"It's, like, you don't even have a world to protect. You don't have children. So you don't have a world to make better for the children. And you got maybe 20 years left, right?... You'll be 77/78 years old and you'll probably be basically dead.... So why are you so invested in all the other people's problems of the world when your life is a fucking mess? Because you've infantilized the world. You've turned the culture into your children and that's why they're scolding. That's the scolding aspect that you get... And... from men that don't have children. They get older, they get a there's a scolding political aspect of it. They never had children. Instead of just, like, having opinions on things and being able to debate your opinions of why you think that way, there's a scolding of people who disagree...."
A theory of gender politics, from Joe Rogan.
The idea seems to be that women — not all women, but most — are natural scolds, and if they don't have children to scold, they're going to range freely, looking for adults to scold.
पोस्ट्स
११२ टिप्पण्या:
Maybe they've never encountered the weariness of it, of raising kids, of being fatigued with the constant care and worry, then of getting them through the impossible teen years, where they become adept at verbal sparring, start winning arguments, start really tweaking your emotional buttons just for that mindless, ruthless, teenage perversity. And then their 20's, when you're a worried empty-nester with your kid out in that jungle, then late 20s, when the pride really starts to manifest, and you start to realize it's probably going to be OK, and then BAM marriage, grandkids, and life is good.
People with problem kids may not have those experiences, but they get the weariness in spades, and also the sense of being powerless. People with no kids have none of that, maybe just nieces and nephews. Personally I think they miss out. But I see Rogan's point. Without kids, you can't realize how important it is, to have faith, that things can turn out OK even when you think you've been beating your brains out.
He says scolding, disproving that having kids inoculates you.
I suspect Joe Rogan is coming off just losing an argument with his childless sister-in-law.
Maybe their childless status and its irreversibility has hit home, and they need to deflect the sense of their own irrevocable transience. Maybe there's a need to substitute a legacy of seeming goodness in exchange for the absence of progeny and the absence of impact.
Maybe they sense that Senior VP of Marketing for XYZ Corp. was a big fat zero.
I think this can happen even to women who have children when they see that their bloodline is coming to an end. My sister-in-law has three kids, all of whom are socialists in the grips of climate-change panic who have vowed they will never have children in order to Save the World. Their mother was apolitical as a young woman, but now in her late 50's, facing an old age devoid of grandchildren, she has drunk very, very deeply from the well of looney-left politics in general and TDS in particular. She and her husband recently declared that they are planning to leave for Canada or Europe because they detest America so much.
I've always gotten along well with them by avoiding political discussions, and will miss seeing them, but I can't say I am sorry that my right-wing son and his wife may have four or five kids while she and all her left-wing spawn will pass on in a few decades without replacing themselves in the electorate.
Yeah, thats about right.
IMHO, women are not serious creatures (except for choosing their long or short term mates) until they are at least 30 and often past that age.
It is my experience that women actually get serious and political when they see how the system treats their children. And since all systems favor girls it means women only get serious and political when they see the system grind their son into the ground.
Sex courts in colleges were all the thing until liberal women were having THEIR sons being hauled before star chambers.
Rogan’s theory seems to be that childless women become political scolds because they have no children to scold. Which is an impressive theory, considering he arrives at it by scolding childless women for having opinions. The circle is complete.
One interesting experiment that has been done is to test the reaction of men vs women when a guilty person was punished or an innocent person was punished.
Men didn’t like it when the innocent person was punished, but kind of liked it when the guilty person was punished. Women did not want anybody punished.
Now look at illegal immigration, for one thing.
“You've turned the culture into your children and that's why they're scolding. That's the scolding aspect that you get... And... from men that don't have children. They get older, they get a there's a scolding political aspect of it. They never had children. Instead of just, like, having opinions on things and being able to debate your opinions of why you think that way, there's a scolding of people who disagree...."
Scolds Joe Rogan.
Spot the person with no kids. Having kids means that you eventually realize that scolding can be used to correct the behavior of small children - but otherwise is a useless exercise that brings poor results and no satisfaction, a conclusion that only is arrived at with time and reflection, and only after you accept that you really are pretty powerless, and that things can turn out well whether you scold or don't scold. So it's better not to diminish yourself.
