Should Bloggers have a Code of Ethics?
December 29th 2006 09:10
Should Bloggers have a Code of Ethics?
It is a tough question for anyone who thinks that freedom of speech is an absolute and should never be restricted. However to put things into context we are all just guests at the muse of the Blog owner. Without exaggerating everyone who subscribes to become a blogger is not doing so on free and open land. They are doing so on a server that is owned by someone, programmed by someone and housed by someone who has to foot the bill for it. The bottom line is that it cost money to run a Blog host site. Hence the people who join this service must never loose site of the fact that if the site ceases to be financially viable it will be shut down. No asking anyone for permission, no discussion into its merits, cash flow will decide the fate as it does with all ventures.
A host of any kind has many responsibilities including the protection of their investor’s contribution. And the repayment of any bank loans. They also have a responsibility not to waist money with pointless litigations. Cruel as it may seem, business decisions are inescapable even in the utopia of a perfect blog.
There are also other considerations that fall outside the immediate financial concerns those of the content that they allow to be stored on the data base that they own. Like it or not they have a shared responsibility for everything that is stored and everything that passes through the site. Editors are responsible for what their journalist write and media owner are responsible for them. There is a question of responsibility and accountability for everything that a newspaper prints. Even if the paper is an extremist rag it usually tries to uphold a set of values, just to protect it self from being destroyed through stupidity.
The absolute right of freedom of speech and print is a myth that has never existed because it can never be defined. We have freedoms but they are traded off against other freedoms that would be destroyed by taking an absolute view of one. It may seem paternalistic by crushing of your freedom of speech but I have not made this reality and I certainly don’t like it. Ethics, codes of conduct and even morality taint the objective view of this, regardless which ones we subscribe to. Simply by say that you have none of these is a fallacy as your ethics, code and morality is defined by what you disagree with as much as you agree. Even anarchy is the morality of the anarchist.
The question remains one of what is it that we should be refusing to surrender and what are willing to surrender? If you think the answer is nothing then you have already surrendered to a system of values and codes. For a blogger their can be no hiding the head in the sand and pretending that we should be both outside and inside a structure of implied value. The sooner we actually say what those values are the less confusion for all. This not about enforcing a strict regime of static ‘Thou Shalt Nots’, but about making code that makes sense to all because it protects us all.
Protection from what you may ask? And why would we need protection?
My answer is protection from our own ignorance, stupidity, arrogance and intimidation. The ‘Sticks and Stones’ rule is fine for most cases but in cases where someone is subjected to reputation destroying lies and threats of violence we have to ask if this the actual freedom you believe in. As you answer just say, “Your Honor” at the end. “Yes Your Honor,” you may say, “I don’t see anything wrong with me threatening to rape this person. It is my freedom of speech to do so. And yes you honor I did falsely destroy this mans reputation in such a way that he could not make a living.” The ramifications cannot be ignored. Blogs are not digital graffiti where we can scribble and run away. It is a publicly stored record where you can most likely be traced. If not you then your blog host for failing to address a situation that they should have known was wrong.
So if we are to think about the survival of any blogging community we must ask what it means to us all collectively. In other words what are our collective codes of conduct? Should this blogging forum have a code of standards that ensures the professionalism and accuracy of claims?
I will leave these questions open for the Orble community to consider whether it is a worthy pursuit. As an aide I will include a link to help understand how others think about their codes of conduct.
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics
which was used to build
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php A BLOGGERS' CODE OF ETHICS
It is a tough question for anyone who thinks that freedom of speech is an absolute and should never be restricted. However to put things into context we are all just guests at the muse of the Blog owner. Without exaggerating everyone who subscribes to become a blogger is not doing so on free and open land. They are doing so on a server that is owned by someone, programmed by someone and housed by someone who has to foot the bill for it. The bottom line is that it cost money to run a Blog host site. Hence the people who join this service must never loose site of the fact that if the site ceases to be financially viable it will be shut down. No asking anyone for permission, no discussion into its merits, cash flow will decide the fate as it does with all ventures.
