Share this article

print logo

Blogzerpts / Opinions from buffalonews.com

Excerpts from reader commentary on News staffers' online blog postings last week. Online comments come from registered users, but -- unlike reviewed and verified Everybody's Column letters -- can be posted under pen names.

News: In response to an article detailing Wednesday's earthquake, jiminwny quipped:

I don't know anything about earthquakes, fault lines, etc. Could someone out there answer this question for me? Is it possible to redraw the fault line and lead it to Albany? Perhaps much in the same way our "representatives" redraw the boundary lines to ensure they get re-elected. If we could do this, perhaps the next quake would topple the state office buildings and we could start government all over and get it right this time. But let's do this at night when nobody is there, so we have no injuries and have the quake demolish only those structures, not the homes and businesses of the good citizens of Albany. Can this be arranged?

Enough added:

"In other news, Governor Paterson called the State Legislature into emergency session this afternoon to discuss ways to implement tax increases on our recent earthquake"

Mane76 wrote:

I was a bit disappointed when it ended. I don't want anyone getting hurt from an earthquake, but it sure would have been nice if it leveled downtown and the Skyway. Perhaps swallow the eyesore altogether so we can maybe get it right.

***

Margaret Sullivan: Among the several hundred responses to The News editor's column on a change of policy in online comments, Dave From Williamsville wrote:

Finally! I have been amazed by some of the comments I have read after News online articles. Now the kooks, cyber-bullies, racists and just plain mean-spirited malcontents can go back to the anonymous chat rooms, where they belong! Way to Go Buffalo News!

Thankingyou1 added:

The problem today is that people feel the need to personally attack others instead of just dealing with the issue. For example, when we are talking about if a person is for or against giving their name on their posts, a personal attack would be any derogatory comment about a person's race, color or creed, rather than talking about the issues.

Unfortunately today, people don't feel that they can talk about an issue intelligently without it degenerating into name calling and angry statements. That's not what good dialogue is all about. In any case, I have read many of these posts and some of them are way off topic and even degenerate into a debate about race, rather than discussing the issues.

This is something The News doesn't want to tolerate anymore when one person attacks the others without genuinely dealing with the issues.

UncaBobbo disagreed:

In deference to anonymity, this style of commenting has allowed me to voice my opinions on various subjects, and being anonymous gives me the ability to comment on and agree or disagree with government policies and actions. I guess we will see how the new rules affect the blogging here but in the meantime might I suggest another solution? Limit comments on any article to one per commenter. This would eliminate the long and often "name calling" back and forth between just a few offenders who seem to think that this is a personal debate

***

BillBoard: Mark Gaughan's blog on Bills guard Eric Wood, recovering from a compound fracture of his left leg, and the coaching staff's hopes brought this response from JoePa72:

Wow sounds like they finally have some competent strength and conditioning coaches on this team maybe they can get through a season without half of the team on IR.

***

Sports, Ink: A blog by Budd Bailey on the premise that Michael Peca should have remained a Buffalo Sabre "forever," summarizing difficult contract negotiations with the popular player, prompted siket71 to note:

Another in a long line of brilliant decisions by Sabres management. And it continues to this day.

There are no comments - be the first to comment