"The idea seems to be that women — not all women, but most — are natural scolds, and if they don't have children to scold, they're going to range freely, looking for adults to scold."
The annals of the Massachusetts Bay Colony supports Rogan's thesis. The Puritan Fathers disliked public scolding. Using our terminology, they would have called it anti-social. They also understood that a synergy existed between female idleness, gossip, and public scolding. The more of a woman's time not occupied by profitable labor, the more likely she will fill that time with gossip with other idle women. The more they gossip, the more motivated to scold they become. The spare time is what linked elderly women, widows with grown children usually, with those gossip sessions. Gossiping and scolding was also deemed to be public misdemeanors, and the convicted were punish -- the dunking stool for the gossips, the stocks for the scolds. By these means they hoped to train the gossips to take deep, cleansing breaths rather than cluck like River City hens, and to personally experience public humiliation.
However, the colonists didn't invent those practices or the punishments. Libel was much more commonly adjudicated in Tudor England than it is today in America. Every parish church had at least one deacon, who, went not engaged in promoting church attendance on Sundays, conducted a libel court with the power to punish miscreants and award damages. Every scolding carries an accusation of wrong doing, and every accusation of wrong doing can justly or unjustly damage reputations, ruin livelihoods, and dissolve family ties.
Dunk 'em and pillory them. The Puritans had it right.
Sorry Joe, you're giving the psychological warfare guys - who are excellent - too much credit. It's not a psy op. It's organic. It's psychos feeding each other's psychosis on social media, which may as well be the female god now. The girlish child witch denouncers of Salem ain't got shit on this nightmare.
Yes. It's horrifying
I'm sure I've written this here a half dozen times, but Somerset Maugham said there's no one on Earth more ruthless than a woman of a certain age who thinks she's doing good.
For some reason, that's stayed with me for 40 years.
"there's no one on Earth more ruthless than a woman of a certain age who thinks she's doing good."
C.S. Lewis's "Omnipotent Moral Busybody" par excellence.
“The annals of the Massachusetts Bay Colony supports Rogan's thesis. The Puritan Fathers disliked public scolding.”
Sigh. I guess The Scarlet Letter is no longer assigned in schools. Too bad; it’s a great book.
As is well documented, both through scientific study and experience, lots of women are crazy as hell. The less they have to do, the more it manifests - or gynofests, if you like. Men without kids flutter among them like a hummingbird in a garden.
There is a reason God made men the stronger sex. Imagine the carnage if he hadn't. A man is never in as much danger as when asleep next to his lover.
And then there's this old chestnut, the modern scolds, scolding us about the misogynistic historical scolding of women who scold.....
The day they start scolding crooked hats, that's the day men are going to to stand up, go to their windows, and shout "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!".
It will be the straw that broke Joe Namath's back.
I listened and did not hear Rogan scold anyone. He made an observation that some women without children are scolds. Kind of a banal observation scolds and their schlemiels find offensive because they were observed. They find the truth unflattering...
I enjoy the occasional listen of the JRE, yet I feel no need, at all, to defend every idea he puts out. I’m also not an expert on many subjects. However, when Joe starts talking about UFOs, I roll my eyes and skip pass his crazy lunatic theories. It’s like skipping IEE.
What's your complaint, Smilin' Jack?
A scold will begin a comment on Althouse with "you people".
We people should spend a tad more time actually looking at the videos.
““The annals of the Massachusetts Bay Colony supports Rogan's thesis. The Puritan Fathers disliked public scolding.”
“In 17th-century Puritan Boston, Hester Prynne is led from prison with her infant daughter, Pearl, in her arms and the scarlet letter "A" (for Adultery) stitched onto her dress. She has refused to name the child's father and is sentenced to stand on the town scaffold to face public shaming.”
Actually, the most effective conservative movements in our country were started and sustained by women who had no children, including members of conservative religious orders.
