For those of us who appreciate the discussion, whether we call it “peer review” or just interaction, there is one problem that never seems to end, and compels mention even though it’s been discussed to death before.  You. The commenter. That’s right. You.

Brian Tannebaum had a fight on twitter with some law student who argued about the right to be anonymous online, which she argued allowed commenters to be honest rather than the self-censor because someone might identify them and hold their comments against them.

@LawStudentDiary hiding isn’t the answer.

Brian Tannebaum – But you’re anonymous.

Then after the typical nasty shit that happens when someone like me tries to talk to someone like her, @lawstudentdiary says a couple interesting things:

You either allow people to be anonymous and thus be honest, or you have real people, who have to self-censor.

and

If no one was allowed to be anonymous, you wouldn’t have hardly any commentators.

This lapsed into the old Publius argument.

Comments fall into a number of different categories.  Some are the presentment of ideas that stand or fall on their own, and the speaker’s identity neither adds nor detracts from the value of the idea.  These constitute a relatively small segment of the comments, as few true concepts are presented that are not dependent on a value judgment (or normative, as the lawprofs love to say)  which is meaningless without knowing who is doing the talking.  Is the commenter a lawyer?  What type of law does she practice?  How much experience does she have?  What axes does the commenter have to grind?  The list goes on. 

Some argue that these things shouldn’t matter, and they are correct when the comment is limited to a stand-alone idea, but absolutely wrong then the comment is value laden.  The value of a commenter’s opinion can only be judged in context.  A comment along the lines of “Justice Scalia is an idiot” means nothing in itself.  No one, especially me, gives a hoot what some unknown commenter thinks about Scalia.  It’s a totally worthless comment and a waste of my bandwidth.  You have no right to waste my bandwidth.

One type of comment that is particularly irksome is the bald assertion of fact by some anonymous (or pseudonymous) commenter that is just factually wrong.  While some writers spend a great deal of time researching, reading, discussing a particular issue, someone will come along and assert the opposite, neither basis nor explanation given. It’s trolling, but it can really screw up a discussion, hanging there without response.  There’s no good reaction to this, and it just screws up an otherwise decent discussion.

Then there are the comments that violate every known logical fallacy, not necessarily at the same time.  These often come from people all juiced up over a particular issue, and they argue vehemently a point that, in their mind, is just totally, irrefutably, brilliant.  And what they expect, no demand, in return is acknowledgement of their genius and a concession that all differing views are now proven to fail.  Except their argument is illogical, and they lack the capacity to understand why.

The problem isn’t just that these sorts of comments are illogical, but that the commenters, already heated up, think them worthy of a full blown, deeply detailed, response that addresses their point.  A prime example happened the other day.

John J. Olson wrote:

Mr. Greenfield, one of the odious features of the legal profession today is the padded bill. It comes in many forms, from the $1/page copying fee to charging an associate’s time at a partner’s rate, to billing two clients for time spent working on one case, to sending two lawyers for a task one could do. This is consumer fraud but the organized bar tolerates it. The clients’ only defense against bill padding is to force lawyers to compete on price, which Shpoonkle is doing.

SHG wrote:

Padding bills is odious, but there’s no logic to say the “only defense…is to force lawyer to compete on price.”  The two have no rational connection, and completely ignores the massive problems the pervade schemes like this.  There’s no disagreement that affordability of legal services is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. That doesn’t mean every scheme that appeals to simple minds is a solution. 

Try as I might to explain, albeit briefly, this person (and whether he’s John J. Olson, or who John J. Olson might be is a mystery) was sufficiently outraged by my response to leave this comment at Paul Caron’s blog:

Bobby B. is perfectly right about Scott Greenfield. I commented on “Simple Justice” that bill padding is one of the dishonest practices that has given lawyers their reputation for dishonesty, but lawyers who compete on price can scarcely afford that since they will be undersold. Greenfield’s reply said I am irrational, simple-minded and illogical. Offer him an argument and he’ll give you a rant.

Posted by: John Olson | Dec 12, 2011 5:20:41 PM

One of the first things you realize when you have a blawg is that there is no IQ test required to buy a keyboard. I’m reluctant to toss comments that are critical, as I suspect the catharsis of letting stupid or crazy people post comments prevents mass murders at post offices, but it gets tiresome trying to explain basic logic to people disinclined or incapable of understanding. 

There are a lot of people out there, and most of you have keyboards and internet access. This doesn’t mean you have something to offer.  Other than bloggers in the Happysphere, who close comments so never is heard a discouraging word, most blawgers actively seek a discussion of the subjects that interest us enough to write about them. Comments that try to hijack the discussion down some other path are annoying; if we wanted to talk about that, then we would have written about it.  Often, the other path was the subject of another post, another discussion, and the fact that the commenter doesn’t know about it doesn’t change the fact that it’s not the subject of this discussion.

In dealing with @LawStudentDiary, Brian was, shall we say, a bit terse.  She didn’t understand why Brian didn’t accept her arguments as brilliant, her reasoning as irrefutable. She has a  pseudonymous blog where she’s dispensing advice to other law students, because this 2L thinks she has advice to offer. Not having read it, I can’t say, but I doubt it given her inability to grasp Brian’s point and her lapse into claiming that only anonymous commenters can be honest.

But I can say that commenters can be one of the most, but more often, least enjoyable parts of blawging.  Dealing with the egos, attitudes and ignorance of people you neither know nor, frankly, care about is a royal pain, made far worse when you’re busy and they demand your time and attention when they contribute nothing.

If you’re so brilliant, write a blog and let the world know.  If the world agrees, they’ll flock to you and make you the king.  But some of us have heard your spiel a hundred times and it sucked every single one of them. It’s no better coming from you.  You don’t know that your thought, your argument wasn’t magnificently original?  You didn’t know that credibility makes assertions matter, or not?  You didn’t know that such a thing as logical fallacies exist?  You don’t have the guts to own your thoughts?  You don’t want to take the heat for your opinions? You didn’t know that you’re not Publius?

Then don’t waste my bandwidth.  Don’t waste anyone else’s bandwidth.  And while I expect you, a visitor to my home to be civil and respectful, you don’t have the right to demand the same of me. This is my home. I make the rules, and if you don’t like them, leave.

I love comments. And I hate them. Every single day.  I probably say to myself twice a day that they aren’t worth it. And then somebody comes along and writes a comment that is just totally great, and makes my day.