservative comment. He really can't help but display how one-sided his idea of "fairness" means. Demonstrating Leftist's (or for that matter Rightist's) inability to agree for the good of the nation must be an inherent trait which identifies the wannabe tyrants in our existence?

It is sort of like the discrimination directed at ex-slaves by the Democratic Party of the United States, and inflammed by Republican carpetbaggers who established an immediate Minority Incentive Program, and which was rabidly fought by the Southern Democrats.

Now, it is conservatives (anyone to the right of Fidel) who are the neo-freemen and women of the USA and so hated by the prejudice of yellow-dog-democrats who would prefer to die than vote for a republithug ...

You can take the zealot out of the party, but you can't take the party out of the zealot ... it's the socialists' replacement for God: faith in the state.


 

The "comments" Rogers removes (censors) is okay, but Palin better not try any such thing as a mayor interested in reasonable, not dictatorially intransigent employees when discussing public standards, for instance.

This is the kind of statement that made me stop caring when people question my commitment to free expression. Sarah Palin allegedly tried to ban books from a public library. This is a private web server. There's no comparison between them. If Palin wanted to ban Pastor I Am Gay from her personal library, that's not the same thing as pulling it from Wasilla Public Library.

Please read this carefully: I am not committed to unfettered free expression on this blog. If the First Amendment wants to be the boss of my server, the First Amendment can start paying my $620 monthly server bill.

I reserve the right to delete comments, and I won't entertain a lot of backtalk on why I do it. I will turn this car around if I have to.


 

Rogers waves hands, "Sarah Palin allegedly tried to ban books from a public library."

I love the journalistic efforts to magically turn a question about library censorship, into an attempt to 'ban' books. The librarian doesn't even make that claim! Instead, she indicates that she was asked for her view on censorship, as I quoted from the Alaskan newspaper article about what was said. Unfortunately, she gives her 'liberal' self-interest away by indicating that she would never consider that. I've already answered that misstatement by the librarian, and since *all* communities pick-and-choose the books that will appear in the library and who might have access to them.

Besides, if an employee is that insubordinate to refuse any consideration of what is done in the public view? Well, she should have been fired, but was saved by "feedom of speech" (something they don't have in Vietnam, Alan), and how it could be used to misdirect the real issue: total insubordination and refusal to reason the issues.

"This is a private web server. There's no comparison between them. If Palin wanted to ban Pastor I Am Gay from her personal library, that's not the same thing as pulling it from Wasilla Public Library."

Was that one of the books mentioned in the controversy? Actual titles were given that Palin demanded be banned, in her tyrannical dudgeon? Or, are you making another magical propaganda pass?

"Please read this carefully: I am not committed to unfettered free expression on this blog. If the First Amendment wants to be the boss of my server, the First Amendment can start paying my $620 monthly server bill."

Unreal, Rogers, and since I have claimed the exact opposite! Are you okay? Forget who it is you're talking to? Of course, you are prejudiced and won't follow your own convictions about spam, if it is against a conservative poster ... I've even posted links, and Anon's rants remain to underline my commentary to and about your bias.

"I reserve the right to delete comments, and I won't entertain a lot of backtalk on why I do it. I will turn this car around if I have to."

As I mentioned, and you acknowledge (if just tacitly, above) you will manage your community in the way you think morally and responsibly correct; biased or not. That is no different than Palin's sense of community, except that hers was for the general welfare (misquided or not) and yours is for partisan bias and sponsorship of hateful personal attacks, but only if against one part of your community.

You go ahead and remove my comments. I don't care what others read, and since I am just talking to you. Why not ban me? Then you could say what you want and not have any 'real' disagreement ... Progressive paradise ...

If you don't, then you'll eventually have to actually moderate your site of leftist ad hominem, or lose your internet face entirely. That part of my work will be done, at either outcome. However, the humanity would be in moderating fairly, now wouldn't it?


 

Once again, Tadowe's comments are brought to you by... Kleenex.

Now even extra absorbent!


 

Some Anon poltroon says, "Good to hear from you, Rex. How are things in the world of global finance? Still cashing big checks for your advice? Some advice you've been giving them lately!"

