I keep running across the silliest of things. Y’know, “little” things, things that would just as well be thrown to the ether than recorded for all eternity on this souped-up fax machine we call the Internet. But then again, maybe saving all these little things has some intrinsic value. As Howard Zinn so famously reminded us all, “Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world.”

On that note, here’s the most recent example of a transient little thing that, perhaps, deserves to be archived forever, taken from an email exchange I had with the Boston Globe as a response to this tweet. I wrote:

Subject: Re: Details of comment policy? [1433044:100031]

From: maymay <bitetheappleback@gmail.com>

Date: July 27, 2010 3:15:11 PM PDT

To: Boston.com Feedback <feedback@boston.com>

Hi,

Thanks for your explanation. I have some further questions:

On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Boston.com Feedback wrote:

Good Afternoon:

Thank you for taking the time to write in.

According to our records, two of your comments were removed. The first comment was almost an exact duplicate of something you posted minutes earlier. Our moderators removed that so that the discussion would be easier for readers to follow.

The first “comment was almost an exact duplicate” because it was a text-only version of an HTML-formatted comment, which I didn’t realize was going to be stripped by your comment form.[0] The comment included links—with important references to back up my claims, such as evidence of [Gail] Dines’ $5,000 speaking fee—in the footnotes of the text-only version. Why did you choose to remove the comment with links instead of the other one? Removing the one with links instead of the first one where the additional metadata got stripped prevents your readers from checking up on me and verifying my claims. Why would you want to do that, since references that provide context are *very* important for civil discourse?

Your second comment contained the term “blowjobs.” Sexual innuendo is not in accordance with our full posting policy, which you can read at http://www.boston.com/help/message_board_rules/.

Okay, two things: First, blowjobs is not innuendo at all, unless you happen to be unfamiliar with what a blowjob is, which I sincerely doubt. Secondly, if that’s the only issue with the comment, why did you not simply edit that word out? It is heavy-handed at best and downright unethical at worst to remove a perfectly valid part of a discussion, which other commenters have already read and responded to,[1] because of one word. One word, which, I’ll add, is anything but uncommon and was in no way off-topic for the subject at hand (pornography, remember?).

Moreover, the next words in my comment (if memory serves) were something like: “or, as is my preference, men tied up (which I’ll note is conveniently omitted from all of Dines’ rote talking points).” If anything, that part’s more innuendo-y than “blowjobs,” and I find it equally troubling that you would have a problem with “blowjobs” while totally ignoring and erasing the sexual nature of erotic male bondage. And of course, if you have a problem with both those things, either: 1) just say so, and do so *clearly* from the comment policy, and/or 2) just edit both phrases, not the entire (~6 paragraph+ long) comment.

We hope that this information is helpful to you. If there’s anything else we can assist with, please let us know.

This is interesting, but not helpful, so, no.

If you have the capacity to restore comments, here’s what you can do to help: remove my first, linkless comment, and replace it with my second comment that contained footnotes. I’m happy to have only 1 of the similar two comments appear, but the context you stripped from the first one and deleted with the removal of the so-called “duplicate” is troubling. Also, restore my other comment and, if you *must,* censor my use of the word “blowjobs.”

I’m looking forward to seeing my comments restored and/or edited in a less iron-fisted fashion on your site very shortly.

Thanks,
-maymay

EXTERNAL REFERENCES:

[0] http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2010/07/27/the_shaping_of_things/?comments=all&plckCurrentPage=6#CommentBody[24]

[1] http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2010/07/27/the_shaping_of_things/?comments=all&plckCurrentPage=1#CommentBody[5]