Obama alters the bankruptcy deal

and everyone on here is free to ridicule me.

In the public square, you've always got people on soapboxes. sometimes, it's group consensus to ignore them (as Warner Todd Huston's diaries often are ignored, as are mine -- each for different reasons, I'd wager.)

Bryan, you were the one arguing that this private property and somehow, ipsy-daisy, magico-presto, means that a site which encourages and strives to be read by the largest possible audience from the very public arena of the internet is somehow, someway, some fashion not public and not interested in advancing public discourse.

Being snide doesn't make you any less wrong.  This blog is private property, and as I already said, it's only as open to the public as the owners want it to be.  Being interested is very different from being obligated.

I gave you a chance to faithfully represent my argument, and you failed.

If I "stuffed words into your mouth", as you wrongly claim, it's because the words you're choosing aren't exactly making the grade, blogster.

I made a very precise and limited claim, and I made it clear that I was making a limited claim.  You have chosen to attribute claims to me that I didn't make.  I've been debating long enough to know when I've been unclear, but in this case it's your comprehension that's clearly at fault.

Bloggers and authors --like OpEd writers and the old fashioned journalist-- want, beg, plead and cajole readers to come to their site and read the pearls of wisdom that flow like jeweled water from their fingers.

Guess what?  People who read those bloggers have the right, when it's encouraged by a "comments section" or a "vote" section to listen with good nature and patience to those who respond.

The readers' right to listen, and the commenter's right to write, are limited by the consent of the host.  Because this blog is private property.  Bloggers do not take on any obligation, civil or otherwise, to allow all persons to say anything when they provide a comment section.

It's an OBLIGATION of hospitality and an American value in the public square that you've seemed to miss learning, Bryan.

It is neither an obligation of hospitality nor an American value to keep obnoxious people around on your property.  If someone misbehaves on your property, it is both legal and proper to kick them out.  For example, I'll tolerate someone shouting insults on a street corner, but if he tries saying that stuff at a forum I'm hosting on my property, he's going to be shown the door.  It wouldn't be very hospitable to my reasonable guests to give the floor to a toxic jerk.

Sorry if you don't like having to tolerate differing opinions or want to restrict blogs to just having the authors vent and spew without critical review by others... but that is so... so... I don't know, so Stalinst it boggles the mind.

Are you trying to get a rise out of me?  Please.  Nobody's going to confuse me, a libertarian, with Stalin.

I've already said that I tolerate all kinds of different opinions at the blog I write at.  I appreciate many people who sharply disagree with me.

Before that, I spent a considerable time debating civilly with people ranging from an avowed communist to an avowed fascist to a Libertarian Party Senate candidate, and all kinds of characters in between, at a forum. 

But it was understood by all at the forum that the forum was hosted by someone who expected us to treat each other civilly--no personal attacks, no mockery, no speculation on motives.  If someone violated that code, he got a warning and if he kept it up he got banned.  That kept the quality of the discourse high for years, and it was actually those rules that allowed people who disagreed so strongly to have such high-quality discussions.

Yeah, I expect you to meet your civil obligation to listen thoughtfully and engage constructively those who visit your blog and comment in other blogs... if you want us reading your ideas and opinions it needs to be a two-way street.

It's your obligation as a blogger, Bryan.  Whether you want it or not.

You still don't understand the concept of an obligation.  I don't have to listen or engage constructively.  Look around and you'll find many bloggers who essentially put a comment section up for the entertainment of their guests, and virtually never respond to anything the commenters say.  They get lots of readers.  Sometimes they'll step in to get rid of a spammer or a toxic jerk, because the spammer/jerk is making things less enjoyable for the guests.

Dealing with commenters is something bloggers do when and as it interests them.  It can come with benefits.  But there's no obligation there.

Feel free to have the last word.  I'm done with you.

To say that someone is "highly unlikely to contribute anything of interest" because they enjoy baiting a fine liberal on occasion is a bit closed-minded.

To each his own, I guess.  My point you quoted above was made about Cahnman, the spitter, not Warner Todd Huston.  I don't view literally spitting on people you disagree with as merely 'baiting' a person, liberal or otherwise.  Sorry, but you can't sell me on that one. 

I do read WTH's posts and acknowledged that while he can seem an idealogue there are times he raises worthwhile points. I didn't in any way imply he would be unlikely to contribute anything of interest.