Yes, I'm utterly disgusted by the outcome of the Lindsey Clancy trial and by her supporters. But let's use ration and statistics and remember that men commit the vast majority of familial murders, over 95%, and if the media had one honest drop of blood in their veins, they would report on how many of them are treated exactly as she is being treated. Men commit nearly all violent crime and murders, and thousands of them walk away time after time.
We need to have a reality-based discussion,not one based on your emotions. We can still agree on Clancy.
"You'll be 77/78 years old and you'll probably be basically dead....". Wow, I'll be basically dead in just over 2 years. Thanks for the pep talk, Joe.
Smilin J, I'm not sure what argument from fiction you think you are making...
"Men didn’t like it when the innocent person was punished, but kind of liked it when the guilty person was punished. Women did not want anybody punished."
Are you telling me I need to start identifying as a man? I want justice - the innocent are unharmed/protected and the criminals are punished in a way that is proportionate to the harm they have done.
It’s a general trend, not a rule in every case.
“The idea seems to be that women — not all women, but most — are natural scolds”
Most women, no. Upper-middle-class white women, yes.
But is it the older women or the younger women who are the trouble?, A lot of older women drag their husbands or partners to the rallies and they help each other walk, sit, stand, and generally locomote. Does anybody pay much attention to geriatric protestors? The younger women turn up on their own in large numbers. They have more vitality and virulence and attract more attention.
In general Men and Women who have never had children should not be involved in deciding the future if a society is to survive.
Interesting that Ann did not disagree.
With apologies to Jonathan Edwards:
“How much does it cost, I'll buy it
The time is all we've lost, I'll try it
But she can't even run her own life
I'll be damned if she'll run mine, Sunshine”
These female fools think they know how the world should work. They have no idea how it really works, or why.
I’ve gotten used to it.
Joe Rogan starts by saying it’s women, then he says men too, after that they’re all over the place. But a point Joe makes is that those women in pink protesting must have been organized by some entity. I kind of think so too. My suspicion (with zero proof) is the people that have a stake in the lawsuits to follow. The lawsuits fall apart if there isn’t an insanity finding.
A man who scolds risks getting his ass kicked. Women less so.
I think Althouse is getting wroth about the use of the word “scold”. Which apparently has misogynistic overtones. Like the word “hysterical”.
Children teach us to be flexible and that fate, not us, has the last word on everything. The childless never get those corners knocked off. Hassayamper has a point as well. Elderly women without grandchildren also seem to have a tendency to become a bit… hysterical.
It’s heartbreaking to see all the photos that have surfaced of what looked like a very happy little family.
Only the dead have seen the end of scoldings.
Earnest Prole said...
“The idea seems to be that women — not all women, but most — are natural scolds”
Most women, no. Upper-middle-class white women, yes.
College educated women.
bitches they be crazy.
"Someone to scold", said the hostess.
Don't bitch about a scolding. When I was a kid I felt damn lucky if all I got was a scolding. It's when they decide a scolding ain't gonna cut it, that's when you're in real trouble.
@ Full Moon - I recently made a comment here that consisted entirely of "You people." Go read that thread and tell me it wasn't an excellent closing statement. Not a scold, mind you, but a reasonable summation.
It's pretty hard to argue against Rogan here.
“Only the dead have seen the end of scoldings.”
Or maybe that’s when the real scoldings begin.
An eternity of scoldings. Makes you not want to die.
If you have no children, lack religious faith and are female, you take your frustrations out on strangers by hectoring, haranguing and, as Rogan put it, scolding them. If you have no children, lack religious faith and are male, you drink or drug or otherwise live promiscuously. Neither of these lifestyles are what God intended, nor are they good for the individual or society. When deprived of a reason to invest in making a life for one's spouse and family, there are few reasons left to work and build for the future. Of course there are exceptions galore, but I speak of the large majority of people who are not inclined or equipped to become business magnates, sports champions, "austere religious figures" (as the NYT so elegantly phrased it) or things of similar nature.
You cross the river Styx and there are a thousand Hillary Clintons shouting:
“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!”
Kamala was political scold--remember how she lit into Joe Biden, basically calling him a racist? Those were her true colors.
“or otherwise live promiscuously”
There’s a terrible fate.
