shotbanner.jpeg

June 02, 2005

Ground Rules

Just a few notes here, for those who need the reminder:

This is my blog. I take comments, unlike many area blogs, and generally enjoy them. And I don't care how angry you are, or how vituperatively you disagree with me, I'll let you post your comment - as long as it's at least tangentially-related enough to the topic at hand as to not complete beggar reason. It's all good. Even if the comments are anonymous.

But if you post anonymously and your only aim is to insult? It's open season.

I figure, this blog is something I do for fun and enjoyment. My fun and enjoyment. If other people enjoy it - and I get 2,000 visits a day, according to my hit logs, so either somebody enjoys it or there are a lot of masochists out there - then that's wonderful.

But at the end of the day, if my enjoyment is furthered by defacing and rewriting blathering, moronic, abusive comments, then that's what's gonna happen.

That is all.

Posted by Mitch at June 2, 2005 06:25 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Q: How do you prevent comment spam? I built a blog for me and my wife to communicate with our family, and even before the first post was up spam came in.

Posted by: aodhan at June 2, 2005 10:53 AM

So when I post, fully identified, a comment that is entirely germane to the topic you present, the "my blog" clause gives you the right to completely alter the text but leave it in my name?

Exodus 20:16

The apple doesn't fall too far from the GOP, does it? Please, by all means, show the world more of these true colors. Keep it up and you could probably land a job in intel.

Posted by: mentata at June 2, 2005 11:31 AM

Aodhan,

Depends on what you use for blog - Blogger, LiveJournal, Moveable Type. Each have solutions, more or less.

Ment,

The "My Blog" clause gives EVERY blogger the right to change EVERYTHING, no matter what their motivation. Commenting is a perk, a privilege. If Captain Ed wants to translate ALL of his comments into scatological Irish, or Kos wants to check grammar on all of his comments, they can do it.

I ONLY edit comments I consider abusive and pointless, unless I delete them (which I also do). That seems to bother some people, but I think given some of the tripe I had to wade through this past week that it's a reasonable response.

Posted by: mitch at June 2, 2005 11:36 AM

Sorry. I use MT. ( I prefer to manage and host my content myself. ) I recently spent a few days deleting comment and trackback spam from my other blog. Even from posts which weren't published.

Posted by: aodhan at June 2, 2005 11:55 AM

I use MT Blacklist, which at least keeps me above water.

Posted by: mitch at June 2, 2005 12:08 PM

Ment and Eva apparently think your blog is their property.

Posted by: Josh at June 2, 2005 12:09 PM

Delete all you like. I don't have a problem with that. It's your disk space and database clutter.

Editing a comment, however, seems highly unethical to me. Would you, for instance, make a serious post claiming this "quote":

"I think babies are tasty, especially with a good mint sauce". -- G. W. Bush, May 24 2005

while commenting on bioethics in the East Room at the White House? Someone could point to the record of that (actual) event and rightfully argue that he said no such thing. A commenter on your blog has no recourse like this. It's tantamount to you making bogus comments and attributing them to whoever you like. Want to smear someone? Hey no problem, Mitch Berg's your go-to guy!

I stop patronizing blogs that practice substantive comment editing. So let me know what you policy is, Mitch, and I'll edit my aggregator accordingly.

Posted by: Jeff S. at June 2, 2005 12:28 PM

A policy? Wow.

My "policy" is that if someone leaves an anonymous comment that is purely and simply ranting and abuse, I reserve the right to delete and/or rewrite to mock the commenter and, if they are particularly abusive, display their IP address. I do not edit criticism or disagreement - merely abuse.

Your example is, of course, mistaken; I rewrite *anonymous* comments. Someone without the guts to leave a name, even a bogus one, is going to care about "the record?" The comments I'm rewriting, trust me, are nothing that any grownup would want associated with them, and are purely the product of anonymous dickweeds.

This is the first I've actually rewritten abusive comments, because this week was the first time it was a problem. I learned from previous experience (when Eva Young circulated my personal email address to a dozen or so email forums, leading to a barrage of hate mail and a torrent of spam) that one needs to deal with these things pointedly.

Posted by: mitch at June 2, 2005 12:50 PM

It might help if there was a specific case of mitch abusing his policy ( which even sounds silly as I type the sentence ). Lacking any clear sign that mitch is silencing any meaningful point of view ( he has no apparent problem coping with criticism nlike some overpaid media personalities ), I don't get the hoopla.

Posted by: aodhan at June 2, 2005 01:09 PM

Should you ever get bored with such individualized attention to the offensive, you might want to try what Teresa Nielsen-Hayden does (IIRC; sorry if I'm misremembering who it was) on her blog: disemvowelment.

She has a script that searches through her archives and removes all the vowels from any post by an identified offensive commenter. You can still figure out what the person said, but only if you really work at it. It fairly effectively removes the opportunity for attention while still mostly preserving the historical record (and making some sense of replies to the trolls).

As to what you should do, well, your blog, your rules. I'm just identifying another (perhaps easier) option should you want one.

Posted by: Doug Sundseth at June 2, 2005 01:16 PM

I've seen what Doug has suggested done at other sites that I've commented at and he's right about the results. Here's a link to a site with the code for disemvowelment, if you wish to go that route:

http://popone.innocence.com/static/shrpshr.html

Posted by: Thorley Winston at June 2, 2005 02:27 PM

Doug and Thor,

Interesting concept. I may have to try this.

Posted by: Mitch at June 2, 2005 02:34 PM

Captain Ed and Roger L. Simon seem to have a solution that works. If you want to comment there, at least you have to have an email address and go through the trouble of authenticating that email address at TypeKey. People can still be totally bogus, but it takes a little extra effort. I obviously don't know how many comments they have to delete outright, but from the outside it seems to work.

Posted by: RBMN at June 2, 2005 02:51 PM

If you cool off and reread what I wrote you might understand that my point stands. None of my comments here have been anonymous; I've left a perfectly valid URL and email address with each one and I make no secret about who I am. Or perhaps the nomers "RBMN", "aodhan", "Doug Sundseth", and "mitch" are all anonymous posts too because they didn't leave a postal address and phone number with each comment?

I don't delete comments on my blogs because I would view that as an act of cowardly evasion, but I have no real issue with people who might do so (mmkay, Josh). What you did was unethical. I'm not at all surprised, because I know who you admire.

And you can go ahead an post my ip address, which is also in internic. I already had my phone tapped for being forthright about who I am, so nothing you do is going to make me hide. Show us all how morally superior you really are, Mitch.

Posted by: mentata at June 2, 2005 09:25 PM

Oh, and how much more *grownup* you are....

"The comments I'm rewriting, trust me, are nothing that any grownup would want associated with them, and are purely the product of anonymous dickweeds."

I'd write it all again, because you've roundly proved my original point.

Posted by: mentata at June 2, 2005 09:34 PM

I've never understood thgis "argument." It's Mitch's blog. Period. The rest of us are his guests, and he can ask us to leave at any time. I have no more "right" to post a comment here than I do to get a letter published in the Sacramento Bee. For rying out loud folks, you have no right to complain.

Except about bagpipes. We all have a right to complain about bagpipes.

Posted by: JamesPh. at June 2, 2005 10:14 PM

Jim P: Bingo.

Mentster:

"If you cool off and reread what I wrote you might understand that my point stands. None of my comments here have been anonymous; I've left a perfectly valid URL and email address with each one and I make no secret about who I am. Or perhaps the nomers "RBMN", "aodhan", "Doug Sundseth", and "mitch" are all anonymous posts too because they didn't leave a postal address and phone number with each comment?"

Then for whatever reason, I found something you wrote so offensive that I didn't care to get to the point of reading the "valid URL".

"I don't delete comments on my blogs because I would view that as an act of cowardly evasion, but I have no real issue with people who might do so (mmkay, Josh). What you did was unethical. I'm not at all surprised, because I know who you admire."

What I did was not remotely unethical. IT'S MY BLOG. You have no more ethical right to have offensive comments on my blog than you do to put grafitti in my bathroom.

"And you can go ahead an post my ip address, which is also in internic. I already had my phone tapped for being forthright about who I am, so nothing you do is going to make me hide."

You overstate your importanc in my life by a comical order.

" Show us all how morally superior you really are, Mitch."

Morally superior? Maybe, maybe not. But I AM fully in charge of this blog.

"Oh, and how much more *grownup* you are....

I'd write it all again, because you've roundly proved my original point. "

What? That you're a solipsistic little person who puts way too much importance on comments he leaves in - I stress this - OTHER PEOPLE'S BLOGS? Point proven in spades.

And while I don't remember what your original post said - it's been a big week for crazies on this blog - I am about the slowest person to anger that I know. I have deleted/modified a grand total of I think six posts, ever. I am pretty sure I had a reason.

Don't like it? Nobody makes you come here.

Posted by: mitch at June 2, 2005 10:33 PM

Mitch, it's your blog, and you can do what you want with your blog - including changing comments. All I'm saying is that if people know you do that, it's worth looking at the comment section on your blog with a skeptical eye - because some of the comments might be doctored.

If you are going to post the ip addresses of commenters, I'd suggest you post that rather prominently on your blog.

The posts you changed challenged you on your lack of service in the military - I believe it was your memorial day post that started this whole thing.

I agree with Jeff S.

As far as this goes:

Mitch:
This is the first I've actually rewritten abusive comments, because this week was the first time it was a problem. I learned from previous experience (when Eva Young circulated my personal email address to a dozen or so email forums, leading to a barrage of hate mail and a torrent of spam) that one needs to deal with these things pointedly.

EY: I circulated a public email you posted to a public forums to some other forums. Here was my post:

Here's the posting - subject line, "Blogger Berg Opines with his Lesbians are Violent Theory"

Mitch's blog is at: http://www.mitchberg.com/shotindark/

This is part of the discussion on the St Paul Issues list (lists.minnesota.com), discussing the recent allegations that Police Chief Finney's son, Loretz roughed up bar patrons at Lucy's Bar (a Lesbian Bar) in St Paul.

I thought I'd give Berg's blog a bit more publicity, and hope that he opines in more detail on this theory in his blog.

The theory goes:

There is dispute on this point, but lesbians seem to be statistically at least as disposed to violence as any other group, and some would say more so. This has been my experience. This is not a knock on lesbians - but there does seem to be a physically aggressive streak among a sizeable minority.

If you wish to send Mr. Berg comments about his theory, write him at: [snip]@mitchberg.com, or add comments to his blog.

I love it - this isn't meant to be a knock against Lesbians. Then what is it meant to be.

Eva Young

You can go look at your response here:

http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/000655.html

Posted by: Eva Young at June 2, 2005 11:19 PM

You do what you need to do, Mitch. Frankly, I'd be inclined to purge anything significantly off-point, and everything off-color.

Posted by: R-Five at June 3, 2005 06:30 AM

Eva,

"Mitch, it's your blog, and you can do what you want with your blog - including changing comments. All I'm saying is that if people know you do that, it's worth looking at the comment section on your blog with a skeptical eye - because some of the comments might be doctored."

Right. The abusive, pointless, anonymous ones. Let the public know - no big loss!

"If you are going to post the ip addresses of commenters, I'd suggest you post that rather prominently on your blog."

Um...huh? No fecking way. Someone wants to leave a string of anonymous insults, they can deal with the consequences. I'm not responsble to morons and idiots (like your friend Dumpbachmann).

"The posts you changed challenged you on your lack of service in the military - I believe it was your memorial day post that started this whole thing. "

Which proves the idiocy of the "challengers". It was an homage to my late ex-father-in-law, and said rather little about the current war; they had to dig REALLLY hard to get around to challenging my *past*. Screw them.

As to your rationalization of your inexcusable breach of basic ethics - again, for the umpteenth time - I expect no better from you anymore. You are indeed a case study in self-serving ethics. And as punctilious as you seem to be about minutiae like the sanctity of pinheads' anonymous abusive comments, it's ironic that you are so very ecumenical about it when it comes to a screeching gaffe on your part. I don't care that it happened; but that you continue to rationalize it is beyond comical, and further sign that anyone who trusts you farther than they can throw their car needs a quick rap upside the head.

My doctored comments are more trustworthy than you are, Eva.

Posted by: mitch at June 3, 2005 06:35 AM

R5,

I'm tempted, but I don't want to have to spend all sorts of time maintaining comments; I'd rather spend it writing.

And it's really a problem very rarely; this past week is only like the second time I've had a problem with degenerates and morons leaving anonymous insults (the first being when Eva Young passed my personal email to over a dozen listservers, which led to a bunch of similar comments and hate email).

Everything should be back to normal in a week or so.

Posted by: mitch at June 3, 2005 06:51 AM

By the way, Jeff S. - I'd think you'd know that "Want to smear someone? Hey no problem, Mitch Berg's your go-to guy!" is a bogus idea, since allowing "smearing" to the point of libel would be a very bad thing for me to do.

Posted by: mitch at June 3, 2005 08:25 AM

Mitchell, allow me to review this yet again:

I was *not* anonymous. You repeatedly refer to my post as such, and don't define the term. It appears by your standard that everybody commenting on this site is anonymous. Just because you didn't bother to verify this doesn't mean that you can (honestly) continue to refer to my post as such.

It is your blog, and of course you can write and delete whatever you want. However, you chose to pose with somebody else's identity incorporating some of their submitted text, making no reference to satire or artistic license. If you had a newspaper and doctored a letter to the editor like that and republished it under the same identity, you could be successfully sued. Morphing a weblog comment, while not yet backed by the same legal force, represents a similar violation. You literally bore false witness against another, but as I say the fact that you don't find that "remotely unethical" does not surprise me at all.

Offensive is in the eye of the beholder, so I can't account for how what I wrote affected you. It *was* directly related to the topic you presented (ie. 5000 posts, yeah me). Since my text spoke of your self-righteousness, distance from moral foundations of Christianity, and blindly obliging audience, I'd say this thread further demonstrates I was pretty much on target. I made no more mention of your military service or lack thereof than I made of my own military service.

Apparently what offended you so much was that I disagree. I grant too much importance to my comments on a weblog? I think you grant too much importance to your weblog (MINE,MINE). I'm speaking person to person here, and I'm trying to wake you from the moral ambivalence you would so blithely accept in our culture. If I've failed, oh well; I don't intend to waste any more time on a lost cause. The black mark shall be all yours.

Posted by: mentata at June 3, 2005 12:22 PM

"I was *not* anonymous. You repeatedly refer to my post as such, and don't define the term."

Right. As I said yesterday, I apparently found your post offensive enough on its face that I didn't care to inquire further.

"It is your blog, and of course you can write and delete whatever you want. However, you chose to pose with somebody else's identity incorporating some of their submitted text, making no reference to satire or artistic license."

Their "identity"? With the apparent exception of you, nobody left an "identity".

" If you had a newspaper and doctored a letter to the editor like that and republished it under the same identity, you could be successfully sued. "

Assuming a fictional identity (which everyone involved was, except apparently you) could gain legal standing to sue. Good luck with that.

"Morphing a weblog comment, while not yet backed by the same legal force, represents a similar violation."

Buncombe. Nobody knows (or cares) who "Mentata" is.

"Offensive is in the eye of the beholder, so I can't account for how what I wrote affected you. It *was* directly related to the topic you presented (ie. 5000 posts, yeah me). Since my text spoke of your self-righteousness, distance from moral foundations of Christianity, and blindly obliging audience, I'd say this thread further demonstrates I was pretty much on target."

No, it demonstrates that you came across as a presumptuous, self-righteous asshole.

"Apparently what offended you so much was that I disagree."

It makes a nice, self-righteous tag line, but it has no bearing on reality. I thrive on disagreement. Always have, always will. It's part of the reason I blog, and a big part of the attraction of my other hobby, talk radio. What offended me was that you attacked a perfectly mild-mannered little "Who'da thunk it" with a crock full of bogus crap about my blog.

" I grant too much importance to my comments on a weblog?"

You're still writing, dude.

" I think you grant too much importance to your weblog (MINE,MINE)."

My blog is an important part of my life. Not the most important part, not irreplaceable, but valuable to me. "Too much" is in the eye of the beholder, but then again, you have no standing in my court to define that.

" I'm speaking person to person here, and I'm trying to wake you from the moral ambivalence you would so blithely accept in our culture. If I've failed, oh well; I don't intend to waste any more time on a lost cause. The black mark shall be all yours."

Fecking drama queens. I'm more than happy with the moral lines I've drawn.

However, since you've got your undies in such a self-righteous knot about it, I'll make sure the "Doctored" comments in the previous post are no longer an issue.

Posted by: mitch at June 3, 2005 01:28 PM

I went back and re-read the post I doctored. I'd forgotten what the problem was, but it all came back to me.

I wrote a simple little post saying "Wow. 5,000. That added up quick". You responded with a self-righteous, snarky, insulting and deeply, deeply stupid comment.

You've just wasted time and bandwidth ginning up a high-sounding ethical defense for the blog equivalent of tossing bags of dogshit at someone's birthday party.

Lard up your phony indignation with all the pseudo-ethical baked wind you want. At the end of the day, you're just a jagoff.

Posted by: mitch at June 3, 2005 01:32 PM

Mitch from your comment on Lloydletta:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lloydletta/111777277901725784/#185862

The lesson? You can insult me, just make it topical. If you leave anonymous insults, I might delete them, or edit them for my amusement, and post your IP, and if I can, try to cause you trouble at work.

EY: Interesting enough, you thought this was horrible when Daily Kos encouraged people to use the Powerline Bloggers own work contact information - listed on the blog (they've finally changed that to cell phones) - to contact Hindrocket. I thought that was wrong - and so did you.

Swiftee writes:

...Er, excuse my intrusion, but I think it's pertinent to know that Eva maaaay have been skipping a few of her bi-polar meds. lately.

No, really.
Posted by swiftee at June 3, 2005 01:13 AM

EY: Yup, always good to know that rather than addressing the issues, Swiftee makes an ad hominem attack.

Posted by: Eva Young at June 3, 2005 06:39 PM

Well the comment is gone. Thank you. I won't be so deluded as to expect an apology. Some parting replies:

"Assuming a fictional identity (which everyone involved was, except apparently you) could gain legal standing to sue."

At what point was reference anybody but me?

"Nobody knows (or cares) who Mentata is."

Thanks, friend, but that isn't actually true.

"You're still writing, dude."

But it has less to do with my comment text, which I don't mind if you *delete*, than with your wayward moral equivalencies, which you continue to amply demonstrate.

"I'm more than happy with the moral lines I've drawn."

*More* than happy? Sounds like a social disorder. You could find yourself in DSM-IV.

"You responded with a self-righteous, snarky, insulting and deeply, deeply stupid comment."

Interesting, particularly since the first sentence you deleted was aping a comment you'd made on another post about another blog verbatim.

Judging from what I've read, this blog has a pretty open door policy on deeply, deeply stupid comments. Many do. What I wrote was my honest opinion. It is also my opinion that it was wittier than your several misguided attempts at humor since. You've successfully convinced me the real issue was that I'm not a sycophant.

"the blog equivalent of tossing bags of dogshit at someone's birthday party"

More like levelling criticism at a self-congratulating egoist. QED

Posted by: mentata at June 3, 2005 07:36 PM

The Left does not respect private property.

That is all.

Posted by: kb at June 3, 2005 07:52 PM

The shorter Mentata:

"I'm rubber, you're glue!"

Nobody asked your opinion. You're a reprehensible little person whose ethics are as self-serving as your "reasoning" is asinine. Go find a blog where other little boys fawn over your self-serving obtusion.

Eva:

Huge difference; the Powerguys never attacked the Kossacks. That you find equivalence between the two explains a lot about you.

No, I'd never go after anyone's job (unless they got threatening).

Posted by: meeyotch at June 3, 2005 09:09 PM

Nothing I saw Dump Bachmann post on here sounded threatening to me. DB just posted sarcastic things. You and Swiftee have both posted sarcastic things on my comments. I don't see that as threatening.

If someone does threaten me, I report it to the authorities - and let them deal with it. Or - what I did when I got a threatening phone call - that was someone on a mailing list I was on - I posted about the call on the list - and the phone calls stopped the person wasn't in town, so I felt no need to call the police on that one. As long as the calls didn't continue, I saw no need to go beyond that. What I mean by a threatening call is someone leaving the following on my voice mail: "hey there ho-bag, yer better get off the bob enyart live list, or i'm comin afta yer - hear that ho-bag, yer know who this is - johnny..."

I don't consider making a crack about your lack of military service to be a threat. It's sarcastic - and isn't particularly a nice thing to say - but it's not a threat.

So it sounds like you are changing your tune from when someone insults you in the comments, to when they threaten you.

Posted by: Eva Young at June 3, 2005 11:53 PM

I've addressed Swiftee's comment about bipolar meds on Lloydletta.

Posted by: Eva Young at June 3, 2005 11:56 PM

Why have you not condemned evolution on your blog? Are you one of them folks what think we come from monkeys? Are you French, by any chance? I think your a fake conservative.

Posted by: FundoTheClown at June 3, 2005 11:56 PM

Fundo,

Your existence would seem to prove that design is not intelligent.

Eva,

I'm sorry, but your comment is creaking with poor reading comprehension. I never said DB threatened me. He's an idiot. I had a laugh at his expense. I know what a threat is.

There's been no change in tune - merely your wandering sense of context and comprehension.

Posted by: Myatch at June 4, 2005 12:20 AM

Mitch:

The lesson? You can insult me, just make it topical. If you leave anonymous insults, I might delete them, or edit them for my amusement, and post your IP, and if I can, try to cause you trouble at work.

Later Mitch:

No, I'd never go after anyone's job (unless they got threatening).

Still more Mitch:
Eva,

I'm sorry, but your comment is creaking with poor reading comprehension. I never said DB threatened me. He's an idiot. I had a laugh at his expense. I know what a threat is.

There's been no change in tune - merely your wandering sense of context and comprehension.

http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2005/06/whiner-berg-to-those-who-would-insult.html

Posted by: Eva Young at June 4, 2005 10:03 AM

Meaning?

Yes, I changed my mind on further consideration.

It's called "thinking".

Try it.

Posted by: mitch at June 4, 2005 11:23 AM

Good for you, Mitch. You reversed yourself. I appreciated your comment on Lloydletta btw.

Posted by: Eva Young at June 4, 2005 05:59 PM

Was doing a Google on the Battle of the Bulge and came up with a seriously flawed post on a German officer Joachim Peiper. Wow, the myths and propaganda persist. Just for starters, all the Occupation Powers held so-called military tribunals for alleged war crimes, British, French, US, etc. The US reason seems to have been some pseudo-showing to the American public that it had all been worth it--those people were evil. Unfortunately prosecuting military officers for the alleged conduct of troops had, and still does, a real backlash as victors' vengeance grandstanding; and British and US officers, and those anti-Semitic and anti-Bolshevik elements of the American public, were uneasy that the investigators and prosecutors were largely made up of Jewish immigrants, some of whom had communist backgrounds and were conducting the US proceedings with extraneous references to alleged atrocities in the Soviet Union. Whatever actually happened at the crossroads outside Malmedy is problematical even today because prosecutors, witnesses, and the press lied and false confessions obtained under torture, although a British retired general Michael Reynolds does a fairly good job of analyzing events and concludes that there was what happened was not a massacre, but the story was promulgated at the time by the US command to deter US forces from surrendering in the large numbers that they did. And possibly to cover the fact that it was US planes that bombed US troops and civilians at Malmedy three days in a row as well as the many innocent civilians in the line of US artillery and bombing, convenient to allege those deaths were German 'atrocities.' Anyway, the tribunals were called the Dachauer Prozess and had nothing to do with Nuernberg. There were dozens but the one you reference was actually rounding up 72 members of the Northern Sector participants, not the entire Ardennes offensive, representing the chain of command from the 6. Panzer Armee, Gen. Dietrich, the Chief of Staff Gen. Kraemer, Army Group commander Gen. Priess, Regimental and ad hoc Kampfgruppe commander Lt. Col. Peiper, brigade, battalion, company down to troop level. There were no officers present at any shootings of POWs (and many wounded and POWs in the sector testify that they were well treated and cared for) and the officers were charged, not with killing anyone, but for complicity, whatever that means, since Bradley, Patton and several US officers actually had ordered at various times that no prisoners be taken. Peiper was not a grizzled veteran exactly but a nice young man of excellent background, well educated, devoted to family etc etc but had been in constant combat and increasing command (and medals for valor) since 1940, age 25, and photos taken just after he managed to lead some 800 or so of his original Kampgruppe of 5,000 on foot back to his own lines show a kid who's pretty well burned out. His fate was tragic, and he is regarded by most historians (not W/SS freaks or neos) as a gallant and exceptionally able officer who fought courageously and professionally but on the losing side and paid a terrible price for taking responsibility. And by the way, there wasn't much in the way of French resistance to the Germans during the war except by the French communist party to aid the Soviets, and during the Cold War it was their usual tactic to fire-bomb people's homes, not because they were French patriots or their victims were actually war criminals but because they were communists and for publicity. Peiper wasn't asleep, he apparently tried reasoning with them, shots were fired, including from his hunting rifles, and he died after re-entering the house to save belongings. Cordially, A Mercer, BA, Univ of MN

Posted by: a mercer at June 5, 2005 01:32 AM
hi