Dear friends,
Thanks to the work of our webmaster Herb, we have now activated a new feature. We call it a “red flag” warning. Here is how this will work:
If I see a comment which should not have been allowed (in my opinion) by the moderators (that is pretty rare) or if I see a comment which *technically* does not violate any rules, but which is either typical of a troll, or which will derail our discussion, or which is simply stupid and/or ignorant, I will now press a special button and the following words will appear on top of the comment:
“this comment has been flagged as of little/no value (possibly troll) by the saker”
By doing this we will:
- Make the work of the moderators at least marginally easier
- Make it easy for me to quickly flag a comment which deserves flagging
- Give a clear and public warning to the author of the comment that he got my attention and should either change his/her commenting style or soon be shown to the door
To see how this will look, see this comment: http://10.16.86.131/the-russian-website-geofor-interviews-the-saker/#comment-998448
Between this and the ban on “anonymous” comments, we hope that moderating the comments will be easier for us and easier for you to read.
Please let us know what you think.
Kind regards
Andrei
Flagging first, flogging next.
Good new attempt to keep the threads on track and trolls marked and removed.
Carry on. We shall see how this works in the long haul.
Well, we also always have the possibility to read loads of good stuff here without commenting, too…!
But please bear also in mind that many readers like myself have not-so-great English and/or writing skills but still like to throw in the occational thoughts!
Keep up the good work! This site is for me a sane island in a ocean of indifference, fear and crazinezz! :) Ketil
what has happened to the reply button?
Its back now … thanks for catching … hs
it is still here, I used to now to reply to you
@Saker
No reply button to individual comments.
Just for main topic.
fixed … hs
It works for me on Firefox, Chromium and Yandex.
Looks fixed to me
thanks Herb!
Dear Saker, we understand your concern, but isn’t this all becoming to resemble on fb ‘fact checkers’ and ‘moderation’ twitter used to enforce? Everyone seems to have the need to control narrative lately. Just a thought, maybe I’m wrong but it’s too much focus on ‘rules’ nowadays. Best regards
Not really.
I won’t be checking any facts, I will just express my personal opinion which, considering that this is, after all, my blog, seems to make sense. At least it does to me?
As for “rules” – they are absolutely vital. I don’t want our comment section to turn into the type of cesspool I have seen so many other comments section turn into.
I see nothing wrong with enforcement. That is, after all, why we can have things like roads.
Cheers
Well with all due respect I must disagree since for as long as you ask for donations and people are funding, it’s not entirely yours and people should have their say, even if their opinion differes from yours. Sure there has to be some basic rules, but those who are focused on form instead of substance are beyond any possibility of changing their mind or discipline so just ban them permanently if they intentionaly spam. But I have a sense as your long term regular reader that you are, as time passes, becoming more and more obsessed with comment section rules, moderation and all things related while so much things are going on in the world of truly tectonic proportions; so even we are well aware of your limited time and resources for running the blog, we would really appreciate more analyses or even short thoughts and comments on daily basis regarding important events instead of wasting precious time on idiots who are not even able to comprehend the importance of changes the world is going through at the moment or for that matter, the danger we’re all facing. I think that you personally lost out of your sight that there are people whose lives literally depend on your assessments and coments of the current events and that you are the one who can put their mind at ease for at least some time in those times when atmosphere of fear is 24/7 on all media, so I think you should put those people as priority over bots and fools in comment section. We need your time better used. Best regards.
There’s a pretty big difference between a donation and a payment, or shareholding.
Are you asserting by donating the host *MUST* do as the donors direct?
Sounds a lot like how the western “democracy” works.
No worries, I won’t ever create a “pay to comment” system :-)
Donations are voluntary – this is Andrei’s/Saker’s site, & it is for him to set the rules, period. End. This situation has come about because of the increased trolling, some of which is no doubt paid for, our enemies know well that flood comments sections with trolls & the comments section becomes completely irrelevant – it would be ruined. So there has to be a censor – it is not censorship per se that is the problem, it is the reason for the censorship. Would you allow a young child, say your young child, to watch porn? I doubt it. You have to regulate, it is the reasons for the regulation that are at issue – & here, the regulation is required to save the comments section from being destroyed by the enemy. All that aside – this is still Andrei’s site & it is up to him, full stop. Don’t like it? Set up your own site with an open comments section for all the nonsense the world will throw at you.
this comment has been flagged as of little/no value (possibly troll) by the sakerYou can boot lick as much as you want, but if you choose not to see the essence of my comment, then I have no intention of explaining futrher. If you carefully read other comments, you will easily see that many share my concerns since we all have nothing against rules but instead think that Andrei is wasting so much precious time on irrelevant people, and it becomes more like the comment section is the essence of the blog, which is utterly wrong. In addition, as someone else pointed out, boot licking praising comments are of no value and add nothing to the original article. Maybe only people with true analyst capabilities should be allowed to post valuable comments in order to add to the quality of article instead of this mickey mouse writings on the wall most are doing.
just to explain “boot lick” is what got you the flag.
Well with all due respect I must disagree since for as long as you ask for donations and people are funding, it’s not entirely yours and people should have their say, even if their opinion differes from yours.
You are confusing 100% voluntary donations with selling a some kind of special pass allowing donors some type of privilege over those who do not donate.
Not going to happen.
you are, as time passes, becoming more and more obsessed with comment section rules,
Obsessed? Well, that is telling of YOUR mindset, not mine :-)
and
either way, the result of that “obsession” is a comments section which regularly draws praise, especially in comparison with other comments section.
Dear Andrei . You have several serious commenters on the blog that regularly comment ( not me a I do not comment enough but that does not mean that I do not devour your blog including comments). Keep your special powers yourself but give this hardcore trusted comment team some extra powers so that if three or more of them think it is troll they can strike a comment out. If one does not like the comment it will discreetly be flagged with the name of the commenter who flagged it. once three commenters strike, the comment will be hidden automatically but still visible for whom really wants to read everything. Whomever got three strikes on three different comments will be banned forever. This will expedite the screening and keep the blog consistent. If a trusted commenter is obviously striking for the wrong reason you remove him from the trusted list and he can not strike anymore.
Great idea!
Update: Reply button is back
I don’t quite understand why the original comment about Biden being part of the War Party would deserve being flagged. Here, I suppose it is that the comment was putting words in Raevsky’s mouth, and to reply in substance would be beneath one’s dignity, and a waste of time.
I think if a comment is worth flagging and the reason is less than obvious, then a few words – a very few words – should be needed to explain what was wrong. I hope that if someone is really angry with Biden, or if someone was trying to claim that only one of the two parties in the American duopoly is a War Party, the other comments could disassemble that stupid comment without wasting Raevsky’s precious time, and yes, his time is really precious and we are grateful for his major effort. We are a community that can reject such stupid but too-common ideas.
The comment section in the Vineyard is sometimes almost as valuable as the original essays, both for the analysis and for the sense of community. It’s a rare and precious ecosystem, and we can all help defend and build it.
Dear Cosimo
The purpose of the red flag is to save me time, not to make me write posts about why I flagged a comment.
Actually, if you read my comments under the post, you will understand why I flagged it.
At least I hope so ;-)
Nothing illegitimate about the example comment but that it kind of impolitely attacks the Saker’s opinions. It might be one of the troll commenters who would like to turn the blog into a counter war party – for obvious reasons of subversion – but it would be more democratic to point this out instead of flagging which by a commenter with good intentions will always pe perceived as an offence.
Yes, the tone of the comment was rude, which those who now dispute the validity of the flag assiduously ignore. The reason why they ignore that is obvious: they share that commentator’s dislike of me and the blog, hence they don’t like the prospects of discourteous comments getting flagged.
Which is all really funny if you think about it.
First, they bitch about being “censored”.+
Then when we offer them a way to be disapproved off without the offending comment being removed, they bitch again :-)
It’s all quite transparent, really.
I assure you that Herb, the moderators and myself have already seen it all many times around.
And the bottom line is simple: if using such flags angers/offends anybody, they don’t need to come back.
Actually, I did not understand why the comment deserved a flag, and I was trying to read more specificity into the reason than there was. Rude tone. Okay, got it. Two quick words. Since there was no “redeeming value” in the example comment, Rude Tone should be enough to get flagged.
But Rude Tone can have nuances. The only comment I ever wrote that was not posted, was when I took offense at a writer’s covertly snide attitude, looking down at all Western readers in a way that the facts didn’t quite justify, and I was only marginally polite in pointing it out. I certainly didn’t want a flame war, but I thought the writer’s real attitude needed to be exposed because it had an angle which many readers might not have recognized. I half expected my comment to be erased, but I thought it was important to put it out there, even if only for the mods, to think about how the author was covertly insulting the readers. I’m not sorry I wrote the comment, and I was okay with my comment being deleted.
Fortunately, snide essay writers are almost non-existent on the Vineyard. On the comment side, maybe it’s not so rare. Many thanks to the Mods, who make this about the best comment section on the web. I know that is a lot of work! Moon Of Alabama also has a very worthwhile comment section, and I don’t know how they are so lucky.
this comment has been flagged as of little/no value (possibly troll) by the saker
Test comment, please ignore, trying italics instead of bold
Andrei
Seems to work and I also prefer it to bold.
Any other opinions or suggestions?
I think bold is better because italic is not different enough from the normal text so I must actually read it. Bold is less common, so easy to see what it is.
I was a moderator on this blog for half a year but then quit because I travel too much in different time zones. And I was stricter with deleting stupid/trolling/offensive comments than Herb himself.
Still, dear The Saker, erase if you don’t like it because it goes against the rules of the comment section but avoid the flagging – that’s my humble opinion. You either offend someone who did not really deserve it or you supply attention to an idiot/troll/commoner who deserves it even less.
If you follow the last sentence of your above reply you are going down a dangerous road.
Do by all means. There is no more pressing issue at the moment in the world then you “red flagging” the unwelcome comments on your little blog, especially those comments that touch upon the ignorance and express doubts in abilities of the political scum bags and cowards who have destroyed Russa and who you usually describe as the great Russian political leaders. But, you never ask an obvious question nor do you want others i.e. your readers to know why then is Russia in such a catastrophic situation. Keep up good work. Obviously, you and your readers deserve each other.
The same can be said about America and its catastrophic situation, the gvt and citizens deserve each other, or at least the ability to destroy each other.
Please post a link to your blog so that you and those who feel as you do can find a place where important issues are discussed in all freedom!
I think you need to tone down the “flagging” visuals, cause they are too eye catching compared to all other comments. It will by it self make people read those comments more, than lets say another not flagged one.
And besides any conflict by it self is more “click bait” or eye catching, and if you have a big black bold text telling you this is a comments that is in conflict with your moderation, then people will tend to give those more attention.
very interesting observation … will discuss … mod
I will discuss this with the head of moderation.
Thank you for your suggestion.
When I proposed something similar at the last Saker’s question-for-my-readers, my idea was to *fold* the offending comments – i.e. make them _less_ visible.
IMO the comment you used as a bad example, it doesn’t seem like a bad comment to me. I guess that’s why I don’t comment much.
Saker,
Without judging this methodology, please consider.
Not everybody/every-comment we dislike is factually wrong or, morally repulsive, sometimes, good people disagree on subjects for…good reasons.
Over at MOA, I agree with B about 85% of the time but, not on Taiwan or, C-19. Without covering my disagreement on C-19, [way too long], I support Russia’s claim to Crimea for historical reasons AND…because that is the people’s will…which is clearly NOT the case in Taiwan. Neither historical or, arguments of self-determination apply to Taiwan. At Ian Welsh’s blog, where I have posted for over ten years, I am banned; yet, Ian continues to write posts that are identical to my arguments previously posted on MOA…go figure.
If history is prescient, then censorship is most brutal upon those who’s argument are the closest to ones own Ref: [see Trotsky, Ice-pick, Mexico].
@ S. Brennan,
Taiwan minister Audrey Tang would certainly agree with your viewpoint on Taiwan. The Whitehouse cut his/her feed right in the middle of a video presentation so as not to upset the Chinese audience.
All things start out more or less impure and thus eventually rot.
Also, the main RSS quit working.
I think it’s time to leave.
One of the biggest issues you have are the way too many comments as “Ho, how much you are right !”, “Continue the good work”, “I love reading you dear Saker”, etc, etc…
These comments have no value, teach us absolutely nothing, are so tiresome that they prevent some readers (me at least) to read further the comments.
They are smokescreen, hiding the few interesting (indeed sometime very interesting !) comments.
Please do something. So disappointing to see sometimes hundreds of these. Moderation should remove them.
I understand your point and, in the past, that kind of comments was, in fact, banned. But here is the problem: if we remove those comments it sort of leaves the field to hostile comments (I make a difference between a comment hostile in tone or contents and a comment which disagrees). For example, a lot of angry/frustrated commentators send me what I call “divorce letters” and often tell me that their anger/frustration is shared by many others (how would they know anyway? but nevermind that) but in reality that never happened. If anything, the readership has been quite stable, in spite of Google deranking the blog. So leaving those comments praising an article is the only way for those who do not share the anger/frustration of those who are divorcing to show their point of view. Why should I silence them?
Look, just skip them. They are typically short comments, so that ought to be easy.
Cheers
The censorship appetite must have really got to you, Andrei, if you consider the above example worthy of red-flagging. That’s a shame.
I’ve counted your blog as one of the very best on the net for informed and insightful commentary, and I still do. But this, together with your complete swallowing of the covid swindle, gives me serious pause. Everyone has some clay in their feet, it seems. Pity. And no, I’m not a troll but a sincere well-wisher – and a continuing supporter. I’m just someone who has a genuine disagreement about censorship – and about the covid power-grab swindle.
I quite agree with you that any well-run site needs to weed out the dross-chuckers and the malignant trolls. I usually suggest John Michael Greer’s blogs for examples of how to do it really productively and usefully. But you do have to restrain the natural impulse to silence anyone who’s views you don’t like. Best wishes and season’s greetings, Andrei! Go well brother! Keep blogging! :) – RhG
@Rhisiart
I was thinking of writing something along these lines.
Thank you for saying it better than I.
The censorship appetite must have really got to you, Andrei, if you consider the above example worthy of red-flagging. That’s a shame.
So you begin with an assumption and you continue with a personal opinion.
Actually, I don’t even do the moderation myself, it’s done by a team of mods lead by the head of moderation. So much for my “appetites” and “censorship”.
As for the example I used, if you don’t see why I flagged it, we can agree to disagree.
Cheers
Had you considered the possibility of this move lowering peoples esteem of your valuable work Saker, the reason for this being personal, and not objective ?
Other commenters, I note, have also expressed their thoughts to this same end.
Sometimes there are comments that may not fit well with personal viewpoints, but that has nothing to do with the rights if the induvial poster, their thoughts may have value in creating colour, interest, sparking new ideas.
As for troll comments, I fear the term will be ascribed to those whose ideas differ from yours, express an unusual originality, a misunderstood nuance, an aspect of irony, that may irritate or anger the moderato.
Don’t forget Saker, you depend upon your readers to have a blog at all.
Had you considered the possibility of this move lowering peoples esteem of your valuable work Saker, the reason for this being personal, and not objective ?
It’s a mix. Sometimes it is objective, sometimes very subjective. So what? I subjectively don’t like ignorant comments (say that Russian emigres like Democrats). I also don’t like a snarky tone. So I place a flag above it. If that really bothers anybody, they need to leave the blog and find greener pastures to comment :-)
Cheers
I think that a blog should have some vitality. This is given when different opinions can be shown.
If someone reads an essay for example and differs in some points and he/she likes to comment than this can have been based on different experiences and information. For example: if someone has lived longer than one year in some countries his/her experience especially when having had good relation to the inhabitants or an good overview of things going on than it could differ.
Moreover, to put a “red flag” in such a manner as you showed in your example people will have really much more attention to such an “outlined” post.
Furthermore, somehow your information reads as a censorship.
Sorry, but too many rules aren’t a very good idea.
I don’t see how the example comment violates any rule. It is maybe redundant, as everyone and their baba knows that Biden is part of the War Party. Along with the Klintons, of course.
Anyway, it makes no difference from which party the hawks come. Fact is, there are hawks in both parties, even in minority parties. The commenter stated a valid concern, which I share. If the US continues arming the Ukraine, war will be inevitable.
The only possible reason for flaging his comment could be an implicit attack (more like critique) on Raevsky. Which is rather unfortunate.
I don’t see how the example comment violates any rule.
It did not. You clearly did not read what I wrote :-)
I would in essence agree with some of the above comments. Flagged comment is somewhat insulting towards you personally, Saker, I give you that. Of course you set the rules as to your liking. But I think screws should not be tightened too much, if you want to preserve spirit of openess, characteristic for this site. People come here for substance lacking in MSM; but not only for that. They also come to escape “thought police” vibe absolutely pervasive in western media.
I think your example comment should not be flagged, which can also lead to expulsion of visitor from the site.
Let me say a few things.
1. What makes you all think the example comment is typical of what gets posted here? It’s not typical, and usually, in my experience, The Saker does not dive into the gutter for an example comment. There must have been a lot of ‘gutter’ following the selection, I am almost sure. As it stands it is already ad hominem, and that means it attacks The Saker (or you or me), instead of making a reasoned argument or debate. There is a lot of that and it is not a positive.
2. What makes you all think that the Saker Blog censors? In my experience, it does not. It has a list of rules and if any poster breaks those rules, it is automatic trash. How many ‘its the Jews’ and ‘Russia is a shithole country’ can any normal person deal with – No sense, just mad lashing out.
3. If you want to be a valued commentator here, bring your reasoned argument on anything and it will be posted many more times than not. This site does not censor what The Saker does not agree with. It censors according to the published rules. (yeah, I know .. pita those rules .. I don’t like them but I understand why they are necessary).
4. So what do we do here. Hold onto your hats .. we shovel a lot of crap back into some kind of hole. If that kind of nonsense excites you, there are many sites where you can go and read a mess-filled commenting environment. My choice is to read 10 good comments, rather than 90 pieces of nonsense. But our rules are rules-based, and not based on content. Many times a post does not break any rule, but the content is still stupid and it gets posted. I have a specific thread that I can refer you to that made my hair grey and my eyes roll.
5. There are legal moves afoot in many countries to make a blog owner responsible for the comments on a site. We saw that with Craig Murray, the supposed jigsaw identification which made him responsible for things that he did not say. That is a serious trend and we don’t live in a bubble here. We live in the real world and need to know about those things. I will not say more.
6. There is a batch of US State Department blacklists on many of the sites that we quote here. If you quote those and your post gets posted, who do you think is going to be kept responsible for ‘breaking sanctions’. Yeah, the Saker himself will be on the hot seat. Not you, not me, but the blog owner. There is a bunch of sites that spread rumor, clickbait and are not good for our cause here. Those generally do not get posted because why give exposure to rumor and clickbait?
7. I don’t like the looks of this ‘red flag’. I think it is ugly and it draws attention to that where we don’t need attention. Perhaps it is just the implementation, but a small red flag with the required text will be prettier. (OK, nobody promised me a rose garden). I’ve always been in favor of a silent secondary view to the posts – the operative word being silent and not announced with a visual impact of a ram’s horn.
8. All of you that say ‘just say something’, who do you think should just ‘say something’? Are you offering to fund a bunch of ‘just say somethings’. Really — be reasonable now.
OK, those are my comments but let me ask a question. Why are you here? I am here for the overall aim and reason for the existence of the Saker Blog. It is on the masthead – to stop the empire’s war on Russia. From that time, the world has changed materially and we support now all of the resistance countries. Resistance to a very negative, evil I can say, empirical force. So, if you donate, that is what you donate to. You’re not buying the Saker an ice cream.
I don’t think any of your comments are bad. I just think you are generally naive and have no clue what it takes to run a resistance blog of this size in today’s environment. Show me your site – show me what you do to stop the trolls, the attackers, word salad generators and the insane (many times) and then I’ll pay attention.
Hi Amarynth!
I don’t like the looks of this ‘red flag’.
Yeah, I tend to agree. We will tone it down somehow.
Why are you here?
Exactly! It’s not like anybody is forcing anybody else to read this blog or post comments. In fact, there are quite a few blogs out there were those who dislike me or the blog can post entire stream of consciousness tirades hating on the blog and me. One idiot even made special anti-Saker cartoons! (I kid you not).
I really hope somebody someday creates a “Saker is a arrogant asshole” (or something similar) blog where all these folks could all speak their minds and feel like there are a lot of folks who very much agree with them: that way they would not feel the need to post that stuff over here…
Anyway, thanks for sharing your experience, maybe at least some of those critical will read your comment (I notice that often they don’t. I write A they read non-A.).
The truth is that this blog has existed since 2007, almost 15 years now. Lot’s of folks hated it, others liked it but then left. Many predicted the imminent demise of the blog. Some wished me dead. And yet the blog still exists, doing better than ever (just look at the quality of the guest authors we have, and I mean REAL guest authors, people who write FOR the blog, deliberately, and all for free!). So time as taught me to be basically indifferent to all the threats of imminent doom and gloom. Even Google de-ranking the blog has has zero impact since the blog never relied on search engines to begin with, instead we relied on word of mouth.
And just look where the websites who trashed me in the past are today…. :-)
Finally, ever time the issue of moderation is mentioned, some get really worked up. I suppose that in a time of Wokeness “positivity” and “inclusivity” are sacrosanct and they think of verbal garbage as “ideological diversity”. MY definitions are different. I have no use for positivity or inclusivity, and my idea of ideological diversity is to post a long article on Marxism as I just did today :-)
To each his own I suppose, right?
Hugs and cheers
Andrei
Didn’t exactly get what was so wrong in your example!
As a warning might be OK, but if it goes towards censoring then you know how it ends…
But hey, your site, your rules!
Saker, it doesn’t matter how you try to justify and explain this move it will demean your status and you will lose valuable readers and commentators. Don’t fix what ain’t broken.
@amarynth
“Show me your site – show me what you do to stop the trolls, the attackers, word salad generators and the insane (many times) and then I’ll pay attention.”
Here is an example of a successful, straightforward, and easy to navigate site, packed with geopolitical content, a strong community, ditto moderator team, and appreciation from people around the globe.
It can’t be easy, how they do it I don’t know.
From the site :
“About :
The Duran is a news-media platform that advances a realpolitik position The Duran is not right, left or center. It is a media site that focuses on a pragmatic analysis of stories in the news.
Community Guidelines
Please respect the following community guidelines to maintain an enjoyable environment:
Keep conversation respectful, without personal attacks
Don’t blow up other members’ feeds. If someone isn’t responding to you, let it be
No pornography
Keep out behavior that could be seen as trolling/spamming
Relax, be yourself, and enjoy. “
tranquilo/a, that is just what I would like to be now, so a short answer to you. Let this in no way be considered negative to The Duran and their efforts and let it be clear I wish them all the very best.
But, there is no comparison. We do different things. They do videos – fast and furious and when that video is done the commenters move on till the next one. Here, they comment round the clock. In their written work, the part of their work that can be seen as similar to the Saker blog, it is clear that there is no comparison. First, they usually aggregate content from others. Views are few and comments do not exceed five at the most on the average – because they focus on their videos. It is completely different and orders of magnitude smaller on the comparative part, than this blog. Now look up and see this thread which I thought would not have a full 10 comments.
4,400 views and at this moment 50 comments.
Take a look at the popular posts over the last 90 days here:
61052 Views and 100 to 200 comments.
This blog could easily run three or four of what I call ‘hot threads’ at the same time. In business, I would call this a completely different business model and strategy. So, the problems that we have to deal with are different.
The point was clearly not about the difference of content or style, or of comparisons, but of management, cohesive success, respect, and a reputable and broad outreach.
The fact that informed and intelligent commenters here, who may express a different opinion from the Saker, yet support him, will be spot lighted by red flags is either unconscionable, or childish, depending on ones outlook.
Never mind, all things must pass.
This is a great illustration of how internet usage is destroying our ability to communicate with one another. In a face to face situation a good proportion of these wise folks would not make a peep, another good part would agree totally and the rest would be too shy to look you in the eye. Here they are brash, bold opinionated a holes.
It’s like how instead of a functioning timely, reliable, justice system, we now have social media banning presidents from commenting. So I much prefer Saker running his place like a tyrant and having a shorter mass of postings to pick through than having to put up with some obfuscating AI bot driving us all slowly to the nut house with circular nonsensical BS. So many dead end postings now a days.
The other day Saker solicited us all to nominate the person of the year giving it a whimsical status. When the group very rightly vetoed this and very correctly raised Julian Assange to his very seriously correct, leader of the pack mantle. Of course yours truly did the opposite of most and read his article but none of the posts, incorrectly nominating Mattias Desmet. Another more serious choice.
A true tyrant would have not allowed us to see any of it. Leaders are not afraid to show their humanity by being imperfect. In a world of insufferable trolls no one is allowed to be human anymore. Saker sticks his neck out and makes mistakes. Try it, life is much more interesting than lurking in dark corners waiting to pick apart those who dare to live.
Thank you for your kind words, I very much appreciate them!
And I hope to never disappoint you.
Kind regards
Andrei
Bad idea to call a person a “troll” already (basically so) if, admittedly, he may not be. People who just have a different opinion than most here, or that think “outside the box”, should not be insulted as a “troll.” That would be the “little value” opinion.
I sometimes posted as anonymous, not deliberately, but merely in speed. I simply posted comments and forgot to post name and e-mail. It happens.