Here you go, Kraut. If Rex had said he worked at the local water treatment plant, just imagine the hate that would ooze at that revelation!!!

It doesn't matter to Leftists that you might be 'reasonable' and agree with them about ads. Whatever disagreement you may have will be an excuse to revile and dehumanize you, personally.

The spam will remain when the Left does it to the rightwing 'you', but your retorts of the same composition will be removed, or mocked endlessly into oblivion as they dig their collective-head into the sand, to escape being informed by any reply.

Mention the bias? Get a lecture supporting their tyrannical prerogatives in conducting yellow journalism, as if that wasn't the point!


 

I take everything back! Your last post totally changed my mind! This weblog is no doubt a tool of the Government-run Left! The unfairness of it all boils my blood, just like yours! When will the Left-run FCC allow those like you on the Right to own and operate their own web pages?

Instead, they cram Leftist propaganda like:

"Christian Slater: Threat or Menace?"

"Game Designer Rob Heinsoo Meets Roy G. Biv"

and "Feelin' Glum? Cheer Up with Beech-Nut Gum"

down our throats!

It's an outrage! An outrage, I say! What a fool I've been! I am now your strongest ally! I will not stop fighting until you have the right to run your own website someday!


 

Some says, "I take everything back! Your last post totally changed my mind! This weblog is no doubt a tool of the Government-run Left!"

Well, maybe this is Bourne? This sounds a bit more sophisticated; even editorial.

Well, I think the site it is used as a tool for partisan, poltical propaganda purposes, whenever Rogers' Left knee jerks in interest, not government doing so; not that government isn't filled to the brim with a lot of Leftist jerks.

"The unfairness of it all boils my blood, just like yours!"

Well, if you are Bourne, then you should know that I always take the opportunity to compliment Rogers, when he deserves such. I reply straightforwardly to any thread I reply to, if sometimes more insultingly than others. It is my conviction that the "unfairness" mentioned, here, is your projection, and the actuality is that whoever-you-might-be thinks my comments in reply to the political propaganda isn't "fair".

I actually enjoy replying to the misrepresentations presented here to promote party over reason ... and I think you really know that, but dissimulate to fill out your exceptional sarcasm.

"When will the Left-run FCC allow those like you on the Right to own and operate their own web pages?"

This is the sarcastic version of, "If you don't like it, you should get the hell out!"

Isn't that what Obama's people did? Take Limbaugh out-of-context to create a Big Lie to revile McCain? Here I am, having told you over-and-over again that I like this place! I don't need my own blog, and since I have barely enough time to correspond with this and my other favorites! Get back with yourself!

"Instead, they cram Leftist propaganda like: Rogers thread list redacted to avoid ennui."

I enjoy those, too! I don't reply to all of them, but I do attempt some commentary if I have an opinion, say! Isn't that what these blogs do, invite commentary by the very nature of being blogs? (Sorry if someone else's comment sets me off into a parody sometimes, and earns removal, like Marina's post incited -- I was vino veritas at the time)

"It's an outrage! An outrage, I say! What a fool I've been! I am now your strongest ally! I will not stop fighting until you have the right to run your own website someday!"

Smiley, All my time is already dedicated ... the Drudge Retort has made me (in)famous, already. Who needs their own site when hundreds fawn over your every word.? It is just too bad you couldn't find one person with an iota of intellectual courage to correspond with me over there on the Retort, Rogers. I might be there instead of here, if the Left could dredge even one reasonable socialist out of the collective stewpot. It sure is difficult enough to find one over here! And, this is one of the RSS stomping grounds!

... that's what Progressive partisanship does to your intellect, dumbs it down to the level you find at the "Retort". Normally brilliant minds turned into that of a yapping yellow dog for party over nation insanity.


 

I 100% agree with everything you just said!


 

Another Anon fawns, "I 100% agree with everything you just said!"

I gather "Anons" like Sasquatch collects dingleberries - all I have to do is squeeze a few words out!


 

I know! It's totally true!


 

Hello, enraged ideologues!

Rogers alerted me that my name had come up on this thread. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not posting under "Anon," "Rex," "Tadowe" or any other nom de plume. Actually, I hardly post on Workbench at all; I don't really need to since Rogers and I have high tea every afternoon along with our ethnic stuffed animals.

