A Talk With the Ban-Happy Head of the "We Survived Bush, You Will Survive Obama" Facebook Page

Banner talks to bannee.
This interview was conducted via e-mail and Facebook after the author was banned from the We Survived Bush, You Will Survive Obama Facebook group for questioning the veracity of a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Jef With One F: Thank you for lifting the comment ban.

Lou Colagiovanni: Apparently it took an article to get my attention. I would point out to you that the image in question originated at I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists. (They have dozens of such famous quotes. IE- they should already be vetted.)

It is labeled clearly on the image itself. They are a trusted partner, and advertising affiliate. The producer of the image also stands by the quote, and I am sure he would happily debate you on the matter.

Not that I expect a retraction, but you did miss key facts in your article. I, however, am grateful for any free publications.

If I had known you were a journalist, your ban would never have stood. There is a whole army of moderators here who silently remove people at their own discretion.

Welcome back.

Jef With One F: I've noticed people repost the story on the timeline and it keeps getting deleted.

Lou Colagiovanni: It is not my job to give your work free press. If you are in the pay for click business, seek advertisement elsewhere or ask me to work out an arrangement.

The "quote" in question

Jef With One F: Does the fact that I'm a journalist really make a difference in whether or not dissenting, but polite, comments should be removed and the poster banned?

Lou Colagiovanni: Indeed it does make a difference sir about your background, and to ask such a question....really makes me wonder if you have a grasp on how big of a platform I actually have. I receive literally 100s of emails a day, and thousands of comments. Someone with a legitimate column catches my attention. 100s of people a day are banned. Sometimes, the banning is not always correct and i work to fix those problems that my staff creates. They do a wonderful job, overall, but they are human and do make mistakes.

By the way, I did not find your initial post to be 'polite' at all. I will tell you why. I create anywhere from 30 to 100 posts a day. I have never heard from you before. You caught a minor error...and you tell me to 'vet' my posts? Clearly, I do. Just a single one slips through the cracks and you were more than happy to write a full page article about it. I ask, where are the articles about my raising money for a cancer patient last week, or my continual plugging of small businesses to my audience that is generating money for people who truly need it in the here and now? Not that I need your praise, or acclaim...but what can I tell you. Your writing has a bias to it, do not deny that. Which is odd coming from a man who starts about talking about unbiased sources. Writing about the good I do in the world.....isn't likely to make the front page. I don't begrudge you, but save the sanctimoniousness.

Jef With One F: Do you believe a website with your reach has an obligation to vet quotes like this one, or is it up to the reader since you're not an accredited news source?

Lou Colagiovanni: In any event, Jef, we aren't friends. I already explained to you that the image came from a trusted source. To answer your question specifically, as it relates to images from the source which you were given...I trust them completely. I will continue to repost their work, if you have questions about their processes I would suggest contacting the owner of the images. If you would like to contact them, please feel free to do so. I have notified them about your interest in their work.

Finally, as a writer I would hope you would know the difference between giving your own comments and work praise. Who are you to say that something was 'polite'? That judgment is to be made by others, sir, and you know that full well. In the future, let us not have such a cheap conversation. I am a busy man.

Jef With One F: You didn't just ban and delete me. You deleted someone that had just posted a link to the Snopes article debunking it without any other comment. What constitutes grounds for banishment? Is it just disagreement? Isn't allowing people to debate truth, nuance, and meaning sort of the purpose of your site? Isn't it necessary for an informed populace?

Lou Colagiovanni: The interview portion is over, and I have been generous enough I'd think. It is now time for you to lose your position of superiority in this context. Feel free to contact me for other reasons, however.

I will mention one last thing. You keep saying "you deleted", which I, Lou, did not remove you at all. I have an entire staff which takes care of such things, and I do sometimes, but rarely. Why did my staff remove you? Who knows. Perhaps they didn't like your name? I personally find it a bit pretentious.....but that's ok - I am a bit that way myself. I trust my staff fully, and I support their overall decisions. It is my job as the manager to smooth out any mistakes they may make.

With that, I will leave you.

Follow Houston Press on Facebook and on Twitter @HairBallsNews or @HoustonPress.

My Voice Nation Help

This comment has been deleted


So, I spoke out against what he did to this poor woman and...I got banned.  lol  My comments have been deleted, even though I never resorted to insults.  People were throwing insults at me, however.

He speaks against censorship but censors his own page.


Btw, the woman in this situation is not me.  Lou posted this private message conversation for his members to see.


Yea, I got slammed by Lou on wsbyso for an innocuous comment. He's an ass. I unliked that page. He also had a personal (I think) FB page that must have gotten pulled very quickly. He's a great, big ass.

Srsly like.author.displayName 1 Like

I realize it's almost a full year later, but the following is my recent email exchange with whomever at WSBYWSO (read from bottom to top):

From: WSBYSO STAFF <WSBYSO@activist.com>
To: b 
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: Facebook Blocking Parameters(?)

