I was commenting over at NASA Watch, and in response to this comment: “I don’t understand why designing one big rocket to launch everything at once isn’t the better idea. Saturn V took the crew and the cargo to the moon…, I wrote something like “Because an approach taken in a race to the moon isn’t the best approach for building a program that is affordable and sustainable,” with a link to my piece at The New Atlantis. All comments are moderated over there. The post appeared, but like this:
Because an approach taken in a race to the moon isn’t the best approach for building a program that is
HTML DELETED
Apparently, Keith not only isn’t going to link to it himself, he’s not even going to allow links to it in comments. I wonder why he doesn’t think that his readers would find it of interest?
Nothing’s stopping you from just posting the address without the html tags. Several other people posted links in that manner.
To expand on Brock’s suggestion, I think it is preferable if the reader can read the address of the link without having to hover his or her mouse over the link first.
Posting the address might not look as clean, but it is more informative. In terms of efficiency, it takes more work to cut-and-paste a link, but it takes less work for the reader to decide if they are interested (or, as in the case of your article, whether they had already read it.)
Anyway, when I saw you had been “censored”, I assumed that it was due to software working automatically rather than Keith acting as a moderator.
My view is that embedding HTML is normal posting behavior. Maybe it’s some sort of automated filtering by NASA Watch, but the site has a notorious history for rude and insulting administrative behavior. For example, Keith routinely inserts his rebuttals into other peoples’ comments. It’s very possible that he manually deleted this link.
That rude behavior is the prime reason I don’t read the site.
Nothing’s stopping you from just posting the address without the html tags. Several other people posted links in that manner.
No, nothing is stopping me from that, but it’s ugly, and there’s no guarantee that Keith would approve that, either. I’ve used HTML in other posts that get approved. The problem isn’t the HTML…
Anyway, when I saw you had been “censored”, I assumed that it was due to software working automatically rather than Keith acting as a moderator.
I’m not sure why you would assume that. Every post (or at least, every post by me) is moderated.
I didn’t know that. I was happy when Keith started allowing comments at all, but I think he’d be well advised to follow your top-notch example, with respect to commenting policy.
I’m not sure why you would assume that. Every post (or at least, every post by me) is moderated.
Several web sites do not allow HTML embedded into submitted text and use alternate means to provide the same functionality. HTML can be used to spoof people into going to read non-worksafe websites (think goatse.cx, rickroll and crap like that), or worse.
But yeah, if this isn’t an automated filter it sucks.
I hope you don’t mind: I added the link (in the form of a non-html text-only address) to the comment thread.
Bob’s reposting of the link led me to the article and thus here. Interesting read.
Sometimes I think Keith takes the curmudgeon thing a bit too far.
“it takes more work to cut-and-paste a link”
In Firefox you can just highlight the entire string of text for a link then drag and drop the highlighted text into the tab bar or the address bar and it will open the link for you. If you get the Tabs Mix Plus add-in you can even define how the it performs this behavior further.
Rand and I have disagreements about some things. That said, I highly respect and like Rand. The way he leads this blog is open and honest.
I will conclude by saying that Rand and I do agree probably more than disagree. I thought his analysis in the New Atlantis was top notch. I could add some things from a cultural and psychological perspective that support his analysis. I may yet.
Earlier today at NASAWatch on the “Human Space Flight Plans Committee Meets at KSC” topic there was a comment by si_atwork that basically stated there was no need for humans in space. si_atwork stated that space exploration should only be about “planetary science, earth Reconnaissance, other DOD/NRO stuff, GPS, Commsats”
To which I replied that “were it up to people like si_atwork the new world would not have been settle only studied from afar”.
Instead of my above comment being posted by Keith he instead posted this:
“GRATUITOUS INSULT BY CECIL TROTTER DELETED”
Re: the above, I posted this in reply:
“Keith, if you don’t want me posting here any longer just say so. There was no “gratuitous insult” in my earlier post.”
To which “editor” Keith replied (or rather inserted into my comment):
“Editor’s note. Yes it was a gratuitous insult and I removed it. I decide these things- not you. If you do not like that then I guess you won’t be posting here any more. There will be no further discussion on this. Bye bye.”
And finally, when I take a look at the “Human Space Flight Plans Committee Meets at KSC” topic at NASAWatch this morning Keith has deleted ALL the posts I referenced above.
It is good to be king I suppose!
The saga continues…. I bet Keith’s been reading this. He’s now restored the posts of mine that he had deleted.
What a insecure little man.
Keith, in case you’re still reading this thread, I’ll just point out that I consider hassle-free posting to be a thing of great value to me in blogs. I don’t read blogs where I don’t know whether my post will be deleted or edited for arbitrary reasons. For example, I like posting at Transterrestrial because I know that my posts won’t be mutilated or deleted (unless I manage to get really offensive and/or clueless which hasn’t happened yet to my knowledge). I guess I also like disagreeing with certain people in these threads. 😉
Anyway, I skip NASAWatch because a lot of the post threads have the sort of behavior that Cecil describes. I really don’t care to have you or anyone else edit or delete my posts merely because of disagreement or acrimony. There’s no reason you can’t reply in your own post. I understand that your motives in maintaining your website probably do not depend on having a lot of readership, but I think it’s just good form to interfere only when something really bad happens.