A host of any kind has many responsibilities including the protection of their investor’s contribution. And the repayment of any bank loans. They also have a responsibility not to waist money with pointless litigations. Cruel as it may seem, business decisions are inescapable even in the utopia of a perfect blog.
There are also other considerations that fall outside the immediate financial concerns those of the content that they allow to be stored on the data base that they own. Like it or not they have a shared responsibility for everything that is stored and everything that passes through the site. Editors are responsible for what their journalist write and media owner are responsible for them. There is a question of responsibility and accountability for everything that a newspaper prints. Even if the paper is an extremist rag it usually tries to uphold a set of values, just to protect it self from being destroyed through stupidity.
The absolute right of freedom of speech and print is a myth that has never existed because it can never be defined. We have freedoms but they are traded off against other freedoms that would be destroyed by taking an absolute view of one. It may seem paternalistic by crushing of your freedom of speech but I have not made this reality and I certainly don’t like it. Ethics, codes of conduct and even morality taint the objective view of this, regardless which ones we subscribe to. Simply by say that you have none of these is a fallacy as your ethics, code and morality is defined by what you disagree with as much as you agree. Even anarchy is the morality of the anarchist.
The question remains one of what is it that we should be refusing to surrender and what are willing to surrender? If you think the answer is nothing then you have already surrendered to a system of values and codes. For a blogger their can be no hiding the head in the sand and pretending that we should be both outside and inside a structure of implied value. The sooner we actually say what those values are the less confusion for all. This not about enforcing a strict regime of static ‘Thou Shalt Nots’, but about making code that makes sense to all because it protects us all.
Protection from what you may ask? And why would we need protection?
My answer is protection from our own ignorance, stupidity, arrogance and intimidation. The ‘Sticks and Stones’ rule is fine for most cases but in cases where someone is subjected to reputation destroying lies and threats of violence we have to ask if this the actual freedom you believe in. As you answer just say, “Your Honor” at the end. “Yes Your Honor,” you may say, “I don’t see anything wrong with me threatening to rape this person. It is my freedom of speech to do so. And yes you honor I did falsely destroy this mans reputation in such a way that he could not make a living.” The ramifications cannot be ignored. Blogs are not digital graffiti where we can scribble and run away. It is a publicly stored record where you can most likely be traced. If not you then your blog host for failing to address a situation that they should have known was wrong.
So if we are to think about the survival of any blogging community we must ask what it means to us all collectively. In other words what are our collective codes of conduct? Should this blogging forum have a code of standards that ensures the professionalism and accuracy of claims?
I will leave these questions open for the Orble community to consider whether it is a worthy pursuit. As an aide I will include a link to help understand how others think about their codes of conduct.
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics
which was used to build
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php A BLOGGERS' CODE OF ETHICS
| 178 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by ChrisB
Formula 1
The Social Centre
With the internet and blogging - defamation will be far too hard to keep a reign on. Independant blogs are percieved as being as credible as a newspaper or tv news.
But I guess anythings possible.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments. I know this is not a simple question but what sort of codes would not like to see included?
ChrisB
Thanks for joining the debate.
I was actually expecting to be cained for this post but then again that was more of reason for me put it. Defamation is a big issue in itself.
Do you think there are professional standards that we should be strived for in Blogs?
Comment by LaurenD
Sounds like the question, 'Should a person have ethics?' to me.
Of course, sure... but do we all? No.
So we have law. And you can sue someone for slander, defamation, etc.
But you're right, a blog costs $ and is hosted by another party, so people can't do whatever they want. If they want to do that, why not run their own website, foot the bill themselves and collect on the ads directly?
I also feel that with freedom comes responsibility. People seem to forget that. Our freedoms were hard earned by the people who went before us. I don't ever want to forget that.
LaurenD
Comment by ChrisB
Formula 1
The Social Centre
Well, I dont think that blogging requires professional standards - I think that it is up to the writer to choose the level of journalitic integrity, depeding on the nature of the blog. If the writer wants credibility, then it is up to them to maintain their own level of professional standards.
But, if the writer just wants to vent frustrations, and have a savage dig at whatever, or whoever pisses them off, then they must accept that their aspirations for credibility will suffer.
