You're not welcome on my site. Get over it.

why, mr. bog? what was offensive about her post?

i hope to get myself blocked from at least two IPs in the coming days, though this plan could certainly backfire by cruelly adding content to your site.

oo. but i feel like i'm kicking him when he's down. look at him banning all two of his (remaining) commenters on his most recent post:
http://bojack.org/2007/01/new_streetcar_builder_is_a_bus_1.html#comments

Not only that, MG, he's dissing donations to Baird and Murray, who overall have been pretty good. Like about that war thingy.

I don't expect much sympathy in Portland sometimes, but geez, how horrible is it that someone will be building transit equipment in Vancouver?

I left a comment and maybe he can block all of Vancouver from his blog.

Oh dear. Friday night blog wars. I'm going to go out, have a few tequilas, then start posting...

he's lightning quick! i just got myself, four politically astute and connected housemates (two are l&c law students and one's an alum, professor b.), and a random neighbor who leeches our wifi named marc blocked.

i hope bogdanski gets some help. a sabbatical spent with one's finger hovering over the block button on one's blog is not a healthy sabbatical.

That photo of Matt Davis eating meat is closer to what I think paranoia looks like.

Nice work Mystery Girl! What horrible, awful things did you post to get summarily blocked?

Blogs are not secret societies, Jack. Nor are they private clubs. Get over yourself.

I think we need to have a Mercury v. Bojack debate over the future of Portland. Charge and sell tickets, donate all proceeds to charity. I'd love the chance to see the fireworks!

With respect, Mercury and Bojack combined, although widely divergent at times, couldn't cover the spectrum of ideas at work around here- at least in so far as the future of Portland is concerned.
The fireworks,however,would certainly be a hoot!

Ha, ha, ha. Too groovy !!!

I came up with a similar idea on my own sometime back, after the silly ass editorialized one time too many for my taste about something he knows absolutely nothing about-the right of free citizens of the United States to self-defense, and the history of the laws that guarantee these rights. Of course, I was "banned" in short order for easily humiliating him and his sycophants with the facts.

To date, I have banned myself, my neighbors, coffee shops and free nodes all over. I drive a cab, too, so I can just hop all over town on a slow night, slowly doing my little part to reduce his readership to one...a wealthy, hypocitical, passive-aggressive tax lawyer named Jack.

Ha, ha, ha. Too groovy !!!

I came up with a similar idea on my own sometime back, after the silly ass editorialized one time too many for my taste about something he knows absolutely nothing about-the right of free citizens of the United States to self-defense, and the history of the laws that guarantee these rights. Of course, I was "banned" in short order for easily humiliating him and his sycophants with the facts.

To date, I have banned myself, my neighbors, coffee shops and free nodes all over. I drive a cab, too, so I can just hop all over town on a slow night, slowly doing my little part to reduce his readership to one...a wealthy, hypocitical, passive-aggressive tax lawyer named Jack.

I'm sick of this jagoff and his mini empire too.

"As another interested, intelligent and not out-to-get-you reader, I'm weary of your one anti-condo/pdc/anything new trick, Jack pony. See ya.

Posted by soon to be banned | January 27, 2007 7:36 AM"

Hey Jack, I've been following this little exchange for quite some time now.

(Oh, and that's a real email address too! Feel free to respond, if you are so inclined.)

You do know you publish your blog on the public internet right? Either you allow comments, or you don't. There really is no way to limit who comments. Let's go through a coupla scenarios huh?

-no comments

This does it, but you just don't get the level of attention you would otherwise. Non starter really.

-registration required

Even if you filter them and authenticate them by hand, you still are gonna get comments from those who are not welcome. Posts by proxy, clever usernames, ip proxies, you name it. Have fun with that.

There is a bonus though! You can claim, X number of registered users! W00t!

Consume all the time you like on this one, but that's just how it is.

-IP Blocking

Well, there are a lotta IP's for interersted contributors to use. Dare I suggest anonymizer.org? If you think hard about it, and I mean really hard, it all comes down to allowing commentary or not.

-non registration

This opens up the flood gates for sure.

and it goes on and on and on...

Essentially, you've a problem with critics. Fairly large one actually. Personally, I've no problem with that as the entertainment value is very high. Good on you for that. Makes the Internet that much more interesting of a place.