It's quite condescending of you to decide for me on my own basic interpretations of your words.  If you wrote a book would you write your own review, too?  I encounter your type often and will be glad to be rid of your obliviousness.

Your ent
itled nature is quite frankly rather disgusting and I would prefer if you stopped messaging me because I do not have any interest in further fluffing your ego.  


----- Original Message -----From: bSent: 05/12/13 09:09 PM
Subject: Re: Facebook Blocking Parameters(?) 
My original message wasn't condescending; it was genuinely concerned with desiring to be engaged in the conversations as a constructive participant and wondering if something like a malfunction or "en masse" banning had occurred randomly or possibly by mistake somehow. 
The initial phrase "I seem to offend you in various ways..." was meant as a kidding intro to start a conversation about what seemed to be something random and not purposeful, as I didn't know how I would have offended you. Your page name, "We survived Bush. You will survive Obama." is the "side" I'm referring to. (Whether we agree regarding the execution of pedophiles or armed guards in school, you can't say/it has not been presented.) But, again, it doesn't appear that you know why I've been limited in my posts or likes. It also seems that you colored my initial email with a filter that wasn't intended. That was/is unfortunate. 
This is a misunderstanding, one that allows us to part ways with good enough reasons, I think. Thank you for being the voice that you are for the masses of people who are unable to act as such a strong presence for this particular cause/idea (We survived Bush. You will survive Obama.). Again,All Best
From: WSBYSO STAFF <WSBYSO@activist.com>
To: b 
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: Facebook Blocking Parameters(?)
I called you condescending because your original message was just that.  Regarding being on the 'same side' I think we should execute all pedophiles and put armed guards in every school.  Are we really on the "same side"?  

----- Original Message -----From: bSent: 05/12/13 08:24 PM
Subject: Re: Facebook Blocking Parameters(?)
You are apparently confused. In the very least, by using "probably" it seems like you do not know what is actually the cause.You fail to see we are on the same side. How unfortunate.
From: WSBYSO STAFF <WSBYSO@activist.com>
To: b 
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: Facebook Blocking Parameters(?)
It probably has to do with you being a condescending cunt.
----- Original Message -----From: bSent: 05/12/13 07:46 PM
Subject: Facebook Blocking Parameters(?)
I seem to offend you in various ways without end, due to what appear to be randomly imposed blocking exercises for posting and liking. Any information about the reasons for this would be greatly appreciated.All Best,Rebecca Garrett


GirlyGirl like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

I got comment banned from the site today for disagreeing with him and other commenters regarding a post he made about the obesity crisis.  He is threatened by intelligent dissent.  It's sad, really.  I am a strong Democrat and I enjoyed reading a lot of his other posts, but never again.

aswitchen like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

I was also banned from this page. The idea that he has "staff" is laughable. I don't think his mom (upstairs in the kitchen making his lunch) constitutes "staff."

lowgenius like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

It should also be noted that according to Lou, speaking to me face-to-face, he's either an admin or the owner of "I Acknowledge..."  He's playing a shell game.  It's what he does.

altalag like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

He just banned me for disagreeing with him for posting a picture of a note on a car that accused the driver of being a douchebag because he was a Romney supporter.  I was very respectful in my disagreement and pointed out that I didn't think the post helped our cause and suggested that we take the high road. I also noticed that he deleted the comments of anyone who disagreed with his post. Everything that others have posted below pretty much sums up the guy.  When I wrote him about being banned he responded by calling me an entitled twit ;-)  Nice guy.  Wish he wasn't on the same team - he gives Pro-Obama people a bad name. 

artrod like.author.displayName 1 Like

Lou Colagiovanni is an arrogant twit, he gives liberals and progressives a bad name with his pomposity. Why care?


danb1972 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 5 Like

Why care?1) Respect for journalistic ethics: Lou Colagiovanni is an amateur writer for the Examiner.com news aggregator. He revises existing news articles and republishes them with his byline. Without disclosing authorship or his compensation structure, he pushes Examiner.com stories into the newsfeeds of page subscribers. When they click, he gets paid. When they comment  or "like," they push the links into their friends' newsfeed.2) Reasonable expectation of a harassment-free environment: I have witnessed the abuse Lou Colagiovanni levels at posters, including sharing their contact info, names of family members, and association with Meetup groups, and threatening to hack into their financial data. As the moderator of "We survived Bush," it is the prerogative of Lou Colagiovanni to ban posters at his discretion or to be aggressive with posters, but he frequently steps over the line. Given that he is doing so while promoting Examiner.com content, the news aggregator should consider whether is actions put the company at risk.3) Value for comity in political discussions: Lou Colagiovanni has stated that he believes that any negative story is fair game against Romney, such as the story he wrote about Romney's car accident, regardless of its validity or strength of evidence. Others of us are tired of the forced arguments and negativity. We disrespect such tactics from the political opposition and feel similarly about those who engage in such on our own side. 