You’ve just dissuaded 1000s of guys from having kids.
"Oso Negro said...
@ Full Moon - I recently made a comment here that consisted entirely of "You people." Go read that thread and tell me it wasn't an excellent closing statement. Not a scold, mind you, but a reasonable summation."
You people never provide a link.
The basic Reality is that women — not all women, but most — are natural scolds, and if they don't have children to scold, they're going to range freely, looking for adults to scold.
fify!
The basic reality is that men in the Althouse comment section love to generalize about women.
..Men didn’t like it when the innocent person was punished, but kind of liked it when the guilty person was punished. Women did not want anybody punished..
this sums up the Whole Clancy Thing.
it's NOT that they Actually Believed that she didn't do it..
they BELIEVED that what She NEEDED was their sympathy
if she'd been a guy, they would have STILL not wanted him punished
(and PROBABLY would have written him love letters)
how's That Eva? am i generalizing enough?
It's just a summer scold.
I thought they were referring to leftist men. We have some good examples right here.
"Papa don't preach."
"Hey preacher! Leave them kids alone!"
“how's That Eva? am i generalizing enough?”
Yes, that proves my point. Thx
BTW, I think if the father had done this, the reaction by men and women would be very different.
"The basic reality is that men in the Althouse comment section love to generalize about women."
You don't wanna see us get specific. That's really a lead balloon.
“You don't wanna see us get specific. That's really a lead balloon.”
I have no idea what that means..
Eva Marie said...
“how's That Eva? am i generalizing enough?”
Yes, that proves my point. Thx
BTW, I think if the father had done this, the reaction by men and women would be very different.
The reaction by women would be different unless the man was attractive like Magione. Then he would get love letters in the mail.
The reaction by men who are simping right now might be different because they would gain nothing for being boot licking pieces of shit. But any man that is supporting Clancey should just be eliminated.
The reaction by most men would be the same. We would want the husband executed. We understand the necessity of dissuading people from killing their children.
You reflexively defend women as a group. This would be acceptable if women as a group deserved it. College educated american women as a group clearly do not deserve defense.
If men in general were acting like these women are right now I would distance myself from them.
Your problem is you do not view yourself as an individual capable of leaving the sisterhood.
It's quest-sending, whose correct application is to the man in the marriage. The man will go off and succeed or not, showing willingness, and then the woman will show him she's satisfied with him. In the absence of a man to show satisfaction to, it's nagging. A marriage may loop on nagging in any case. Those are not successful ones.
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯. 🎤 drop...
Know any "scolds" up in here most likely no kids but most likely no man(or woman either) too wrapped up in scolding... read thru your pick :)
Eva Marie said...
bagoh20 said...
"The basic reality is that men in the Althouse comment section love to generalize about women."
You don't wanna see us get specific. That's really a lead balloon.
"I have no idea what that means.. "
This is what people say when they don't want to engage specifically.
You avoid every specific argument made and cast aspersions at all posters who disagree with you with bland generalizations like this.
It seems to me that the jury was right on the law, so I'm not sure what the argument is about. The role of the courts is not to deliver justice but to uphold the law.
It may not be perfectly articulated, but I think he’s on to something.
“You reflexively defend women as a group. This would be acceptable if women as a group deserved it. College educated american women as a group clearly do not deserve defense.”
The majority of US women are not college educated.
But thank you for letting me know what my problem is.
Sisterhood forever.
"The basic reality is that men in the Althouse comment section love to generalize about women."
That looks like a generalization too.
Yup. Own it.
“That looks like a generalization too.”
Yes it’s a generalization about the men in the Althouse comment section.
There is no way any man who premeditatively killed his three little children like that would be supported by men. Not possible, and we have plenty of examples from the past to show it. In fact, when male serial killers get any support it's women trying marry them in jail or sending the love letters. This is such a one-sided issue, I can't believe anyone would argue otherwise, Tina .
Bad Tina.
I'll mansplain it to you: The jury hold out, I've heard was very specific about his objection to acquittal: This woman murdered her three little children in this way on this day under these circumstances. Those disagreeing were generalizing that he just doesn't understand how women struggle with mental illness and children. They were applying general problems to a specific heinous example and pretending it was normal - generalizing about women, when it was about this woman and these children.