Here is a little something to think about Jack: If your words are defensible, what's the problem with the critics then? Either you feel pretty good about who you are and your position on things or you don't. Which is it?

If you are gonna participate on the Internet, it would be wise to address your insecurity issues head on --unless you just really crave the attention! In that case, have at it!

Either way, I'm entertained!

Enjoy your weekend, I know I will!

**For all of you producing BlogTown, keep it up. I'm here as a regular reader on a linkup from Lynn. You guys are just fantastic.

Can we get the comments to recognize linefeeds / carriage returns please?

Never fricking mind. The preview is not accurate.

Oh well....

I just tossed this up as Amy:

"Contrary to what you may read elsewhere, I don't ban people just because I disagree with them."

Yep. You sometimes ban them because of their name, regardless of what they have to say.

Posted by Amy Jenniges | January 27, 2007 9:52 AM

Factual, yes? We'll see how long before this little coffee shop in Seattle is blocked.

Yep, blocked!

I just got an email about it from Jack. He has "made it clear that *your comments are not welcome on my site.*"

It also sounds like me might report us to the Internets police!

What a sad, petty little man.

Why is it so important to you to be able to post on Jack's site? You have your own excellent blog here - where you can (and do) comment on areas of disagreement. People who don't like what he posts are free to not visit his site. Are you trying to increase traffic to Jack's site and yours?

It's dishonest.

He's published some stuff that's not very defensible. Rather than address that, he simply chooses to close the door on any suggestion that he is of less than stellar character.

Might spoil the mood with his circle of close friends.

I'm with Amanda. This is your own little homebrewed Rosie vs. Trump, and like that situation, all it does it make me loathe everyone involved.

Weren't you supposed to be opening a dialogue about racism in Portlnad, or did that all fall apart when you spent MLK weekend whooping it up in Vegas?

All hail the blog wars! Must send in more troops to fight the good fight! Casualty counts are irrelevant! Umm, who's BoJack?

Doug--Yay! an OMI reader!

Amanda--it's twofold. One is that the Merc *lives* for stuff like this. (I love you guys and you know it's true.) There's an old saying: "Don't pick arguments with people who buy ink by the barrel." In the days of the Internet, it's pixels, and you don't even have to buy them. And another great Internet tradition is the pile-on, and this is rapidly turning into one.

Secondly, Doug Dingus' post up there is absolutely correct. There is no effective way to ban someone from viewing your site without blocking huge swathes of people you don't intend to block--because we're not just talking about posting comments here, Jack is trying to ban the Merc from even SEEING his site. Which is impossible, especially with Metro-Fi coming online. He's literally going to end up banning half the city from his site, including people he likes and wants there, not to mention waste enormous chunks of his day.

At some point he's going to have to admit defeat. And note, please, that I still don't have a dog in this fight; this is just reality. He cannot do what he wants to do on an open site. The only way to effectively carry out his strategy is to password-protect his site, and even then he'd have to personally know and approve each and every person. And even then he could get social engineered.

I understand not wanting to tolerate certain posts. I don't tolerate some kinds of postings on my own sites, but I handle that generally speaking by moderation. And generally speaking it works. The only people I've ever cut off at the knees were spammers from Russia and India. If I accidentally block off a section of St. Petersburg from OMI, I'm not too worried about it.

Your comment may have been purely informational, but it still came across like you think it's okay because the owners of the hungry tiger are in on it. Which does make it slightly less disgusting, but it still sucks. Have you seen the Hungry Tiger 2?? It's STERILE. It's no Hungry Tiger. The only thing that shocked me about this post of yours was that I actually agreed more with Jack. I mean, do you actually disagree that's it's saddening to see another unique city block go up in condos? Or is this just about pushing Jack's buttons and making him act ridiculous?

Lynn hit it pretty well—it's mostly the principle. If Jack wants to spout off about Portland, he should be willing to let other Portlanders weigh in. But he seems to have a problem with it, especially when you point out facts that run counter to his rant or point out that he's being disingenuous. In this case, I pointed out that the Hungry Tiger isn't getting torn down by some evil developer who's going to put in a Cricket story and a Baskin Robbins. It's being redeveloped BY the Hungry Tiger, and the Hungry Tiger—cleaned up or not, but it's the owners' choice—is going back in.

