I guess the Advocate never read the comments, only heard the complaints. There were many instances which valid tips and suggestions were given, some of which were probably worthy of an investigative follow-up.

In any event, it seems the Advocate is carrying on the torch being followed by so many newspapers these days, that the only opinion worth printing is the opinion of the paper itself and its accomplices in teh government. None originating elsewhere is worth the ink. Even if ink in cyberspace costs nothing.

That torch is consuming the traditional news outlets, rather than lighting the way.

I believe the next step will soon be to convert this website to a paid subscription. We will pay to watch the advertising.

Thank goodness there is an abundance of other sites on the Internet which are not afraid to engage in alternative journalism and open and frank (even if raunchy) discussion.

I too support freedom of speech but the intent was to allow people to voice their criticism of government and express their ideas freely without fear of reprisal. It was not intended to allow the psychological abuse of another or to allow slander designed to destroy the reputation of another.

One can object or promote ideas without inciting riots or encouraging violence though some object to even those restrictions.

It is a difficult balance.

I am frankly surprised at the Advocates decision…makes reading the news less interesting if you cannot read comments or make comments.

As others have stated many of the missing facts related to a story only come out in the comment section.

I hope the Advocate gets there system up and running soon.

I hate to be a pessimist, but I cannot see how they are going to police it any better than topix did. Topix seemed fast in reacting to “questionable” material.

It really is a shame that you discontinued the board in which everyone was required to register and we had moderators and administrators – in case you have forgotten, I was one of the admins, given that responsibility by Dan Wheeler before he left the NewsTimes, a job I continued to do with approval by yourself, Brian Kinney and Marty Bailey. I honestly have no idea why the NT decided to remove that board and replace it with Topix, a board that you actually have to PAY for as opposed to one the NT administers itself.

In any case, should the position of moderator or administrator open up again, I am perfectly willing to assume the responsibility once again, with your oversight of course.

Was there a concern that many people clicked on the newspaper sites only to get to Topix? And that by alienating much of your online audience, you adversely affect revenue? With many newspapers circling the drain, I would think it would be important to court online users.

I’m curious, how does this response compared to what was expected?

It strikes me as a bit misanthropic to refer to a portion of your readerhsip’s self-expression as “disgusting behavior.” I didn’t enjoy reading much of it anymore than I enjoyed watching the Town Halls on TV, or even watching all the hate expressed at the Palin rallies, but that’s America. Whether we like it or not.

As with any potentially illegal content posted on Topix, any matters concerning law enforcement and IP addresses are out of our hands. The boards are administrated by Topix. The larger issue here is that Topix, by its very nature, seems to actively encourage this kind of disgusting behavior. And that was why we decided to part ways.

Hope this helps.

Please tell me why these specific users could not be traced through IP address banned and / or had legal action taken against them if they were posting such things (of which personally I never witnessed but do not refute).