In order for there to be a serious matter of defamation at play - the source of the defamatory, or even seditious material must be deemed somewhat influential. www.thingshatpissmeoff.com probably wouldnt be classified as influential, in a legal sense.
And www.thingsthatpissmeoff.com has every right to exst - such is the freedom of the internet.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
"with freedom come responsibility"
Excellent comment.
Personal ethics is very true.
What about professionalism? Should we consider that as part of a code of ethics as opposed to strict morallity.
Also are there values that add to the reputation of a blogger as a reliable source of information? Or should we never consider ourselves in those terms?
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I tried the link www.thingshatpissmeoff.com and came up with nothing. No matter.
The credibility of a Blogger can suffer terribly if they vent their spleen too often. Litigation aside, it just isn't good manners and shows ignorance.
What if such people want guidance but cannot find it on the Blog host site?
What if the code of ethics was not mandintory and you could agree to them or not. But once you agree you try to keep to them?
Comment by David my David
As you know, full-well, I have always loved your posts ...
To me,
My main problem in life is that I'm just too simple ...
Too literal, maybe?
When I see the term 'Free Speech' this is how I interpret it:
A person is 'free' to say whatever they like, whenever they like, and to hell with what anyone else thinks about it ...
That's what I don't get.
If I say whatever I like, whenever I like, how come what I say does not fit the classification?
That's never made sense to me.
Free means free to me.
Free to say whatever you like, whenever you like ...
So, let me see if I've got this right ...
Everyone is free to say whatever they like, whenever they like ...
unless it offends someone?
The minority?
The majority?
Who decides?
The minority or the majority.
Or the superior to both?
Or the inferior with superiority complexes.
So, so, so, complex
If you let it be ...
To me ... very simple ... utter simplicity ...
I am simple ...
Simpleton? Nup.
Just simple.
So, here's my simplicity:
On the page ...
For all to see ...
Il Postino
What is freedom of speech?
How come you're not 'free' to say whatever you like ...
?
Um becasue people who think that what you say should be censored?
Um ...
Am I truly dumb ?
Or is everyone else?
Um
Has anyone ever considered this?
Or do they just want to voice their own opinons 'freely' ...
but 'censor' others ?
It just makes no sense to me ...
It's like saying to a prisoner ... I've removed your handcuffs ... Sorry about the shackles?
I must be the dumbest person in the world to not get this whole 'free speech' thing ..
I just don't get it ..
Everyone is free to say whatever they like unless it offends someone who doesn't like it?
Um.
Er
Um ...
Me?
Dumb.
Everyone else on the planet?
Wise?
Um.
A paeodphile?
Is he allowed free speech?
Allowed to talk about kiddy porn?
Nup.
Censored.
No Free Speech for you you sicko!
Um.
A porn lover?
Is he allowed free speech?
Um
No?
No free speech for you, you sicko.
But the intellectually proud?
Oh go for it you champions ...
If I say something so lovely. So eloquently lovely that it makes even paeodphiles and porn lovers vomit at the sight of the words?
Nup.
Poetic.
Poetic Prose.
Beautifully written ...
Forget about the substance or content ...
But, so, so, so, so beautiful ...
So you hate paedophiles and porn lovers ?
Yet have no love in your soul?
Oh, clap clap clap .. applause all around ..
The way you write has exonerated you from all guilt?
Seriously Damo .. Do people think?
I know I don't.
Way too dumb, man.
Only visiting your site to get ENLIGHTENED?
Um ..
Excuse me for a sec DAmo ...
Just have to check my vote count okay?
Sorry I'm just too dumb to work all this out ..
It's so simple ...
Everyone has lost sight of simplicity ...
They're all so so so so adult?
Such complex creatures?
No profanity on a website because my children might see it? Excuse me while I go to bed with my 'partner' and our shared children watch our porn collection?
My God ...
Doesn't anyone think anymore?
Obviously [the word bloody deleted] not ...
All these Orblers banging on about having a brain?
Um, could someone please tell me about the components of the brain?
Simply though.
I'm too dumb to work out what a simple organ it is.
Um?
Er.
Um?
Er?
I think with it?
It harbours my intelligence?