He's got a point to make, and others have counterpoints to make. That's conversation, reality, the "blogosphere," part of publishing your thoughts, discourse, being adults, etc etc etc.

amy, i posted as "butchfan" and wrote something like "I don't agree with Jack. I agree with Butch."

i actually did agree with jack -- people who donate $10,000 to the modern rnc are not okay with me. but now i'm banned.

boo hoo.

"Being adults"? Amy, please. This whole thing comes off like a pack of kids bothering a cranky old man just to get a rise out of him.

If you want to play Mean Girls, go ahead. But it's stupid to couch it in some high-handed lecture about what he "should" do or how he should operate his own corner of cyberspace.

Well..this is a popcorn worthy thread, now isn't it?

Jack Bog is a petulant child in a permasnit temper tantrum. If that's your cup of tea, by all means drink away.

But its looking like more and more folks are going to have trouble imbibing--until and unless Jack says "uncle".

Its a rather fascinating thing to watch a man shoot himself in the foot...just for spite.

adults, ethics, donald trump. meh.

i'm doing this because the notion really appeals to me of a person being so averse to contrary views that he may eventually ban most of his own audience.

Sheilah is Boggy in a dress?

Internet seeeeeeeeecrets

Sheilah--he can operate his corner however he likes. The problem is that the method he's using isn't going to work.

I recommend http://tor.eff.org/ to change IPs regularly. But why even bother going to his site anymore? He's become a parody of himself.

Amy; "Lynn hit it pretty well—it's mostly the principle. If Jack wants to spout off about Portland, he should be willing to let other Portlanders weigh in.

Why? It's his site. You have yours, and a mighty fine one it is, too.

Lynn's point as I read it is that the ever-increasing levels of blocking you're inciting from Jack will not work and will harm his site.

I think the point is about public and private freedom of speech. You and others have the freedom of all the rest of the Internet(s), to post why you disagree with him.

If you disagree with something The Oregonian publishes, you don't get to demand that they publish your rebuttal. And if you barrage them with 100 Letters to the Editor every day, sooner or later the envelopes with your return address will go unopened into the recycling. It doesn't matter what the principle is, that is what they get to do. That's what I see happening in this instance, only the Internet version.

My take on Jack banning people is that he has a low tolerance level for things people say that he perceives as personal attacks against him. It's sort of like his blog is his living room, and if you call him a son of a bitch while taking up space on his couch he's going to kick you out of his house plain and simple. I think it comes more from a disdain for a lack of common courtesy than anything else.

I for one could care less if I'm called an asshole (I already know I am so go ahead and waste your time telling me what I already know) or whatever, but that's me and I don't spend a lot of uncompensated time and energy putting a blog together. As stated by A. Fritz above, who cares if you can't post on Jack's blog?

You have your own blog and your own style. You don't care if people call each other two bit turds and he does...it's his choice.

This entire war began with Jack's post about a young black male getting killed on New Years Eve. The long and short of it from my perspective was Jack felt that the Mercury people (Matt Davis) called him a racist, and he didn't like that so he banned the Mercury. It's his blog and he makes the rules. Maybe his rules suck and he's thin skinned, but maybe all that means is that he's not a good fit for people like Matt Davis and others who have a more gloves off style when making their points.

I for one and many other posters have disagreed with Jack on several occasions, including the Hungry Tiger thing. He hasn't kicked me off probably because I tend to stick to the issue at hand rather than making snarky comments about him and other people I disagree with.

This is just my two cents as a person who has been a frequent poster on both this blog and Jacks.

Lynn: I know what Jack's doing is a fool's errand, but he's certainly got the right to do it.

It just looks to me like a gang of little Heathers picking on Cranky Old Mr. Wilson.

Can I be Winona Ryder?

IMHO, he's asking for it essentially. The software he uses basically allows anyone to post gratis! There are no expectations set whatsoever.

Granted, it would be hard to set the kind of expectations he wants to set without looking foolish, but that's his issue.

Just what does he expect? Make all the people happy all of the time?