Have you ever seen me defend the woman who murdered her children?
Have you ever seen me defend the women who support the woman who murdered her children?
When you guys go on and on and on about women in general, I’m going to point it out. It’s a free country and a blog that supports free speech. So you guys are free to say whatever you want. But I’m free to point out that you guys who comment on this blog love to generalize about women.
Women don't like generalizations.
Et tu rhhardin?
Oprah taped the show in Massachusetts with an audience, medical experts, legal voices, and women who say they have lived through postpartum psychosis.
Dr. Kameelah Phillips, a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist, argues that black women accused or convicted of similar crimes have not received the same nationwide wave of sympathy.
“I want us to have the same passion for people who don’t look like Lindsay, who don’t have the same access… her education, her melanin, her privilege,” Phillips said.
“There are women of color sitting around this country in prisons for the same thing we never heard of. I just wanna remind us to have the pink shirts and the energy for them as well.”
The studio audience cheered.
Oprah and everyone that is a part of this crowd cheering needs to be shipped to Afghanistan.
They do not belong in a decent country.
We’re all looking for a theory. This is a theory. But is it even true? Are the childless cat ladies really childless? Is there any data behind that?
Eva Marie said...
Have you ever seen me defend the woman who murdered her children?
Have you ever seen me defend the women who support the woman who murdered her children?
Nope.
"Yes, the youngest Clancy baby, eight-month-old Callan, survived for three days before passing away".
“There are women of color sitting around this country in prisons for the same thing we never heard of. I just wanna remind us to have the pink shirts and the energy for them as well.”
Publicize them. Normalize the activity.
Eva Marie said...
Have you ever seen me defend the woman who murdered her children?
Have you ever seen me defend the women who support the woman who murdered her children?
You are an intellectual coward attacking straw men.
If women were in charge Clancey would be set free.
If men were in charge Clancey would be executed.
If men were responsible for Clancey being set free I would call men out in general and separate myself from them as a group.
Your utter refusal to accept generalizations that are obviously true just makes you an unserious person.
So, it’s the “Scoldin’ Oldies” demographic Rogan is talking about?
I have seen this with non-childless children, especially those where raising their children is all-encompassing for them until those children become adults. Then, they mother their husbands, other relatives and friends.
Eva Marie,
Your self-appointed role as Generalization [About Women] Police is so far beyond tiresome that they don't even have words for it.
You should get another hobby.
“If women were in charge Clancey would be set free.
If men were in charge Clancey would be executed”
So who’s in charge?
@Eva: First of all, I respect you as a commenter and I presume you are a woman.
I am not sure why you seem so upset by some of the comments here regarding some women. No one seriously believes that ALL women are included in comments which use an unspecified, i.e., generic word "women." I for one will allow generalizations regarding certain cohorts of women*, for example, ALL the women on the Clancy jury: They all voted to acquit Clancy as did 2/3 of the men. Some of them are now speaking out in the court of public opinion and are finding less than complete resonance regarding their opinions and their opinion of the man who hung the jury.
______________________
*What is a better term for a "certain cohort of women"?
Kirk Parker, do what I normally do with your comments - scroll right past them.
rhhardin said...."The role of the courts is not to deliver justice but to uphold the law."
AI says in response to "do courts deliver justice":
"Courts are designed and structured to uphold justice through the rule of law, fair procedures, and independent judges."
As a man I resent being lumped together with other men; but I have no problem with accepting that many men have unfortunate characteristics which I do not share.
Who will bite?
My upthread comment about Kamala Harris meant that she fit the generalization presented. She was/is indeed a scold and shares reprehensible opinions which I note that many other women share.
Donald Trump is also a major scold but he has children.
@chickelit:
This is the comment that got all the guys in a snit:
“The basic reality is that men in the Althouse comment section love to generalize about women.”
That’a rather innocuous observation.
Maybe Rogan can write an advice book: "Men are from Mars, Women are from Hell."
***
What is a better term for a "certain cohort of women"?