WOW!
Really?
I'm so dumb. I so needed someone to point that out to me.
It's about time some people took a bit of time out to exercise the faculties of the brain ...
But, before they do that ...
Um ...
Sorry, I'm too dumb ...
I was going to write ... learn what the faculties of the brain are and that regardless of its complexity in an anatomical nature ... it is a simple organ ...
and how you use it to think ...
That's about it ...
Have you ever heard the profane expression, Men think with their [deleted]'s ...
What do women think with?
That's what I want to know ..
Angry?
Me ...
Na ...
Too busy painting and writing and converting the whole 'world' to my way of thinking to get angry ... Ask anyone on Orble ... they'll tell you I'm a preacher ...
WHOAH.
This is far too
text*
sub
for some ...
Damo ... you'll get it ...
So [deleted] off?
Na ..
Just wanted to write to you man ...
YOU HAVE A MIND.
YOU EXERCISE IT IN THE RIGHT WAY, DAMO ...
I'm in free-dumb speech mode ...
Confused about all this ...
Too scared to say anything that might offend anyone ...
But too scared to tell anyone about how much people abuse me?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Freedom of Speech.
Don't you just love it?
Thank God I'm a writer, and never speak ...
David ...
Stuff me ...
Did I really write this ... ???
DAMO YOU ROCK MAN ...
KEEP QUESTIONING HUMANITY ...
Comment by Luke
Book Club
Old Movies
Cane Toad Warrior
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
When it comes to having an entire code of ethics, it will be tricky. I don't even think blogs are properly defined yet. Some write objective journalistic pieces, some write opinion pieces, some just write good old fashion diary entries.
Having said that, I do think that people should not under any circumstance defame another person. That in itself does compromise freedom of speech. But that's a compromise I'm willing to accept.
If you receive a comment that you don't like, you can always delete it. There is no need to accept or hand out personal abuse.
I'm sure Orble or blogs in general weren't set up so the writers could have a regular bitch fest about one another.
Like LaurenD said freedom does come with responsibility.
katyzzz in another post said freedom of speech does not give the right to abuse others.
Ethics about content is tricky because that does start to impede on "freedom of speech", Write about whatever you want. The fate of the blog is left up to the readers (and the people who own it). If the blogger wants to be inflammatory and sensationalist then so be it. Generally I don't enjoy blogs like that - so I don't read them.
John Laws, Alan Jones and Stan Zemanek are often inflammatory and sensationalist. They get a rise out of people. It's what they do. But even they need to watch what they say or they will be sued.
I hope this makes sense. It's late and I'm feeling a little delirious following the craziness of christmas.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by Maria
Yet I agree that when you're blogging on someone else's server, you have to play by their rules. If you can't live with that, there is an alternative: start your own blog on your own server. Then you can say whatever you want -- and take the consequences directly.
I think everyone's blog postings should be ultimately governed by their own personal code of ethics. My code tells me not to spread lies or unsubstatiated rumors, not to bash other people without damn good reason, and not to write things that'll keep me up at night, making me wonder whether I should have made those thoughts public. In other words, not to write things I'd be ashamed of.
My blog here at Orble doesn't have any of what I call "Deep Thoughts," so I don't expect any censorship here. But my other blogs do include controversial ideas. People I've done business with -- including the government of the town I live in -- have attempted to censor me. But since everything I've posted passes my personal code of ethics, I have never removed or edited a post. It's caused me to lose business and it's made me a few enemies, but I can live with that. Many people respect me for sharing my ideas, even when some of them are obviously not very popular.
That's freedom of speech -- a two-edged sword.
Comment by The Voices in my Head
The Voices in my Head
Should bloggers have ethics? Most do. No question.
Voices~
Comment by Bhumika
Political Minds
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
I'd really like to read this post, but I cannot becuase the right hand column has run off the page. Please fix up your web links by putting in spaces (or new lines) so that it corrects itself and I can read it properly... as your posts are meant to be read...
Cheers
Lilla...
