Comments on: The Moral Outrage Of the Washington Post — Oh My! http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/ Firedoglake weblog Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:39:31 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: tanbark http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145729 tanbark Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:58:38 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145729 <p>Thanks, Ooze. I’ll buy it. :o)</p> Thanks, Ooze. I’ll buy it. :o)

]]> By: quake http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145460 quake Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:47:09 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145460 <p>Sometimes when you open fdl from your browser you get an old view from your cache, unless you hit the refresh button. That’s probably what happened here.</p> Sometimes when you open fdl from your browser you get an old view from your cache, unless you hit the refresh button. That’s probably what happened here.

]]> By: PrimordialOoze http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145415 PrimordialOoze Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:17:51 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145415 <p>tanbark,</p> <p>seems to me that there was some glitch and an old post got popped to the top. Nothing nefarious. Deep breath please. I know it’s easy to get worked up because there is so much injustice. This, however, appears to be an innocent technical glitch.</p> tanbark,

seems to me that there was some glitch and an old post got popped to the top. Nothing nefarious. Deep breath please. I know it’s easy to get worked up because there is so much injustice. This, however, appears to be an innocent technical glitch.

]]> By: RBG http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145287 RBG Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:56:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145287 <p>Feel free to wait for Jane to comment, but as site administrator for FDL, I honestly do not know what you are talking about.</p> <p>The post first appeared on Monday, December 10th, all comments are from that day, and comments closed on that thread yesterday.</p> <p>How it appeared at the top of your screen today is a complete mystery to me.</p> Feel free to wait for Jane to comment, but as site administrator for FDL, I honestly do not know what you are talking about.

The post first appeared on Monday, December 10th, all comments are from that day, and comments closed on that thread yesterday.

How it appeared at the top of your screen today is a complete mystery to me.

]]> By: tanbark http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145282 tanbark Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:39:21 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145282 <p>RBG, do you understand that for a period of time this afternoon, that thread was at the top of the FDL page? </p> <p>Now it may be that Jane decided to put it back up for some reason, but TODAY, a few hours ago, it was the LEAD thread on FDL. </p> <p>And, as I’ve said, it did NOT work it’s way down the page to the “previous” bin. I was very interested in it because of the reaction of some of the readers here to it and I would have followed it down. I couldn’t do that, because it was removed, instead of progressing off the page. Also, if it had done that, it would have been at the top of the “previous” bin. </p> <p>Where it NEVER was. </p> <p>And which “previous” access I lost, when I started talking about the thread disappearing so abruptly. </p> <p>I know Jane is reading this. If she wants, she can come on and explain it. But she’ll have to explain why the thread never was allowed to play out in the normal progression, and also, why comments were closed at 138, while the thread was still at, or near, the top of the page here.</p> RBG, do you understand that for a period of time this afternoon, that thread was at the top of the FDL page?

Now it may be that Jane decided to put it back up for some reason, but TODAY, a few hours ago, it was the LEAD thread on FDL.

And, as I’ve said, it did NOT work it’s way down the page to the “previous” bin. I was very interested in it because of the reaction of some of the readers here to it and I would have followed it down. I couldn’t do that, because it was removed, instead of progressing off the page. Also, if it had done that, it would have been at the top of the “previous” bin.

Where it NEVER was.

And which “previous” access I lost, when I started talking about the thread disappearing so abruptly.

I know Jane is reading this. If she wants, she can come on and explain it. But she’ll have to explain why the thread never was allowed to play out in the normal progression, and also, why comments were closed at 138, while the thread was still at, or near, the top of the page here.

]]> By: Beerfart Liberal http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145273 Beerfart Liberal Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:27:07 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145273 <p>The devil’s Jesus’s brother. so i hear.</p> The devil’s Jesus’s brother. so i hear.

]]> By: Beerfart Liberal http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145268 Beerfart Liberal Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:25:31 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145268 <p>Dana? DAD.</p> Dana? DAD.

]]> By: RBG http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145266 RBG Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:22:52 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145266 <p><a href="http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/10/hillary-clinton-joins-joe-lieberman-to-resurrect-the-culture-wars/" rel="nofollow">http://firedoglake.com/2007/12.....ture-wars/</a></p> <p>It may be worth noting that all the comments on that post are dated Monday, December 10th.</p> http://firedoglake.com/2007/12…..ture-wars/

It may be worth noting that all the comments on that post are dated Monday, December 10th.

]]> By: tanbark http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145262 tanbark Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:21:28 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145262 <p>If it was up on Monday, then why, 72 hours later, was it still the top thread when I first logged on here this afternoon? </p> <p>And it never got to the bottom of the page as a matter of being pushed there by subsequent threads. It was removed. </p> <p>BTW, the silence is getting deafening.</p> If it was up on Monday, then why, 72 hours later, was it still the top thread when I first logged on here this afternoon?

And it never got to the bottom of the page as a matter of being pushed there by subsequent threads. It was removed.

BTW, the silence is getting deafening.

]]> By: tanbark http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145258 tanbark Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:18:46 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/13673/#comment-1145258 <p>The hell it wasn’t pulled. It was at the top, and dated the 12th, with 138 people having posted, and still posting, and it disappeared. And it did NOT disappear into the top of the “previous” bin, where people could easily find it; it went 3 days deep into the bin, where people would be unlikely to locate it and keep posting on it.</p> The hell it wasn’t pulled. It was at the top, and dated the 12th, with 138 people having posted, and still posting, and it disappeared. And it did NOT disappear into the top of the “previous” bin, where people could easily find it; it went 3 days deep into the bin, where people would be unlikely to locate it and keep posting on it.

]]>