When I do post, it's primarily to respond to Rogers. I usually post and roll, not returning to see if anyone has responded to my post. No offense to anyone here, but I'm not really interested in your opinions. But Christ, I admire your passion for the issues. Plus, it keeps the page hit numbers high, which our advertisers like.

Godspeed!


 

Sounds like Rogers gave you a call with a styrofoam cup from the upper bunk Bourne.

I hope Mother Cadenhead made you kids a good egg breakfast before sending you out play.


 

Someone says, "Hello, enraged ideologues!"

Come on! We know you're not Bourne! Another "Anon" joining in for Rogers' sake - a member of the Leftist ilk. (Foaming at the mouth in hihg dudgeon over wanting to convict Bushco of war crimes! "Idealogues", INDEED!

"Rogers alerted me that my name had come up on this thread."

BS! Rogers has a POLICY to allow spamming on his site from Leftwing attack artists! Spam is not allowed if it is from any rightwing person. Just look up the thread at the list of posts that are NOT on subject but nothing more than mockery. Prood postive.

For that matter, suggest solving that spamming problem to Rogers? "If the customers want a secure sign in, I would ...". Now, here you (whoever "you" might be) to whine about "ideologues", on a Leftist blog that refuses to recognize their own party's political chicanery! You (whoever) are died-in-the-wool hypocrites and can't display any other face, lwaa than two ...

"Sorry to disappoint ..."

I suspect that you are actually Rogers, posting as Bourne, so that you can mock the commentary from conservatives, without acutally addressing anything of significance. Like your party during an emergency ... you are on "vacation" until you can get some votes by blaming the rightwing! Typical Democratic liars and retreat artists.

"... I don't really need to [post anonymously] since Rogers and I have high tea every afternoon along with our ethnic stuffed animals."

There, you discuss how to actually promote Democrat lies via innuendo on the "sites", while avoiding answering any on-point rebuttal by use of "Anons", mockery and editorial bias.

"... I'm not really interested in your opinions."

!Perfectamente! You do get a bit unconscious, like Rogers, don't you? Typicla Democrat idea of what "bipartisan" means to them! They literally are one-sided, tyrannical "ideologues" who will fight democracy in order to force their wills on the majority!

Example: Blocking legitimate appointments of Federal Judges and Attorneys!

Example: Bourne doesn't care what you think, only what he thinks. However, the elitist will admire your stamina:

"But Christ, I admire your passion for the issues. Plus, it keeps the page hit numbers high, which our advertisers like."

Yeah, advertisers never read what they represent by their support - you're little clique of anti-democrat Democrats gather some hits, all right ... guess I'll have to do some linking for you all to get some more, eh? Then, they can applaud your "Anons" and admire how Bourne, Rogers partner, "... doesn't care what you think". That's a business motto, isn't it? "We don't care what the customer thinks."?

"Godspeed!"

God loves a blinkered prig ...


 

Yet another super post! Right again and kudos!


 

TADOWE How bout them night sweats bud? Don't forget your anti-mind control' aluminum foil hat when mommy tucks ya in! Watch out for the SPIDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 

Alan J. Goldstein talks to his obsession, "TADOWE How bout them night sweats bud? Don't forget your anti-mind control' aluminum foil hat when mommy tucks ya in! Watch out for the SPIDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!"

I go through this with every new stalker I acquire!

I want you to come back and spam this site, Alan! That's my entire point! Thaks for your assistance in demonstrating that Rogers is not a person who acts on his own convictions - he lacks the intellectual courage to do so when it comes to Leftist neurotic jerks!

Rogers sites have made me what I am, today! Without him, I couldn't count you as a member of my entourage! Vote, if you haven't already.

Here is an entire thread by Rogers highlighting his dedication to removing spam, while he allows it to fill the entire thread; where he won't allow that to happen!

I dote on unconscious chochem like you, who can't resist embarrassing Mr. RSS, on the site where his constituents like to peruse.

Keep it up, genius ...

And, Rogers, what would I do if you didn't contradict yourself everytime you get that Left foot out of your mouth?