***
COVEN
Generalizations form the basis of most of our knowledge & entertainment.
Stereotyping is bad & useful.
Eva: what did I say? I probably know more about juries and criminal trials as they play out in the real world than most lawyers. I didn't finish law school but realized my skills and walked up the hill to the state legislature to start lobbying for victims and to enhance penalties and sentencing for violent and recidivist offenders and to fund our underused and abused DNA protocols, as I worked on a very careful reconstruction of my own serious offender's cases to finally try to keep him in prison in Florida after he'd been cut loose again and again for decades.
I changed laws that were subsequentially ignored by judges. I studied the history of law and earned a dissertation in the mostly bad intersections of criminal justice, social movements and the effects of the media on jurors, all the while working with horribly abused kids and crime victims (and getting up at 3a.m. to work restaurant prep and weekends doing renovation on houses to pay my way so I could do this). You just don't learn reality in law school. You learn the basics, and then it's just resources, public opinion, self-regard by all involved, and whose smoke and mirrors work best.
Trials usually come down to voir dire and which side can tap into the juries' preconceived images of themselves, in violence cases most often from Atticus Finch bullshit (if you read his real story) and massive tidal waves of other cultural influences. I think law school should be two years long and two years of paid apprenticeship: the rest is bullshit.
Men, including here, are as susceptible to these influences as are women. They should at least quietly consider that and stop whining. Yes, it's unfair to everyone, and many here are just venting and generalizing. That's my conclusion after 30 years of pro-bono work and a very brilliant, neutral, intellectually challenging attorney husband.
Statistically, allowing for disparity in crime rates, far more men get off because of DA, judicial, and jury bias than do women, just as men commit the vast majority of violent crime. I don't trust juries any further than I can throw them. Judges disregard the law more than anyone else. Lawyers are storytellers overseeing a cesspool of corruption. These are generalities too: I've seen courageous lawyers, judges, jurors, and even journalists.
I disagree with this jury, and I despise activism of any type in the courtroom. That's all I was saying, and it didn't have anything to do with you. I apologize in advance if you were just kidding.
Farther, not further.
“Farther, not further.”
Nope, should be further. You just discredited your entire argument.
Sorry Tina. I was being sarcastic. I thought the commenter who referenced you was making a dumb point. I shouldn’t have posted what I did because I think I was the only one who knew what I meant.
“Statistically, allowing for disparity in crime rates, far more men get off because of DA, judicial, and jury bias than do women.”
That’s a great point.
The trial has been a disappointment snd the women who rooted for Clancy have embarrassed themselves.
I remain suspicious of the ones who dressed in pink and demonstrated. Joe Rogan said they may have been sincere in their beliefs but someone organized them. That wasn’t a spontaneous event. I agree with him.
Joe Rogan also said that this constant effort to divide men and women is also purposeful. I agree with him on that too. If we’re isolated into tribes, we’re easier to manipulate.
I suspect Joe Rogan is coming off just losing an argument with his childless sister-in-law.
Or won an argument with a woman, which is often worse...
Infinitely Extended Excursion wrote:
“Rogan’s theory seems to be that childless women become political scolds because they have no children to scold. Which is an impressive theory, considering he arrives at it by scolding childless women for having opinions. The circle is complete.“
This reminds of my 1970 description of a girl I knew then:
the kind of woman who turns men into the kind of men who turn women into creatures like her.
Beware the childless WOACAN
Old men just want to be left alone with their hobbies and a good book. Old women just can't stand the fact that old men are satisfied with there life and just nag, turning old men into nags to keep their women off their backs. Strong men just tell their women to shut up.
Disagree 100%. Having kids flips the "tell others what to do" switch in women. Once into the nagging habit, most can't stop and channel that energy towards activism.
[start virtual italics]Old men just want to be left alone with their hobbies and a good book.[end virtual italics]
Me, too.
: "I do my thing, and you do your thing. I am not in this world to live up to your expectations, And you are not in this world to live up to mine. You are you, and I am I, And if by chance we meet, it's beautiful. If not, it can't be helped."
In retirement, this works for me.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.