The question is, why do you care about this?  It seems you've spent much time with your panties in a wad about this site and the admins over there. I'm pretty sure that you have better things to do with your time. And, while you complain about deletions people being blocked, you do that yourself, all the time.  Pot calling the kettle black?  Or, are you just itching to fight with someone?  Because I can't believe you wasted your time on this.  What's even worse, I wasted my time commenting about this idiocy.


kristi like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

I posted something a few days ago on his "hate mail" thread about Joe Paterno whereby he attempted to prove his superiority by graphically describing sexual acts.  When I agreed with his post but said that the graphic sexual comments weren't necessary, I was banned and given the boot.  While I don't care much, he really has turned into a giant douchecanoe and an asshole. I liked his site until he got so many followers that he thinks he's something special. Frankly, the past 6 months or so where he's been calling out people who are posting dissenting ideas has really turned me off from the site. And then you add in the fact that about half of what he posts isn't political in nature at all AND a bad attitude to boot---I've got better things to do with my time. Douchebaggery at it's finest.

Dan Burgess
Dan Burgess like.author.displayName 1 Like

I had a run-in with this guy today. Here was my offending post to WSBYSO, in response to him asking us what we thought about a banned poster calling him rude: "I haven't seen any rudeness [as claimed by the banned individual], but I do echo the sentiment on focus [expressed by a previous poster]. The few times that posts have veered into criticism of faith in general, rather than of intolerant fundamentalism, have struck me as not really being representative of progressive liberal thought. I think as stewards of civil liberty, we need to protect the right to believe or not and to worship or not, regardless of our faith or lack of the same, so long as such behaviors do not prevent others from freely expressing and exercising their beliefs." Less than 10 minutes after my post went live, I was blocked from the page, and my post was deleted. I politely requested an explanation. This was Colagiovanni's reply: "You claim to be an expert of progressive liberal thought. "Prove your credentials that make you so high and mighty to judge others progressiveness. In fact, in my opinion -- which is the only that matters in these instances.....you're the one who isn't a progressive. You are just a conservative in disguise, looking to control the thoughts and minds of others. "I am not impressed by you, or your final comment." Several more emails have followed. I have attempted to maintain a nonconfrontational position despite his douchebaggery.

Confetti Altercation
Confetti Altercation like.author.displayName 1 Like

" Lou Colagiovanni: The interview portion is over, and I have been generous enough I'd think. It is now time for you to lose your position of superiority in this context. Feel free to contact me for other reasons, however."  In other words, I'm not winning, so here's my ball and I'm going home. I was banned this week for asking about the coins he was advertising on his page. I just wanted what you wanted. How do we know this "charity" is legit. Another asked which children get helped (it was supposed to be a charity for children.) When I look back on the page, I see there are NO comments on that post. His staff is a little too ban-happy and he's a dick. 

Debrown like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

He doesn't seem to take ownership for anything. Everything is from the "staff" or "trusted partner". I don't think I want him on my side.

Bagpiper8 like.author.displayName 1 Like

Pure hubris. Disgusting.

Eric Anger
Eric Anger like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

Lou is quite threatened by eloquence and question of his dominion over truth. He is a child. 

Dudley "Booger" Dawson
Dudley "Booger" Dawson like.author.displayName 1 Like

It is so rare to see such a well polished douche.  I was almost blinded by the twinklies.

Jef With One F
Jef With One F like.author.displayName 1 Like

I do think he ducked that question. I didn't see what me being a reporter had to do with it. 


Now if you're gonna get technical, you WILL be banned.

JK like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Either it's a trusted source or an advertising affiliate. It can't be both. 

John Seaborn Gray
John Seaborn Gray like.author.displayName 1 Like

"If I had known you were a journalist, your ban never would have stood" = "If I had known you had a platform to take me to task for my smug, pompous nature, I would have made a special exception for you and hoped it would have pacified you." This guy is always a massive dick to his waiters and then wonders why his dates never call him back.


You mean he's actually HAD a date?  With a female? (A female what, I might ask.)  Ok, maybe the date was with a male.

Sbwyatt04 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

I guess you aren't invited to the V.I.P. room after all. What made his comments absurdly disingenuous were the fallacious character judgments about you. You weren't the issue; his decision to ban you was.


No, see, that's how you tax-deduct the strippers, now. You pay them as staff. Or, um, so I'm told, by people that would know that. I'm sure.

Mylifeisloud like.author.displayName 1 Like

"Isn't allowing people to debate truth, nuance, and meaning sort of the purpose of your site?" I'll answer that because he refused to do so.  Yes, it is. Stand your ground, Jef.  (wait, is that still good advice?)

MadMac like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Watch, just watch, he'll be a blogger on Fox next. Zealots tend to get their feelings/egos hurt early and often then switch sides when principles get in the way of ambition. Dick Morris anyone? 

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault