Why are some topics "locked" ?
Original post made by Anon., Crescent Park, on Feb 17, 2012
It's clear monitoring the often uncivil and volatile comments on these political arguments could be labor and time intensive, but it hardly seems fair to leave those posts in place to bother and provoke readers even more because they do not then have the opportunity to respond.
What are the guidelines on locking an article and is there any effort made to apply it uniformly. I've had my complaints about the objectivity of the editors here many times, so, why not just delete the whole article and be fair about it?
I was in the middle of posting this when my browser just hung up. Hardly seems fair for me not to get my "polite" say because others cannot be civil.
First, there is no such thing as "income equality" as a political constituency so promoting income inequality is a non-sequitor - it's the norm, a fact.
The issue is the system being rigged, and it is politically, mathematically, culturally, and in many other ways. The issue is that the successful need to pay their taxes so the government can build an infrastructure to allow everyone, or at least those who want to to participate in the country or we end up in a mess like we are in today.
Whatever any politician "understands" is irrlevent because they are paid to be there and project an image by someone else for someone else with enough money and power to command the attention of others.
Ike's Place makes another go at Stanford; Palo Alto outpost stalls
By Elena Kadvany | 9 comments | 2,373 views
Groundhog Day: Dis-embellishing a Multilevel Proxy
By Douglas Moran | 2 comments | 403 views