So, people with food axes to grind can continue posting over and over again?

Isn't that what's happening now? :-) EL

I'm fond of the "mock them until they implode" method, myself.

Should they be as dense as a Black Hole, that won't work, so filtering them out of my existence is my fallback.

Really, is it that hard when one sees a long post with multiple urls to just skip it?

IMHO (in my humble opinion): the Sandbox has been an open forum since I joined the, um, sand. I don't have any figures at hand (that's probably OMG's job) but I would guess that a good percentage of posts on this blog address the food issue at hand, many other posts veer onto roads not taken, and a few are totally devoid of appropriateness in content.

Sun webloggers seem to gravitate to D@L ... we are a welcoming bunch. The Internet is a large universe and anyone can find us. Sure, political debates may not seem apropos to the idea of the blog, but they do sneak in - albeit as SNL-like satire.

Since the Sandbox is the Best Blog on the Sun, it is obvious that we will attract the cream of the crop and the detritus.

IMHO: Let them post, let us ignore.

Tough call on censorship for you, EL, but I'm with RoCK on the bored-to-tears front with the axe-grinders. There are bloogs on this very Sunpaper site where I seem to be banned. I know that I voiced disagreement with the original blog and have never had a response appear since. Usually not the original one, either. Those are also pages where there is little response, if at all, anyway. (Or, they did have low response. It appears that the Sun management has started pushing for interactive-ness.)

Personally, I have been taking the ignore-them-until-they-wither-and-die approach, but some of these political groups seem to have a lot of stamina.

There are blogs, where it appears for all the world as though a lot of people just show up to yell their own (moronic) opinions. They truly seem to have no interest in what anyone else has to say, much less interaction with these other people. (And who would, given the stupidity of them all?) These same people seem to come here and announce that they didn't know that blogs are supposed to be entertaining.

" you comment on enough other posts to knock it off the list" - my thoughts exactly. Especially that old thread with the live (looking) snail picture. I hated having to open it to read the newest posts!

Eve - You wrote "I know that I voiced disagreement with the original blog and have never had a response appear since."

Have you ever e-mailed a Sun journalist and been ignored?

A friend had a saying that seems appropriate right now: "This too shall pass." Heck, given enough time, EVERYthing passes!

Piano Rob -- I agree that the Sandbox frequently veers off on tangents, but these zigs and zags usually occur on the spur of the moment, within a matter of minutes or hours after a particular blogger posts an entry that spurs the zigging or zagging. The offending poster, on the other hand, made off-topic posts several weeks or months after the most recent prior post on the fore gras topic, and ignored EL's requests that no further posts be made on that topic. Furthermore, the poster coupled off-topic rants with ad hominem attacks on Lizzie Vonhurst (or should that be ad feminam?). Every once in a while, enough ought to be enough.

Piano Rob, yes, I have emailed a Sun journalist and not received a reply (the ever-gracious Elizabeth is not among those, needless to say).

Another one I'm a fan of is Dave Z the Apple a Day guy, who helped me weather the disastrous rollout of MobileMe. Thanks, Dave!

I've also emailed a Sun columnist/blogger and not gotten a reply, but I don't assume malicious intent given the nature of the emails. More likely the columnist/blogger in question is just lousy at keeping up with his/her emails.

As for the Apple a Day guy, I need a computer, not a religion or cult.

I'm normally in favor of a free speech oriented blog. I love the fact we talk about a host of different topics from myriad viewpoints.

What bothered me about the foie gras post wasn't that it was from someone who didn't share my opinion. The concern was that it seemed written by a hack. The inclusion of contact info and links to some activist group made the post seem more political and less philosophical.

Oh Thank God!
My non-food axe has been sitting in the shed for years. Finally someplace to sharpen it...
Whats the address and a phone number please

The only Sun columnists I've ever been fired up or tickled enough by that I'd email a response were Greg Kane or Kevin Cowherd. OK, once Dan Rodricks, but he was such a snotty prick that I banned him (how do we do that cross-out thing?) let him disappear from my radar.

Mmmmm ... foie gras.
That's made from duck fries, eh Bucky?