Comment by Hope
Gifted Parenting
Freelance For Life
Comment by ChrisB
Formula 1
The Social Centre
thingsthatpissmeoff.com was an example site - I probably should've specified that, but oh well., The thing is, my most recent post is a pretty inflammatory rant about Paris Hilton. It would probably be classed as defamatory if it appeared in the New York Times or something - but being a blog, it more of an opinion piece and if someone doesnt like it - they have every right and oportunity to comment.
I suppose that good taste becomes neccessary when writing, but not professional standards. It would be far too difficult to define boundaries. As Hop said, Ones standard of ethics differs from another.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Davidmydavid
I think you have expressed the problem everyone must face when confronted with tough questions over freedoms of any kind. Logically a case can be built both ways and so we are sometimes torn between two opposing polls. I wish things were clear.
Luke
Ethics in the form of morality certainly does have many versions. Yet what about ethics that only talk about safety and professiionalism.
Mrs M
Good that you mentioned the unholy trio messrs Laws, Jones etc. They are an example people who belong to an industry that promoted an ethical code of conduct. Are they actually ethical or even professional?
Abuse comes with opening you mouth in every place I have ever been. Just breathing offends some people. So I find most people have a thick skin, under reasonable circumstances. Yet what is reasonable? How much is something just a witty reply and how much is considered vilification? How would anyone know when they are going to far? Or do we let everything go through and see if it self corrects?
Maria
Thanks for joining and providing some first hand experience.
BTW could you give the link to your web site so that I can check out.
"not to spread lies or unsubstatiated rumors, not to bash other people without damn good reason"
sound like a very good code of personal ethics. I hope more people think like you.
Voices
I have to agree that is mostly true.
Bhumika
Thanks for joining
One size does not fit all? Perhaps it is true but I wonder if there are general concepts that we can all find acceptable? More of a guideline to help bloggers.
Lilla
I'll try a few things to fix this. First time I have a formating problem on Orble. I checked yesterday when it was loaded with Firefox and I had no issues and it still looks ok if you use firefox. This is one for the tech book.
Hope
Thanks for joining
True there are different codes for different circumstances and industries. Is blogging an industry that should attract a level of professionalism?
ChrisB
Thanks for setting me straight.
What about manners, do you think that they are a code of ethics? Good manners are expected of everyone, are they not?
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
What if you had no choice but to sign up to a code of ethics agreement before you given permission to blog.
If the Blog host had no choice but to state its rules to protect its site from legal issues would you still be here?
If the rules were basic and common sense issues about defaming someone, threats, lies or criminal activity would you have objections?
Comment by Luke
Book Club
Old Movies
Cane Toad Warrior
Can you see 100% of the people involved agreeing with such a thing? If they don't all agree with it, then it isn't objective, and if it's not objective than I don't think it's cool at all. Even if I agreed with the basic rules, there would probably be someone who wouldn't, what right do I have to revel in having my preferred code of ethics implemented when someone else abhors them?
Orble is made up of people from many different kinds of communities, and people from different countries and backgrounds, there isn't going to be a set of ethics that pleases everyone.
Who gets to decide what does or doesn't count as a lie?
What countries laws would dictate what you call 'criminal activity'... this is an international community.
What counts as defammatory? Is a parody-piece on a politician or celebrity out-of-bounds?
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
It is a fair comment to ask what counts as a violation to the code. Such questions must be asked. It is a bit like asking what constitutes Australian values.
Comment by ChrisB
Formula 1
The Social Centre
As for manners, manners are an invention of culture, and are up to the person in question to adhere to.
I dont want to see a ethical code of practice or professionalism implememted here, I dont think anything would come from it.
Comment by pegasus
Poker Addict
If Orble had a code of ethics that I had to agree to before joining, I probably would have signed it. If after joining, I found my posts were being unjustly (in my opinion) censored then I would go find another site to join.
Happy New Year,
Pegasus
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
It occurred to me that even though we haven't signed a code of ethics or joined a union we all still have to conduct ourselves in a somewhat professional manner. Whether you are aware or not we are still governed by defamation laws that apply to the internet. It's a blanket rule. No exceptions.
Damo I'll pm you an article I received from my lawyer friend - it's long but well worth the read.