 

TADWOE
Wow! You really think the world revolves around you.
I think you're kind of funny. You're like a trained bear. All I have to do is post something, and you start with your schtick. A GI Joe routine, with yiddish words thrown in to impress. I'm glad I discovered this site. Lots of good posts (not yours) and a big dumb animal to poke with a stick!


 

Alan shows his angst, "I think you're kind of funny. You're like a trained bear. All I have to do is post something, and you start with your schtick. A GI Joe routine, with yiddish words thrown in to impress. I'm glad I discovered this site. Lots of good posts (not yours) and a big dumb animal to poke with a stick!"

I'm someone who dislikes Leftist subversives a great deal! I dislike them to such a degree, that I end up actually liking them for their intransigence and the opportunities for reply they represent in their self-blinded stupidity.

For instance, I can describe your obvious stalking behavior, in spamming this thread and turning the subject into myself; someone you can revile for being a Vietnam veteran idiot, while you saved the world by helping to force the USA to abandon a SEATO/UN nation we had pledged to defend.

You reply, indicating that I'm the murderous tool of the "evil" USA Democrats of the times, while you saved the battle for the communist imperialists by marching in the streets, and shouting your protest slogans. I'm the one responsible for the genocide that took place after you helped to win for Ho Chi Minh and the NLF you cheered for, because if we had allowed the communist takeover, then they (the victims of communist tyranny) would have been killed more slowly. That's your contention with me as your subject.

Now, you turn that around, and I'm the puppet-on-your string, the idiot soldier and war criminal you can play like Machiavelli. I'm some Yiddisher schmuck to mock and revile for the Progressive Democrat Cause - Victory Welfare!

I'm your dehumanized animal to poke and taunt for fun.

What impressive people Progressive Democrat Leftist supporters of Ho Chi Minh and terrorist elements in the ME just happen to be!?! I'm actually in awe of your elevated, even elite status over the dregs of humanity that I might represent.

Bravo, Rogers, the spam IS getting interesting, isn't it? However, you seem to like it when the spam attacks someone who is conservative, correct? Or, are you actually coming to see what idiocy Yellow-Dogism represents? Whatever the case happens to be, it is your policy, your site, and your right, Rogers. No argument from me on that part.


 

TADOWE

You poor thing. Everybody's picking on you, aren't they?
What a cry baby! You insult people and their associations. You lie and invent and try to pass it off as truth. But when someone calls you on it, do you debate the issue? Hell no. You just start ranting about how I called you a baby killer (which I never did), or that I make fun of you. But you make fun of everyone, and for some reason that's Ok.

Also. I had a post pulled, and I've only been here a week. Should I be offended?
Go see a shrink. You've got a really bad persecution complex.


 

A post of mine was deleted too. I guess that makes me a persecuted Republican like Tadowe.

How am I gonna tell my parents?


 

Alan continues with me as the subject ...

It is obvious that when Rogers says, "There's too much off-topic noise here. I'm not interested in seeing every single post I write turned into an opportunity to rant against liberals ..."

That the rule is literally, inclusively meant, and that ranting against conservatives is not against the rules or even considered "off-topic noise".

It is your site, Rogers, and you can certainly establish such rules if you care to do so.


 

"It is your site, Rogers, and you can certainly establish such rules if you care to do so."

Won't Rogers be pleased that you've OKed his moderation policy --

After his wife,


his kids,


his other relatives,


his co-workers,


his advertisers,


his friends,


and his neighbors,


he most craves approval/permission from you -- a nameless, faceless commentator on one of the 10 blogs he runs.


 

Carbon joins the fray, "Won't Rogers be pleased that you've OKed his moderation policy -- After his wife, his kids, his other relatives, his co-workers, his advertisers, his friends, and his neighbors, he most craves approval/permission from you -- a nameless, faceless commentator on one of the 10 blogs he runs."

You've invented some authority I might have to dictate whether Rogers might, or might not have the right to manage his site in the way he sees fit. You even try to ascribe some such power to a host of other individuals ... all in order to say I (and they) can't [sophomoric strawman argument].

Touche.


 

Carbon: You left off my cats.


 

Add a Comment

These HTML tags are permitted: p, b, i, a, and blockquote. A comment may not include more than three links. Participants in this discussion should note the site's moderation policy.

:
:
: