Seattlest appears to be run by teenagers. Also, I am an unrepentant pedant.

If at any point, reading this becomes laborious, please stop.  I'll understand.  It is long, and probably uninteresting.  I promise not to make a habit of this sort of post.  I'm just venting a bit....

After having two minor spats with writers on local news site, Seattlest, I was disallowed from commenting on their articles.  Fair enough.  That's their right, and no one else seems to respond to them anyway.  I was, however, surprised to see a resident author tell me to basically stop reading their articles shortly before I was to be banned.  After all, isn't online business based (at least indirectly) on traffic?  Don't they want people to go their site?  So, setting the present petty argument aside, I e-mailed the editor, and had this untidy exchange:

Subject:  You might want to suggest to your authors they not actively drive away readers.

Myself:
In the comments section for 'Hail to the Co-Chairwoman!: Murray to lead "Supercongress"', I am engaged in a discussion with the author which has become unnecessarily heated. I have no problem with spirited debate, but I'm not sure this counts. Whether or not my initial suggestion and subsequence responses gave Everett Rummage sufficient cause for sarcasm, it seems to me poor business for writers to discourage their readership from commenting or even reading. I like your site, particularly its culinary coverage, but I can't say I'm impressed with Mr. Rummage's professionalism.

hanna brooks olsen, editor-in-chief [who apparently doesn't capitalize her name]:

Dear Sir--

To be honest, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Rummage. The entire staff, actually, has been engaged in watching this discussion in the comments, and have all been behind his responses. While it may not exactly be best practices to discourage readers, your particular comments have added little insight to our future reporting, and have mostly been perceived as unnecessary trolling.

Best,

Myself:
It is true my comments have no bearing on future reporting. This is because they concern the article and discussion at hand. Whether or not my initial post was helpful, there were several things a professional might have done in reacting to it:

-he might have remained silent, ignoring something you all appear to think trivial anyway.
-he might have politely thanked me for my input and left it at that, despite considering my statement unnecessary.
-he might have replied in an even tone that he didn't find my input essential, but thanked me anyway.
-or otherwise found some inoffensive means of letting the issue quietly go.

He did none of these things. Instead, your writer responded with a condescending dismissal. By responding in kind, you think I am trolling? I had hoped you'd have higher standards of propriety, befitting Rummage's pride as a journalist. I am saddened to find you do not.

Regards.

hanna brooks olsen, editor-in-chief:

Dear Sir--

Respect and professionalism beget respect and professionalism. You show us yours, and we'll show you ours. You have not, thus, we won't, either.

Myself:
 Here's the thing, I don't work for you. It is not my job to promote your paper. It is, one assumes, a part of the writer's duties, and ostensibly why you even allow for interaction between writers and readers. That is the only reason I brought this to your attention.

Tell me, though. Do you really think my initial post was disrespectful? Do you really think it merited the argument which followed, and which had nothing to do with the substance of what I or Rummage had initially written? If the answer to either of those is no, then perhaps you should think about how you and your staff have handled this, and consider approaching things differently in the future.

Obviously, this is entirely up to you. I merely offer a suggestion. Take it as you will.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

hanna brooks olsen, editor-in-chief:

Dear Sir--

Yes, I have found you entirely disrespectful in every single one of your dealings with myself or any one of my writers. In fact, every writer who has received one of your unhelpful, vicious, incorrect, and ill-researched comments has felt the same way.

You are obviously a person with a lot of time on your hands. But what you forget when you are attacking people for their doing their jobs is that they are human beings, whose feelings get hurt by people who, instead of educating themselves or opening their minds, immediately respond impulsively and rudely. When you leave comments like yours online, you are being disrespectful. And to expect to receive respect in exchange speaks volumes about you.

Which is why I am telling you very politely:

Thank you for your imput. Your comments are no longer welcome on our site, and I will no longer be responding to your emails.

Myself:

So, when I wrote that Joy Division had stopped performing in early 1980, that was untrue? When I said that Patty Murray had turned the 'soccer mom in tennis shoes' label to her advantage, that was vicious and ill researched? When I thanked your beer reviewer, was that altogether unhelpful? Or was I incorrect in citing the OED for a definition? If you don't like me, that's fine, but why make things up? Please, don't pretend to remain polite after insulting me, all while crying about your own inabilities to take criticism. It's unbecoming.