Name Calling and Redactions in Comments Section Further Clarified

An anonymous commenter recently wrote a comment on the story, “Did Allison Mack Pay Me to Go After Kristin Kreuk?- Reader Wants to Know

I redacted the comment heavily, because of what I perceived as rudeness toward another commenter. [I think it was Shadow State who was being criticized, by I can’t remember for sure.]

What wound up being published was:

“You’re welcome to go tell her yourself since you’ve [redacted].”

The result of my redaction was that the comment is not readily intelligible as it stands.

The anonymous commenter, who was redacted, apparently criticized my redaction policy.

This commenter wrote, “If your redaction policy removes the content of the comment such that meaning no longer exists then it is worthless. None of what was said in the redacted comment fell under anything you said would be removed from it.

If someone is going to tell others to call out a celebrity for what they want them to be called out and post the area around where they live, a person has a right to respond to them telling them go do it themselves since they found the time to stalk their location because that’s what they did.

[redacted]

I published the comment but redacted the last word of the comment.

I replied to the comment as follows:

The purpose of publishing the comment with redactions, that might make the original comment unintelligible is to, hopefully, try to educate readers, and particularly the commenter who had content redacted.  He or she knows what was written and can glean from the redactions that this kind of comment won’t be approved in the future. If I just deleted the entire comment, the commenter might not know the reason for it.

I redacted one word of your most recent comment, where you called me a “hypocrite.” I realize this is an arbitrary decision on my part, but it is, after all, my website.

On the other hand, Bangkok has called me a lot worse, but at least he is funny. You’re not. So your comment is more effective in my opinion without the name calling.

Eliminating the name calling in this comment was, in my opinion, for the commenter’s benefit. He or she makes a better point without calling me a hypocrite.

I ask my readers to try to eliminate name calling, not just of me but of other commenters. The policy of most popular websites is to not allow any name calling of their writers.

Name calling only makes people defensive and less willing to consider change.

Assuming this anonymous commenter thinks I am a hypocrite, an opinion I do not share with him or her, mightn’t it be better – that is if the commenter really wanted to effect change – to say, “your position seems to be contradictory.”

Calling a person a hypocrite will only make them resentful and possibly resort to name calling themselves. Suggesting that my position is contradictory is more likely to prompt me to consider the point made in the comment.

Name calling is Ok if your goal is to pick a fight and not improve the conversation through intelligent debate.

I say this at the risk of being called a hypocrite again since I have called Keith Raniere plenty of names. But that was to pick a fight with him and win a fight with him.

As it turns out, I am very busy now, with filming, writing a book, doing paid consulting work and investigative work, and preparing for a bogus, trumped up trial that will embarrass the prosecution for decades to come, and also finding time to publish stories on Frank Report daily.

I don’t have enough time to debate every issue.

I think what the fool forgets is that name-calling rarely works, other than to bring divisiveness and that name calling should be used sparingly and only when one wants to escalate a fight.

Part of the reason the country is so divisive today is that everyone has a voice [which is good] thanks to the internet and social media, in particular, but fools and trolls with their angry voices and lack of empathy and understanding create a toxic environment that often lures others into toxicity and anger.

There are some who say the man at the top, the president, is leading the way, and I wish it were otherwise.

A little humor, a little understanding that most people intend to be good and do what they believe is right – even if you see it otherwise, exactly otherwise – is much better for debate, if the goal is learning the truth, or getting the other guy to understand your point of view.

Whether you agree or not, it is what I want for my website going forward and it is what I will get, since it is my website.

I invite everyone to participate with that understanding.

I further acknowledge that my redaction policy is not perfect. It is not 100 percent consistent and is subjective. I think I may have redacted something Nutjob wrote because I thought it was rude to another commenter when actually I think, in retrospect, he might have meant it as a compliment.

I also realize that I have redacted some content and approved similar content.  This is not necessarily hypocrisy, it may actually be stupidity. I’ll keep trying to do better.

Meantime, I am trying to find time to write what I believe is a fascinating update on Ronnie Robinson’s Ghana scam victimization, and a great story about Keith Raniere’s grandpa, Rocco Raniere.

Last, but not least, some new, important information about the mystery of Kristin Snyder has surfaced. These stories take a lot of time.

Meantime, I have two relatively quick stories to present and are coming shortly: One is about how much did Lauren Salzman made with Nxivm and the other is my best argument as to why Allison Mack is a victim.

These posts were inspired by commenters, who lately have kept me pretty busy.

I also have a post to make on why I ran nude photos of the woman whose likeness was used to scam Ronnie.

The question was posed by a Portuguese woman whose parents work for an affluent family in Switzerland. She might have possibly committed criminal offenses.  I am investigating and will publish my findings if I discover that my suspicions are true. Meantime, the woman writes as if she has some great moral high ground.

This is clearly hypocritical if it is true that this woman [and possibly her parents, who I expect to interview; the woman herself has declined repeated requests for an interview] committed immigration fraud or other conspiracy crimes, which her parents’ employers clearly do not know about. It may have been done in conjunction with a Colombian man who lives in Australia and belongs to a curious cult.

My point is that, despite the fact that the person appears to be dishonest, her question is still valid: Why did I chose to publish nude photos of the nude model who is being used to defraud my friend Ronnie Robinson. [I will answer it shortly in another post.]

Which proves my point: The message is more important than the messenger.

Please, keep this in mind, dear commenters.

For now, the best I can say is that slowly, the trolls are coming under control.

Frank Parlato