Austinist: Travis Among Fastest Growing Counties

LoudMouth

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:22:32 -0600

TROLL! TROLL! SOMEBODY CALL THE TROLL PATROL!

turd_on_the_run

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:01:32 -0600

Why do you people think that deleting somebody’s words and then posting them somewhere else isn’t censorship? Well, for one, because it's not. Please gain at least a high-schooler freshman's grasp on what "censorship" is, then get back to us.

mdahmus

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:08:22 -0600

Benj, I'd have done the same thing on my stupid crackplog too - I don't think it's censorship.

shilli

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:03:44 -0600

I make mistakes reasonably often in my posts and sometimes people leave comments with corrections. I generally fix the mistake, send the person an email thanking them for the correction and then delete the comment. I didn't send an email this time because I thought the two comments were mean spirited. I write for Austinist because I am interested in having a conversation about urban development, not about typos, and I think those comments distract from the conversation. This unrelaxed melodrama has shown me that deleting the comments can be a larger distraction, so maybe I will figure out some other way to deal with it.

cram

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:02:17 -0600

I agree that the deletion of your SXSW column was censorship and now I understand your reaction to the deletion of the comments. And, I appreciate the fact that you actually give a shit about the (alleged) purpose of a site like this.

Benj

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:42:15 -0600

Why do you people think that deleting somebody’s words and then posting them somewhere else isn’t censorship? While there is a wide continuum of what should justify censorship, there’s a pretty narrow one on what it constitutes: either your let people speak, or you don’t. I’m not too thick to understand why you deleted the comments. I just can’t remember a time when contributors deleted comments due to relevance. If it’s a site for the public, why delete anything that isn’t hateful or atrocious? I think you (mistakenly) assumed I wasn’t relaxed because, on some level, you understand that erasing someone else’s input is pretty lame. Cram: It's not like it's a first amendment issue, and it's only vaguely tied to the reasons I left. But: It should make people uncomfortable with their assumptions of objectivity and free expression (if they have any to begin with) when they write something on a public site, and then -whoosh! It's gone. I know this isn't Budapest 1956 or anything, it's just irks me to carelessly expunge people's voices, even in the least significant contexts, and even when it's part and parcel to a contributor erasing a minor mistake or oversight and then covering his tracks.

cram

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:59:44 -0600

Benj, I didn't think the removal of your article about SXSW was necessary, even though I thought some of it was petty (ie, I enjoy SXSW and don't really care what Louis Black does, nor do I necessarily feel the level of bitterness that a lot of Austin feels towards him/his creation/his business). As such, I can totally understand your frustration, resentment, whatever expressed on the drunkensocks blog. And, the double annoyance of Austinist not even allowing your goodbye column to run. I thought your columns were good reads, particularly in light of how so much of the "new content" every day has become just updates of shit from Google news. They will be missed and the substance of Austinist is diminished because of it. But, I'm not sure why you're upset re: Shilli's deletion of snarky comments that no longer make sense once the typo was fixed. I suppose the better solution could have been to do a strikethrough of the incorrect word which would have left the comments as funny still. Since that wasn't done, the comments were out of context/nonsensical to those of us who never saw the spelling error.

Benj

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:40:46 -0600

It's not even censorship anymore, not when there’s no real axe to grind or keep from grinding. It's so de facto and bland, just the thoughtless elimination of stuff you subjectively deem unfit, or in your case, nonsensical out of context. Bland and *yawn* par for course, apparently. That was my point, and that was all. Sure, two jokes about a typo may not be the zenith of class, but who would ever know, with so many little fingers hovering over the Delete button? Thanks for telling me to relax, though.

leggyblonde

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:41:37 -0600

bitter like a delicious coffee or tasty chocolate... i like!

shilli

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:26:37 -0600

Benj, just so you don't feel censored, one comment was: Austinist's Headlines "AMOUNG" The Worst Online and yours was Who's Travis Amoung? Is he Laotian, or Hmong? And why does he get to be a county? Both very classy.

shilli

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:16:33 -0600

They were comments pointing out a typo - I appreciate the help, but they don't make any sense anymore after I fixed the typo. Relax.

Benj

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:56:17 -0600

Wow. Good thing you deleted those first two comments. I have to admit, the Austinist is much improved, now that you guys just delete whatever you don't like. Very classy.

Grape Ape

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:17:56 -0600

Oh yeah, and be sure not to confuse "low housing prices" with "affordable housing prices" - those are two entirely different things.

Grape Ape

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:16:18 -0600

Agreed, housing prices in Austin are low. As evidenced by my old neighbors, who when they moved in (from California), were estatic to have only paid $600K for 2000 sq. ft house that needed to be remodeled.

LoudMouth

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:07:47 -0600

Oh dear Stella, housing prices in Austin are low... compared to New York and L.A. which are obviously the standard markets and best indicators for housing prices in America. That and obviously they're not taking into account property taxes... or stagnant wages... or the lack of available un-specialized jobs.

Stella

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:06:46 -0600

Low housing prices? Hahahahaha!