Susuto

"Certainly not people that advocate, oh, setting a torch to them, call them names, and harrass them in numerous ways"

I don’t advocate that name calling and "I wish you were dead" types of comments, either, and I’ve said so a number of times on digg. I think it’s somewhat strange, however, that some people think that if they don’t use profanity and don’t directly issue death threats, then there’s no way they could have said anything inappropriate or unnecessarily mean. Intent matters more than the actual words used. As a case in point, I’ve seen a few people here (Nannybell is among them) who speak out against profanity, and then when they want to insult someone, they just choose a word like "dear" and use it in a sarcastic, condescending manner. The fact that it’s typically used as a term of endearment doesn’t mean that it’s not completely analogous to name calling when Nannybell and others use it in a sarcastic, condescending way.

"Digg stalking"

Now that’s a little pathetic. Stalking in the real world is a serious issue. Having people whom you’d rather not hear from respond to comments you post on a public forum is not at all a big deal. I am shocked by how seriously people take this. If people can’t accept the open nature of this forum, they shouldn’t be here.

Don’t like someone’s comments? Don’t read them. Can’t resist the temptation to read them even though you know they will aggravate you? Then this is not the place for you. Some people in this world have real problems. The only problem people who complain about digg stalking have is that there are people on digg they don’t like very much, and they don’t have enough self control to ignore them.

"Nannybell, who see problems in society and espouse ways to correct them"

She sees a problem, and I agree that it exists (though we may disagree somewhat on specifics). She doesn’t suggest ways to fix it, though. She just says it should be fixed, and then gets upset when people try to ask her how she wants to handle the imperfect situation that exists right now. Have you noticed how she refuses to say outright what she would have done with children in the care of the state for whom no two parent, heterosexual homes are available? She’ll only say, "Well, gee, the problem is that they don’t have parents in the first place. We should try to change society so that other kids don’t end up in the same situation. That’s the solution." When asked why she doesn’t want those children placed in the best homes that are available to them right now, she says, "I don’t feel like discussing minute details like whether a child for whom no two parent, heterosexual home is available will spend the rest of his childhood in foster care or in a state institution." Minute detail? Excuse me? How callous can a person be?