Basically, you can be sued for defamation for writing something on the internet. Just like defamation laws that apply to mass media (ie radio, television, print) it is where the information is published that the defamation laws apply ie downloaded and read.
Different states and different countries have different defamation laws and that's what makes it tricky.
If I write something in Sydney but someone in New York downloads (publishes) and reads it and is then believes they have been defamed I can be sued in accordance to New York laws. But that person in New York has to prove that their reputation has been damaged in New York.
The internet may be seen as a free form platform but it really is no different to other mass media when it comes to defamation laws. It's not as free as we would like to think.
Damo, you made mention that people are offended easily. Well yes. Can't escape that one. People need to take some responsibility for themselves (ie don't read blogs you know will offend you ) but having said that I would like to think that if a writer knows that they are writing something inflammatory that there will be some sort of disclaimer at the start to warn people. But then I know you are probably going to say,what if the writer honestly doesn't think the material is offensive. To that I say, can't have everything. As you mentioned, best to be thick skinned.
Do I think the unholy trio are professional? They are good at what they do ie their end objective to be sensationaliast and they manage to do it within the letter of the law. Is that what being professional is?
Again, I generally don't listen to them because I don't like what they say. That's my choice. Others do listen and that's what makes them popular.
Wow, that was long. Hope it made sense.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thankyou for what is one of the most articulate and well researched responses I have read.
You have raised the issues that I hoping people would raise. I have been down similar paths of talking to lawyers for my own business. Your information adds much more.
What has surprised be about all the responses is that no one actually decided to quote the conditions they agreed to when they joined Orble. That indicates that few people actually know that they did agree to abide by some conditions. I think that has to be some kind of irony.
Regards
Damo
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
You know I did vaguely remember agreeing to something when I joined Orble and your post did jog my memory but truthfully I can't remember what those conditions are. I think it was something about being responsible and/or ethical when writing on Orble. It just seemed like logical kind of stuff.
I think for me I didn't pay it to much mind because I knew my blog wouldn't be sensationalist and generally that's not how I operate anyway.
But it is a very good point you make. Now I'm curious. I think I'll go and find out what it is I agreed to.
And thanks for your kind comments. After the nutty christmas break and ensuing new year's celebrations, the last thing I feel at the moment is articulate
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Cinema Three
Well today I recorded 300 hits on my blog, my guess is a good 200 were all google bots and the like (no, I'm serious), so I probably god 100 readers. Whats so great about that? I can't really start a revolution out of 100 people.
Then there are those that score 30,000 hits a day, they have influence and what they say can be used against htme. they are the ones we should worry about it.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for you comment
It would be fair to say that sometimes their are people
who forget that this is a public forum just like any
media. Also there are those who know it is a
public forum and engage in baiting for one
reason or another.
The most common form of
baiting is to say something controversial and
see who responds. Once you realise this is not
about the issue but about egos the real reason
for the fight is gone. The next thing that a baiter will
do is fling insults to stir the pot more and inflame
emotions. The third thing a baiter will do is call
you a coward. The list goes on but theme is the
same, underhanded tactics to either boast an ego
or to trick people into losing their heads and
fling insults. The fight is the thrill for a baiter
and they want nothing more than to humiliate
people. Some will even go to the extent of baiting
inorder to find grounds to take legal action.
Ethics was my question, not regulation, but I do
think that ethics and common sense have a lot in common.
I tell you this because I have been around a while
and seen all these sorts of fights a million times
over. It goes on in corporate empires and politics
the same. An unscrupulous person will bait for
one reason and that is too drag you down to
their level. That is their aim. The question is
do we need to play that game?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Cinema Three
Like the saying goes 'never argue with an idiot, he/she will bring you down to his/her level and beat you with experience'.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Not dumb.
Experience is a good teacher
Everyone gets caught.
That is why some people by timeshare
Comment by MaaUpma
Indus Guru
Vastu - The Indian Science of Dwelling
EGurumantra - Demystifying India
Agree that bloggers should have a code of conduct as several people read them and get effected by them. A positive effect is always welcome but in this world there are several source of negativity and if possible blogosphere should not be one.
In principle I agree with you.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Welocome to my blog
and
Thanks for you comments