Amanda, the internet is a network of peers. Nobody has any entitlements period. One of the very first things one needs to get over are dissenting opinions.

If what you publish is defensible, then there are really no worries. Critics will marginalize themselves. If it's not...

Well then we get one of these dog piles.

That's reality online.

Either one can learn from it and grow accordingly, or entertain those who have already learned these lessons!

(passes popcorn bowl)

"Amy; "Lynn hit it pretty well—it's mostly the principle. If Jack wants to spout off about Portland, he should be willing to let other Portlanders weigh in.

Why? It's his site. You have yours, and a mighty fine one it is, too."

One more thing:

There is a clear difference between freedom to speak and having that speech accepted. This is one of the great things about the Internet.

If Mr Bog wants to publish about Portland and not hear dissenting views, or not have them tarnish his site, he really needs to limit commentary sharply from what it is today.

Of course, with that goes the open door implication having commentary brings with it. It also limits ones ability to engage their audience.

It's not like newspapers at all.

Really, it's his site. Right now, he's got the door open, but it's not really open. Either close it or deal, IMHO.

"Can I be Winona Ryder?"

Nah. You're all Shannon Doherty, girls.

Sheilah,

Are you Jack's wife or do you just play one on the internet?

Sorry, laddie buck. I'm not even a Jack fan, which is why I don't read his blog, much less post to it.

I'm just amused by statements like:

"Soon, I’ll have most of the city blocked from being able to see bojack.org!"

"I can just hop all over town on a slow night, slowly doing my little part to reduce his readership to one."

"But its looking like more and more folks are going to have trouble imbibing--until and unless Jack says 'uncle'."

"IMHO, he's asking for it essentially."

Go for it, girls! And remember: unless you see the fat boy cry, you haven't WON!

Sheilah,

OK, so you're just a misogynist. Thanks for the clarification.

Don't understand all your hate for the women who are just standing up to the old blowhard- who, btw, happens to be quite the member of the establishment despite what he writes in his blog.

It's probably too late to add to this thread, but can I point out that this "Sheilah" person isn't imploring BoJack to knock it off? It's almost like Sheilah thinks that she's defending a helpless old man.

BWAH-HAHahahahahaha!

If Jack Bog is smart enough to block comments by IP, and presumably he's smart enough to teach tax law, then I don't think he's some defenseless old Grampa, helpless before the withering social attacks of the Merc boys 'n' girls.

And can I point out that this Sheilah person isn't following her (?) own advice. By telling the Merc boys 'n' girls to pipe down, she (?) is speaking out.

If you wanna be consistent, Sheilah, darling, then clam up. All involved in the blog war are old enough to be aware of the consequences of their actions.

Me, I find it vastly entertaining as an example of those very consequences.

My issue with the whole thing is this: Whether or not you agree with what is actually happening on that block, Jack's post made it sound as though the Hungry Tiger was being chased off when he said "Maybe they can run Esparza's and Holman's out next." Amy contributed something that said "Actually, they aren't being run off, they are the ones doing the redevelopment and they will be back."

If you don't like that condos are going there, fine. If you don't like that the Hungry Tiger's new location is lame or whatever, fine. None of that is the issue. Jack complained and Amy contributed ADDITIONAL FACTS to the conversation that may or may not have changed his view of the situation. She didn't chastise him for not getting the facts, she didn't attack his character, she just said "here's some stuff you might want to know" and that got her blocked.

If you get blocked from his site for ad hominem attacks, flat out disrespect, or even just not generally being a productive commenter, fine. But to get blocked for contributing factual info? That tells me that Jack doesn't like stupid facts to get in the way of a good rant.

At least at the Merc, OMI, and even the Metroblog, if you have something to say it stays up, whether you agree or not, whether you are right or not, whether you are on-topic or not. None of those blogs seems to be suffering for it.

Im starting to think everyone is taking blogging way too serious. Its a beautiful sunny Sunday, go outside and enjoy it.

Im starting to think everyone is taking blogging way too serious. Its a beautiful sunny sunday, go outside.

Jack absolutely has the right to control the content of his website. If a comment appears that he doesn't agree with, he can delete it. It's his site, he has control of it, the audience can decide how they feel about it.

