This interests me. I haven't read any of the previous pieces on the so-called 'blogger code of ethics' - I was never interested in the idea, and even as I wrote the above diary, I didn't realize that that was what my voluntary oath amounted to in common interpretation.

Since it is my general impression that the entire blog world is pretty opposed to some sort of 'code' does this mean that the same blog world is opposed to even a mere standard of truth? Or is it just that such an issue as that gets swept aside because of the more forceful dislike of limited free speech, etc.?

I don't intend to deprive anyone of their free speech, mind you. I just think that without imposing any standards of undue civility, a 'reality-based' standard for our criticisms would at least temper, if not completely avoid, the inevitable confrontations of passionate viewpoints. Is that asking too much?

I neither think that's a good solution, nor a workable one. Not good, because double standards (bloggers can criticize people not on the blog for what they say, but can't be criticized back for what they themselves say?) are never great; and not workable because, as we have seen, people take rude and especially untruthful attacks on their favored candidates to heart, effectively making them attacks on the supporters as well, and setting off the cycle of vitriol in the first place.

No, I do think the only reasonable thing would be to nip it in the bud in the first place: just don't smear progressive Democrats on a progressive Democratic blog, even if they are public figures.

although if I were king of a blog, I wouldn't ban or threaten to ban and I don't think I'd have a ratings system. Let the argument stand on its own. A straightforward battle of words and ideas.

This constant threat of banning used by Stoller et al is counter progressive, and I don't know how they can justify it.

By the way, you should learn to write better hit pieces.  If you're going to call someone a liar, you have to actually catch them lying.  It's just a bit of friendly advice.

Of course I could be lying about it all.

Don't worry Matt, I have no intention of doing you any bodily harm. FOD was just a suggestion, not a threat. But honestly, don't you think mocking those of us who DO think 9.11 was kinda a big deal is inevitably going to provoke stong emotions?

By the way, I understand that you might not have meant that in so many words - and if you didn't (and I sure hope you didn't) then you'll note that the conditional word IF negates the above rude suggestion completely.

In any case, I make no claim to such grandiose and ill-defined ideas as moral credibility, I perfer to let ideas and facts stand for themselves. If you don't like the idea of a standard of TRUTH in our discourse, just say so. Don't dodge the issue by suggesting that some previous overreaction to prior lies somehow negates my ability to plead for future truth.