BUT -- publishing a blog on the Internet is, by its very nature, putting your content out there for the entire world to see. You cannot have both a public blog AND control who gets to see your content. As has been pointed out, you can make it a private site, with registration required, or you accept that people you disagree with are going to visit your site.

Jack's trying to have it both ways, by attempting to control what parts of the Internet he allows to see his blog.

As was once famously said: "The Internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it."

Pagent...do you want to come to the next "Heathers" meeting?

The initiation is a bitch. But apparently the group grope is "helpless old men" in a permasnit.

You in?

Banana Lee - thanks for stating so well what started this particular thread. I'm not going to argue against Jack's opinions on his site - I'll take that to blogtown. But as a journalist, I can't help but chip in a fact that adds meaningful information. Had he not banned me for such a non-offense, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Amanda-If Jack wants to be so choosy about which 'letters' he wants to publish, he has a few options. He can print a newsletter and send it to subscribers and sort through mail he receives in return, or he can moderate all comments, and only publish the ones he likes.

Yanking them after the fact and banning an IP, however, are gross overreactions to most of the comments Jack's taken issue with (yanking something offensive or a personal attack is another matter).

Humpy said, "Can I be Winona Ryder?"

No. Because then you'd be a Veronica.

So who is Bojack? The pasta-making-completely-out-of-touch mother of Veronica?

You're right. Doesn't he understand that he's not operating his blog CORRECTLY? Obviously you're not showing him the error of his ways with sufficient vigor!

I understand there's a WiFi spot on SE 39th and Belmont with an IP address that he hasn't blocked yet! Quick! Run like the WIND!

You're right. Doesn't he understand that he's not operating his blog CORRECTLY? Obviously you're not showing him the error of his ways with sufficient vigor!

Yeah guys..how DARE anyone be critical of the way other people to do stuff!! How dare people make note when someone is doing something quite obviously stupid and silly. That might mean we have to actually think critically--and heaven forbid such an exercise is conducted.

Obviously having an opinion is just..well..so MEAN!

Damn. I guess Sheilah is the perfect Jack Bog fan. Again, she (?) isn't posting her snark over at bojack.org, just here. She (?) is defending Jack Bog from the mean ol' Merc crew.

He ain't a helpless old man. He's a supposedly-educated professional, someone trained in logic and rhetoric. And yet... he can't allow anyone to post facts that interfere with the story he's trying to tell himself.

Gotta admit, though, Jack Bog's diggin' all this attention. Isn't that why we all blog? For the attention?

Oh fuck me gently with a chainsaw. Who CARES who Jack allows onto his blog? It's his to do with what he wants. Y'all need to just grow up and stop these silly, boring little high school games.

But Shielah, at 39th and Belmont, they'll be forced to look at Teh Evil that is Dixie Mattress. Oh the humanith!

But Shielah, at 39th and Belmont, they'll be forced to look at Teh Evil that is Dixie Mattress. Oh the humanity!

There's nothing boring about it. I quite enjoy watching the maelstrom.

No, it's far from a pointless exercise, Amy's shout on the street.

Shame resides with those who broadcast that they are parents of the ridiculous.

I check in for updates on the exploits of the Royal Mounted Keyboarders, and...nothing?

Come on! I thought you were going to cut his Wi-Fi oxygen at the roots, as a warning to any Establishment pig who dared operate his own website in deviation from your stated standards. That's what Amy said you were going to do, and she's a JOURNALIST!

Hurry! He obviously hasn't learned his lesson yet! Please don't tell me you've given up!

Isn't it time for Jack to take another break from blogging? The Oregonian needs to send out its reporters stat!

Best Blog Town comment ever nomination, #56: "Oh fuck me gently with a chainsaw."

Best Blog Town comment ever nomination, #56: "Oh fuck me gently with a chainsaw."

Uh...doesn't that suggest a reason why not all commentors are welcomed everywhere?

As Amy said above, "yanking something offensive or a personal attack is another matter." I don't think anyone would bat an eye if Jack had a policy that any personal attacks or vulgar posts would be pulled. But that's not what he's doing—in fact, he didn't pull a racist comment a few weeks ago, until there was outcry elsewhere that it was racist. And posting info about a development is hardly equivalent to chain saw fucking.